ISBN Art. 7.11

[Richard Zander]

Note that "here designated" is governed by "Art. 9.17 and 10.5) which do not
deal with priority of holotypes, rather priority of lectotypes and types of
genera and subgenera. The holotype is not governed by the phrase "typifying
author" in Art. 7.11, but by Art. 9.1. I for one will not worry about it.

If this argument is not okay, the loophole here is: "the phrase "here
designated" (hic designatus) or an equivalent." An equivalent would be, I
think, a mininum of the words "new species" plus "holotype". The phrases
needed for combination of publishing a new species and a type can be
construed, and certainly are construed by these authors, as designation (by
implication but evident to the brainless) of a type "here". I imagine the
authors may feel they can't be faulted even after being apprised that the
letter of the Code was not met.

If Art. 7.11 is supposed to refer to holotypes, the situation is then
another case of treating the Code as a "science" that must be made perfect
to work better. And clearly the Code would work better as a skeleton on
which we hang common sense. Figure, for example, how the autonym rule, which
is logical according to thinkers from the planet Vulcan, actually helps us
deal with biodiversity knowledge in an efficient, effective and rapid
manner.




______________________
Richard H. Zander
Bryology Group
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
richard.zander at mobot.org <mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
Voice: 314-577-5180
Websites:
http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/resbot/index.htm




-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Vincent [mailto:vincenma at MUOHIO.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 10:00 AM
To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
Subject: [TAXACOM] ISBN Art. 7.11


Dear Botanical TAXACOM members:

I wonder how people are interpreting Art. 7.11 of the ISBN (St. Louis
Code).  The text for this section is given below.
___________________________________________________________________
7.11. For purposes of priority (Art. 9.17 and 10.5), designation of a type
is achieved only if the type is definitely accepted as such by the
typifying author, if the type element is clearly indicated by direct
citation including the term "type" (typus) or an equivalent, and, on or
after 1 January 2001, if the typification statement includes the phrase
"here designated" (hic designatus) or an equivalent.

Ex. 6. Chlorosarcina Gerneck (1907) originally comprised two species, C.
minor and C. elegans. Vischer (1933) transferred the former to
Chlorosphaera G. A. Klebs and retained the latter in Chlorosarcina. He did
not, however, use the term "type" or an equivalent, so that his action does
not constitute typification of Chlorosarcina. The first to designate a
type, as "LT.", was Starr (in ING Card No. 16528, Nov 1962), who selected
Chlorosarcina elegans.

Ex. 7. The phrase "standard species" as used by Hitchcock & Green (in
Anon., Nomencl. Prop. Brit. Botanists: 110-199. 1929) is now treated as
equivalent to "type", and hence type designations in this work are
acceptable.
__________________________________________________________________________

This seems pretty straight forward, and a literal interpretation would mean
that any new taxon would need the phrase "here designated" or equivalent to
be validly published.

In a perusal of several journals for new species publications, I see that
the phrase "here designated" is not included in any of the articles.  See
for example the most recent issue of Systematic Botany, in which new
species of Hymenophyllum, Paspalum, Tridens, and a new genus (Hekkingia)
are described, all without the "here designated" phrase.  Does this mean
all of these are invalid names?

Is anyone actually using the phrase when publishing new species?  I do see
it used when new lectotypifications are done...

Mike

Dr. Michael A. Vincent, Curator
W.S. Turrell Herbarium (MU)
Department of Botany
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio 45056 USA

TEL:  513-529-2755
FAX:  513-529-4243
Email:  Vincenma at muohio.edu