[Taxacom] Why Amomum (1753) rejected Zingiber (1754) accepted
Paul van Rijckevorsel
dipteryx at freeler.nl
Fri Feb 21 04:06:09 CST 2014
Like Tony Rees said names can be conserved or rejected
(that is, an International Botanical Congress may decide to
include a name in a list of exceptions, a list that is part of
As Dr Singh points out Amomum is not rejected against
Zingiber, and there is a long history of both Amomum and
Zingiber being in use side by side, so this was not felt to
be a problem.
Of course, this phenomenon of the conservation of
Amomum is a fairly uncomfortable one. There is a
degree of continuity between the 1753 Amomum
of Linnaeus (which goes back to 1737) and the name
now in use. But it has been decided to conserve
a later use, with a different type (and a circumscription
quite different from that of Linnaeus). In this way a
new name is created, without being validly published
in the first place, while the original name is henceforth
treated as an earlier homonym, not illegitimate, but
unavailable for use.
From: "Pudji Widodo" <pudjiwi at yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 1:57 AM
I would like to ask you. Why
Amomum L., Sp. Pl.: 1 (1753), nom. rej.
Zingiber Mill., Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4: s.p. (1754), nom.
Infact in ICNafp Principle
III The nomenclature of a taxonomic
group is based upon priority of publication.
Fakultas Biologi, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman
Jl. Dr Soeparno 63
Purwokerto 53122, INDONESIA
Phone (62) 281 638794, Fax (62) 281 631700, mobile:085716518425
pudjiwi at yahoo.com
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 2014.0.4259 / Virusdatabase: 3705/7111 - datum van uitgifte:
More information about the Taxacom