[Taxacom] valide or not valide?

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Wed Jul 11 10:01:16 CDT 2007

Yes, I agree. Art 37.1 requires the type to be indicated:
"37.1.  Publication on or after 1 January 1958 of the name of a new taxon of
the rank of genus or below is valid only when the type of the name is indi-
cated (see Art. 7-10; but see Art. H.9 Note 1 for the names of certain hy-
brids). "

Any such indication is of necessity part of the protologue, and must 
therefore be effectively published. An indication in a herbarium is not 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Gminder" <andreas at mollisia.de>
To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] valide or not valide?


thank you very much for your response.

"teste" means something like "checked" or "also seen by".
The descripton is based on both collections and at least the co-author
WILHELM has found and examined both collections.

best regards,

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Veldkamp, J.F. (Jan Frits) [mailto:Veldkamp at nhn.leidenuniv.nl]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. Juli 2007 12:30
An: Andreas Gminder
Betreff: RE: [Taxacom] valide or not valide?

Dear Dr. Gminder,

It seems indeed invalid, but yet I'd like to know the meaning of the remark
"teste L. Oerstadius et M. Enderle". Hearsay? Perhaps they didn't see that
collection and is their description based on Wilhelm 29/8/1995, only? That
then automatically is the holotype and the combination is valid.


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Andreas Gminder
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:01 AM
To: Taxacom
Subject: [Taxacom] valide or not valide?

Dear taxonomists,

in 2000 a new species of Psathyrella (fungi, Agaricales) was published by
Enderle & Wilhelm in the journal Zeitschrift für Mykologie.
In my opinion this publication is not valide according to art. 37.3 Tokyo
code, which requires an unmistakable indication of the holotype. In the
publication the authors mention two collections from the same location but
made in different years and in different spots. The only information to the
type is "Holotypus: depositus in herbario Universität Ulm (ULM)." As the two
collections mentioned are gathered in different time and even on different
spots, they can not be seen as one holotype according to art. 8.2 St. Louis
code resp. 8.1 Tokyo code.

The complete original diagnosis can be seen at

In the description and discussion in German language, which follows the
latin diagnoses, no other indication is made which of the two collection is
seen as the holotype.

In my eyes the authors have to validate their taxon by indicating which of
the two collections serves as holotype.
But what is the situation, if in ULM one of the two deposited collections
bears the hint holotype? I think this is not relevant, as the indication of
the unambigous holotype has to be made in the protologue, doen't it?

Am I right that the Tokyo Code is relevant for a publication in May 2000 or
does in this case the Saint Louis Code is already to applicate?

thank you for letting me know your opinion, Andreas Gminder ____________

Andreas Gminder
Dorfstr. 27
07751 Jenaprießnitz
http://www.pilzkurse.de - http://www.mollisia.de
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

More information about the Taxacom mailing list