0xd7 in species name ?

[John McNeill]

Paul van Rijckevorsel writes "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."
  .  Perhaps he would prefer me to have used "judgement" (based perhaps on experimental data) to "opinion".  That does not alter the fact that it is a taxonomic (scientific) matter not a nomenclatural (legal) one.

Contrary to his suggestion, there is no "formal transfer", in nomenclatural terms, of taxa from the non-hybrid to hybrid category or vice-versa -- as there is, for example, on transfer to another rank or another genus (in botany).  Art. 50.1, dealing with such a transfer, states that "the author citation [of the name] remains unchanged".  All that is provided is the option for those who treat as a nothospecies a taxon originally described as a species of adding "(pro sp.)" (and vice-versa).

In my previous posting, I emphasised that from a user perspective the multiplication sign IS part of the name and must be accommodated.  My point in excluding it from the name in a strict nomenclatural sense is that, apart from the multiplication sign, there is no nomenclatural difference whatsoever between them: same authorship, same date & place of publication, same type.

It is simply a matter of semantics whether or not one wants to term Stachys ambigua Sm. (1809) and Stachys xambigua Sm (1809) different names; Paul van Rijckevorsel argues the case well for the "different" position.  The point, however, remains that they have no other distinction -- no separate existence -- under any of the rules of the Code.  It is for this reason that I think it more meaningful to treat them as the same name for strictly nomenclatural purposes, while recognizingthe wish of some users to express with the name a biological judgement on the taxon.

John McNeill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McNeill, Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario Museum;
    Honorary Associate ,Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh
Mailing address:  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U.K.
Telephone:    +44-131-248-2912;  fax: +44-131-248-2901
Home office:  +44-162-088-0651;  fax: +44-162-088-0342
e-mail: jmcneill at rbge.org.uk (johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>> Dipteryx <dipteryx at FREELER.NL> 11/13/02 16:17 PM >>>
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 he 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