[Taxacom] A small nomenclatural detail?

Tony.Rees at csiro.au Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Thu Sep 15 19:09:31 CDT 2011


Sorry, mental hiccup there - orthography = spelling, correct orthography = correct spelling

(before anyone corrects me)

- Tony
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> Sent: Friday, 16 September 2011 10:05 AM
> To: dipteryx at freeler.nl; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [Taxacom] A small nomenclatural detail?
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here




More information about the Taxacom mailing list