[Taxacom] Can botanical family names be based on a rejected genus name?

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 03:48:13 CDT 2017


A little more info on Aytonia the liverwort's proposal as a nom. rej:

from F. White, 1986, The taxonomy, chorology and reproductive biology of
southern African Meliaceae and Ptaeroxylaceae. Bothalia 16.2: 143-168:

"In 1930, however, Schiffner proposed Plagiochasma Lehmann & Lindenberg
(1832) as a nomen conservandum versus Aytonia of which he says ‘descriptio
omnino falsa’ (Rehder in Rehder et al. 1935: 349-350), and this
recommendation was subsequently adopted."

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees

On 25 August 2017 at 15:17, Karen Wilson <Karen.Wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au>
wrote:

> I won’t respond on this, Tony, until the Nomenclature Committees have
> sorted out what the situation is.
>
> But, yes, in general, a new family name would have to be found, based on
> priority. If there was no such name, then a new one would have to be
> proposed.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> ____________________________________
> *Karen L. Wilson AM*
>
> National Herbarium of New South Wales
>
>
>
> Adjunct Associate Professor, University of New England, Armidale, NSW
>
> Secretary, General Committee, International Code of Nomenclature for
> Algae, Fungi & Plants
>
>
>
> Botanic Gardens & Centennial Parklands
>
> *T* +61 (02) 9231 8137 <+61%202%209231%208137> | *E*
> karen.wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au
>
> Royal Botanic Gardens & Domain Trust, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney NSW
> 2000, Australia
>
>
>
> *From:* Tony Rees [mailto:tonyrees49 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, 25 August 2017 3:11 PM
> *To:* Karen Wilson <Karen.Wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au>; taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Can botanical family names be based on a
> rejected genus name?
>
>
>
> Hi Karen, thanks for the response... according to the Index Nominum
> Genericorum website, Aytonia J.R. Forster & J.G.A. Forster, 1775 is a nom.
> rej. in favour of Plagiochasma Lehmann & Lindenberg 1832 (nom. cons.). This
> is why I was surprised to see the associated liverwort family name given as
> Aytoniaceae when there is no accepted genus Aytonia within it. If
> Aytoniaceae is indeed illegitiimate then I suppose the correct name would
> depend on the next available proposed family name by priority, and not
> necessarily be Plagiochasmaceae (which does not seem to have been proposed
> at any time so far as I can tell).
>
>
>
> Regards - Tony
>
>
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
>
> https://about.me/TonyRees
>
>
>
> On 25 August 2017 at 14:59, Karen Wilson <Karen.Wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, you are right, Tony: a legitimate family name can't be based on an
> illegitimate generic name, unless conserved, under the ICN.
> As the preface to the Melbourne Code says:
> 'It has long been established that a name that was illegitimate when
> published remains illegitimate unless it is conserved. There are, however,
> a significant number of family names in current use that, when published,
> were formed from illegitimate generic names that have since been conserved.
> Although the rules are retroactive, the effect of the rules is not, so
> that, under previous editions of the Code, the subsequent conservation of
> the generic name did not make legitimate the family name formed from it;
> this was only possible by conservation of the family name itself.
> Amendments accepted in Melbourne and included in Art. 18.3 and 19.6
> establish that the conservation of the generic name now also makes
> legitimate the name of a family and the names of subdivisions of a family
> formed from it.'
>
> You've found an anomaly that the Permanent Nomenclature Committees for the
> International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants will have to
> investigate further.
>
> In the list of conserved names on the Smithsonian website at
> http://botany.si.edu/references/codes/props/index.cfm   Aitonia is shown
> as conserved against Aytonia (which is the earlier name), dating from
> Rehder's actions in 1935.
> However, in 1994 (in Taxon 43: 118-119), the Committee for Spermatophyta
> recommended that Aytonia (liverwort) and Aitonia ('dicot') be treated as
> homonyms, as part of dealing with a proposal to conserve the family name
> Aitoniaceae.
> Treating Aitonia as a later homonym of Aytonia and therefore illegitimate
> means that the family name Aitoniaceae is also considered illegitimate.
> Recent references such as the PlantList - http://www.theplantlist.org/
> tpl1.1/record/kew-2626995  and the Angiosperma Phylogeny Website -
> http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/welcome.html -  treat Aytonia
> (and Aytoniaceae) as legitimate and Aitonia as a synonym of Nymannia,
> Aitoniaceae as a synonym of Meliaceae.
>
> Given that we have thus ended up with contradictory results, the
> Committees will need to clarify the status of these names. Watch this space!
>
> Cheers
> Karen W
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> ____________________________________
> Karen L. Wilson AM
> Secretary, General Committee, International Code of Nomenclature for
> Algae, Fungi & Plants
>
> Hon. Research Associate, National Herbarium of New South Wales
> Adjunct Associate Professor, University of New England, Armidale, NSW
>
> Botanic Gardens & Centennial Parklands
> T +61 (02) 9231 8137 | E karen.wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au
> Royal Botanic Gardens & Domain Trust, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney NSW
> 2000, Australia
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of
> Tony Rees
> Sent: Friday, 25 August 2017 11:29 AM
> To: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Subject: [Taxacom] Can botanical family names be based on a rejected genus
> name?
>
> Dear taxacomers,
>
> I came across a botanical family name (Aytoniaceae Cavers in liverworts,
> see http://tropicos.org/Name/35002592 ) which appears to be based on a
> rejected genus name, Aytonia J.R. Forst. & G. Forst. (see
> http://tropicos.org/Name/35001869) so was wondering if this affects the
> validity (?=legitimacy) of the relevant family name. So far as I am aware,
> in zoology a family name cannot be based on an unavailable genus name, but
> in botany the analogous situation may be different.
>
> The relevant section of the ICNafp (Melbourne Code) reads as follows:
>
> ----------
> 18.3. A name of a family based on an illegitimate generic name is
> illegitimate unless and until it or the generic name upon which it is based
> is conserved.
> Ex.6. Caryophyllaceae Juss., nom. cons. (from Caryophyllus Mill. non L.);
> Winteraceae R. Br. ex Lindl., nom. cons. (from Wintera Murray, an
> illegitimate replacement name for Drimys J. R. Forst. & G. Forst.).
> Ex.7. Nartheciaceae Fr. ex Bjurzon (1846), based on Narthecium Huds., nom.
> cons. (1762), became legitimate when the generic name was conserved over
> its earlier homonym Narthecium Gérard (1761) (see App. III).
> ----------
>
> So perhaps I need to know whether a nom. rej. qualifies as an illegitimate
> name or not.
>
>  Advice from relevant knowledgeable persons would be appreciated.
>
> Regards - Tony
>
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu To
> subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------
> This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain
> confidential and/or privileged information.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then
> delete it immediately.
> Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender
> except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the
> views of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.
>
> PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------
> This email is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain
> confidential and/or privileged information.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then
> delete it immediately.
> Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender
> except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the
> views of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.
>
> PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING THIS EMAIL
>


More information about the Taxacom mailing list