[Taxacom] Nomina subnuda
ibf at snm.ku.dk
Fri Feb 3 03:28:04 CST 2017
To draw the well defined lower line for what constitutes a description can be difficult, and this is almost certainly why the term is not specified in the Cope. From my time in the Nomencltural Committee for Vascular plants I remember many discussions. The is no exact parallel in the Code to your case, but under Art. 32 there is a voted example: "Ex.4. “Fumaria ×salmonii” (Druce, List Brit. Pl.: 4. 1908) is not validly published, as only the presumed parentage F. densiflora × F. officinalis is stated." I agree that some may think that there is more information in your case, but "Sédum à feuill. en croix" is just a translation of the Latin name, and as far as remember previous cases, the information that a plant is perennial has never been considered enough to make up a validating description.
From: Taxacom [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] on behalf of Lorenzo Gallo [lorenzogallo1959 at hotmail.it]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 9:57 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Nomina subnuda
Hi to all
I have a problem with the name of a vascular plant: Sedum cruciatum Desf. (Tabl. Ecol. bot.: 162, 1804. See BHL at: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/48715#page/174/mode/1up<http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/48715>). This name could be a "nomen subnudum" or a "nomen nudum". The only info given are:
- Sedum cruciatum. [Latin name].
- Sédum à feuill. en croix. [French name]
- Perennial [Jupiter symbol]
This name was subsequently published (in the right way) by DC. in the 1805.
Is this name validly published under the Code or not ?
The literature on this topic doesn't seem provide a univocal answer.
Thanks for the help
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Years, 1987-2017.
More information about the Taxacom