[Taxacom] A small nomenclatural detail?

Tony.Rees at csiro.au Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Thu Sep 15 19:04:59 CDT 2011

Hi Paul,

Just one small point:

You wrote:

> However, orthography means spelling of the name and refers
> to "Prunus dulcis", not to the author citation.

Actually, orthography simply means "correct spelling" so could equally apply to the authority component (authography maybe...)

I was meaning in the broader sense correct / consistent representation, not restricted to spelling alone, of the authority component, something which is a bane to storage and comparison of taxonomic names in general in information systems, so maybe orthography is not the best choice of term in this context, but there is no reason to restrict the use of the term to the scientific name portion, so far as I can see.

Regards - Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
> Sent: Thursday, 15 September 2011 5:24 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] A small nomenclatural detail?
> 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