[Taxacom] The rules and DNA

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Sat Apr 28 02:47:26 CDT 2012

From: "Luis Popa" <popaluis at antipa.ro>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 11:21 PM

> Perhaps the intention of Article 32.3
> was to avoid descriptions highly subjective (aesthetic features, economic,
> medicinal or culinary usage, etc).
> A specific genetic makeup of an organism is an objective reality (of
> course, leaving the technical limitations aside) and I think that in
> principle it could be used to define an entity. I supose the resistance to
> the acceptance of this kind of characters resides in these being available
> only through indirect observation.

As I recall the intention of Art. 32.3 is to help prevent
un-intentional publication. In the past it happened a lot that
a naturalist discovered a new plant, and intended to name it
(or have it named) properly, and that he mentioned this new
plant in passing, in a letter, in a commercial pamphlet, in a
travel description etc. If this mention-in-passing was published
before the real publication there often are all sorts of problems.

I do not see that there is anything particularly objective about
genetic makeup. But of course, DNA sequences, whether
genetically expressed or not, may well be.


PS: For those who did not yet Google: the paper is here:


More information about the Taxacom mailing list