0xd7 in species name ?

[Dipteryx]

John McNeill <johnm at ROM.ON.CA> wrote

[snip]

This is not, from a nomenclatural standpoint, strictly a part of the name
itself -- hence there is no conflict with Art. 60 on orthography.  For
example, Stachys ambigua and Stachys x ambigua are the same name (Art. 50
Ex. 1; Art. H.3.3); the difference merely represents the opinion of the user
on the hybrid origin (or otherwise) of the species -- whether a "species" or
a "nothospecies".

+ + +
I am not sure if this is correct.
Obviously Stachys ambigua and Stachys x ambigua apply to the same taxon.
(This may be compared with 'coextensive' sensu ICNCP 16.2 and 17.3).

However Stachys ambigua is the name of a species, while Stachys x ambigua is
the name of a nothospecies, and the difference is not entirely one of
opinion.

Not only would it be objectively wrong to speak of a nothospecies if the
species was obviously not of hybrid origin, but also there is something of
an established tradition on when a species of a hybrid origin should be
called a (notho)species.

Thus it seems reasonable to suppose that the ICBN does accept the
multiplication sign as part of the name.
- Art 60, as it now stands, does not forbid this.
- Art 50.1 explicitly deals with the formal transfer of taxa from "the
non-hybrid category to the hybrid category". Formally these are separate
things, and should have separate names. - Art 50.Ex.1 deals with the author
citation in the name of a nothospecies that started life as the name of a
species, again supporting the view that these are not one and the same
- Art H.3.3 states that "For purposes of homonymy and synonymy the
multiplication sign ... [is] disregarded". If the multiplication sign were
not part of the name it would have been more logical to omit this paragraph
and add a Note stating that "the multiplication sign is not part of the
name". The fact that for purposes of homonymy and synonymy the "x" is to be
disregarded argues that it is part of the name.
- H.3A.1 states explicitly "the multiplication sign in the name of a
nothotaxon ...".

So with all due respect, this is less than crystal clear...

Paul van Rijckevorsel