[Taxacom] Autonymy: usage of terms in Botanical Nomenclature
Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Mon Mar 28 09:08:46 CDT 2016
The proper adjective to describe "autonym" is stupid. Everything was fine until Dick Brummitt introduced it to botany. When I chided him, he replied "Well, I thought it was a good idea at the time." Brummitt did some fine things for botany, but the autonym is not one of them.
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd. – St. Louis – Missouri – 63110 – USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Davis
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 11:01 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Autonymy: usage of terms in Botanical Nomenclature
Dear Plant Taxonomists,
I would like clarification on the proper adjective(s) to use in describing the Autonym in taxonomical publications. I note that the adjective "nominate" has been preferred to the more general "nominal" when referring to the Nominotypical taxon in Zoology. Should either of these terms be used in botanical publications, and if not, does the adjective "autonymous"
exist and fulfill this role?
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Channeling Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.
More information about the Taxacom