[Taxacom] History and observance of ICZN Art. 67.2

John Sullivan jpsullivan65 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 1 12:25:29 CDT 2018


Thomas & Francisco, thanks so much for these informative replies!

Unfortunately, Art. 69.2.2 does not apply because Gill nowhere explicitly acknowledges in this publication that he recognizes the synonymy of M. labiatus Geoff. and M. cyprinoides L.  It’s just my supposition that he understood them to be synonyms and chose to use the current, valid name when designating the type.

The history of the Code is very interesting. I had a look at the Strickland Code and its Proposition 5 says “When the evidence as to the original type of a genus is not perfectly clear and indisputable, then the person who first subdivides the genus may affix the original name to any portion of it at his discretion, and no later author has a right to transfer that name to any other part of the original genus,” but does not directly address the issue of using original names vs. synonyms when designating a generic type species.

I’m curious to know how many instances from this period there are of type species designations of this sort that were afterwards ruled invalid.

~ J.P. Sullivan







More information about the Taxacom mailing list