[Taxacom] A small nomenclatural detail?

Bradley Boyle bboyle at email.arizona.edu
Thu Sep 15 13:24:40 CDT 2011

Thank you, Paul, for that tidy clarification.

So, is it correct to say that any time I see square brackets in the author of a botanical name, that author is incorrectly formulated under the current ICBN?

Regarding the use of "ex" in plant names, is the author preceding the ex an optional honorific, intended to acknowledge the person who suggested but did not (validly) publish the name? Or is it required?

In other words, are

Prunus dulcis Mill. ex D.A. Webb
Prunus dulcis D.A. Webb

valid alternative formulations of the same name? Or not?


On Sep 15, 2011, at 10:00 AM, taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu wrote:

> Message: 16
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:23:47 +0200
> From: "Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A small nomenclatural detail?
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: <B1942C38D5854E22804DBCE3799C869E at polyphylla>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> 	reply-type=original
> From: <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 1:36 AM
> [...]
>> Prunus dulcis Mill. ex D.A. Webb   - expressing that Webb's 
>> work is the first valid publication of Miller's name, previously
>> not validly published.
> ***
> That would be correct, except that it is a little odd to describe this
> as "Miller's name".
> * * *
>> On the other hand if the intention was simply to refer to a new 
>> combination (change in genus placement) or change of rank, 
>> Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb would be the correct 
>> orthography (probably what is intended here).
> ***
> Just about. As Prunus dulcis is a combination based on 
> Amygdalus dulcis Mill. (1768) that is indeed the intent here.
> However, orthography means spelling of the name and refers
> to "Prunus dulcis", not to the author citation. 
> Prunus dulcis [Mill.] D.A.Webb would, under pre-1972 versions
> of the Code, refer to a name validly published by Webb inspired
> by a pre-1753 publication of Miller. 
> Using this for a new combination is not to be discouraged, but is 
> disallowed (Art. 49.1) and has been disallowed since the 
> Cambridge Code (so, for some eighty years, or to put it 
> differently, for as long as there have been validly published 
> names, historically, that is, not nomenclaturally).
> Paul

More information about the Taxacom mailing list