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

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Fri Aug 25 16:05:10 CDT 2017


Thanks very much Karen, Paul, John et al. for answering my question and
clarifying some of the more subtle differences between the botanical and
zoological Codes in this respect.

Best regards - Tony

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

On 26 August 2017 at 01:06, John McNeill <johnm at rom.on.ca> wrote:

> Dear Tony
>
>
>
> As others have pointed out, the short answer to the question “Can
> botanical family names be based on a rejected genus name?” is “Yes”. A name
> rejected in favour of another (Art. 14) or rejected outright (Art. 56) is
> not, thereby, made illegitimate. Consequently, if otherwise legitimate, a
> family name based on it will also be legitimate.
>
>
>
> Indeed at the Shenzhen Congress it was agreed to add a Note to the *Code*
> to make this clearer in the case of names rejected outright.
>
>
>
> As noted by Paul van Rijckevorsel, *Aytonia* J.R. Forst. & G. Forst.
> (1776) is a legitimate name, predating the parahomonym *Aitonia* Thunb.
> (1780), and so there is no obstacle to the use of *Aytoniaceae*.
>
>
>
> The nomenclatural details from Index Nominum Genericorum online (with only
> mild inconsistency) are:
>
>
>
> *Aytonia* J. R. Forster et J. G. A. Forster, Char. Gen. [147]. 1 Mar 1776.
>  T.: * A. rupestris* J. R. et J. G. A. Forster
> nom. rej. vs. *Plagiochasma* Lehmann et Lindenberg 1832 (*nom. cons.*)
> HEPAT.-AYTONIACEAE (12) 18 Feb 2014
>
> *Aitonia* Thunberg, Physiogr. Sälsk. Handl. 1(3): 166. 1780 ('1776') (non
> *Aytonia* J. R. Forster et J. G. A. Forster 1775).
>  T.: * A. capensis* Thunberg
> ≡ *Nymania* S. O. Lindberg 1868
> PHAN.-MELIACEAE (10) 9 Feb 1996
>
>
>
> Cheers, John
>


More information about the Taxacom mailing list