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

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Fri Aug 25 04:09:17 CDT 2017


As to zoology, as best I know the requirement is
that the generic name (genus-group name) must
no only be available, but also accepted as valid
(11.7.1.1) in the publication that establishes the
family name (the family-group name). If the
Commission suppresses the generic name, the
family name is affected as well (11.7.1.5)

In 'botany', there is no requirement in establishing
the name of a family, except that the generic name
be validly published. If, however, the generic name
is illegitimate the family name is illegitimate as well.

The mere fact that a generic name is rejected has no
effect on a family name. A generic name that is rejected
(not "suppressed"!) may be used as a correct name,
if the taxonomic point of view adopted calls for this
(in this case, Aytonia may be treated as a genus separate
from Plagiochasma; it is only when both are joined that
the rejection makes a difference).

The names Aitonia and Aitoniaceae don't affect this
in any way. Firstly, both are later in date. Secondly,
whatever the Committee for Spermatophyta (now
Committee for Vascular Plants) remarked on this,
this does not appear to have been formalized (the
General Committee said nothing about it in their
report 6).

So, nothing to worry about. Hypothetically speaking,
if Aytonia were an illegitimate name (quod non), it
would not mean that Aytoniaceae would need to be
replaced. First it would have to be considered if it
would be worth conserving Aytoniaceae. It seems
a pretty well known name, so that may well be the
case, but I am not a bryologist.

Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karen Wilson" <Karen.Wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au>
To: "Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>; "taxacom"
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Can botanical family names be based on a rejected
genus name?


>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 | E
> karen.wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B61%20%2802%29%209231%208137> | E
> karen.wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> ---
> Deze e-mail is gecontroleerd op virussen door AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>



More information about the Taxacom mailing list