[Taxacom] Authorship of corrected original spellings in Botany

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Tue Sep 20 03:12:45 CDT 2011

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:59 AM
> I have come across a few examples recently of discrepancies in cited 
> authorship for botanical names which have been orthographically 
> corrected / amended from their original. For example the genus 
> Anthocortus in Restionaceae was apparently originally erected 
> with that spelling by C.G.D. Nees in 1836, and is listed thus in 
> (for example) Index Nominum Genericorum (where, in this instance, 
> it is also listed as a "current name"), however most other sources
> prefer the orthographic variant Anthochortus. In Index Kewensis 
> and TROPICOS this "th" spelling is attributed to Endlicher, also 
> in 1836 as it happens (different work), however in GRIN taxonomy 
> and in Mabberley the same spelling is ascribed to Nees, which I 
> would in general have thought was the correct assertion since it is 
> corrected from the original, but should not change its authorship; 
> a full citation would presumably be Anthochortus Nees 
> (as "Anthocortus") . Who is right?

Yes, your general assumption is correct (Art. 45.2, compare also
Art. 18.4, 19.6, 24.4, 32.7, 46.7, 47.1 and 50.1): it is the author
who validly published the name who must be cited.

I don't know any details of the case, although it is obvious that the
pair is Antochorthus / Anthochortus and that the IK lists both
(with a "use Anthochortus" note). So presumably correct usage is
Anthochortus Nees ('Antochortus').


More information about the Taxacom mailing list