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

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Fri Aug 25 09:15:09 CDT 2017


Although the fact that Aytonia is a rejected name is not
a problem for Aytoniaceae, there is a remaining question.

Apparently there is a tradition to treat Aitonia as a
homonym (hence its replacement by Nymania) of 
Aytonia; this should fall within the remit of the second 
sentence of Art. 53.3. However, if Aytonia and Aitonia 
are generally recognized as confusable, should this not 
apply to Aytoniaceae and Aitoniaceae, as well?

I am unsure of the publishing dates of both family names.
Going by Tropicos, there should not be a  problem (1911
and 1975, respectively). However, in their conservation
proposal (Taxon 41: 116-117. 1992) Reveal and Hoogland
posit an 1860 date of publication for Aitoniaceae. If this is 
accepted then Aytoniaceae looks like a later homonym, 
and illegitimate on that basis.

There is a further wrinkle here: if Aytonia and Aitonia are
to be treated as homonyms on the basis of a long tradition,
how does that translate to the family level? Is there also a
tradition to treat to Aytoniaceae and Aitoniaceae as
homonyms? 

Anyway, it seems that a proposal to conserve Aytoniaceae 
rather than Aitoniaceae might have been more interesting . . .

Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Rees" <tonyrees49 at gmail.com>
To: "Karen Wilson" <Karen.Wilson at rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au>
Cc: "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Can botanical family names be based on a 
rejectedgenus name?


>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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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