[Taxacom] Just checking - effective publication in botany - "early view" example...
Paul van Rijckevorsel
dipteryx at freeler.nl
Wed May 12 02:02:40 CDT 2021
Op 11/05/2021 om 18:50 schreef Richard Pyle via Taxacom:
> OK, so in ICNafp, the same type means the same name. What about older names? Does the requirement for an explicitly fixed type go all the way back to 1753 (e.g., to all Linnaeus plant names have explicitly fixed types?) Or, can older names still be validly published even without explicit type fixation (as is the case in Zoology)?
* * *
In the ICFafp, the requirement (as it exists at present)
that the name of a new taxon must have a type starts
at "on or after 1 January 1958". And, obviously, older
names don't necessarily have been assigned types
(Linnaean names are not a good example, since these
have been closely scrutinized). But, older names can
be assigned types, and then it does work.
I guess I should point to two conceptual wrinkles:
* only a name (scientific name) can have a type, and
a later isonym (later usage) is not a name: therefore
a later isonym cannot actually have a type. So
definition-wise there is a substantial conceptual hole
in "names with the same type". To be more accurate
an exercise in conditional logic seems called for
(something like "that would have the same type if
both were to be names ...").
* there are situations (that don't appear involved here)
where names have the same type by definition (that is,
they are homotypic names), regardless of the fact
whether either name actually has a type or not. So it
is quite possible to have untypified homotypic names.
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
More information about the Taxacom