botanical code question

[Mark Egger]

Thanks to John & others that replied so quickly! 
No further replies are needed on this question 
(not sure how I missed this obvious reference in 
the Code...)

Happy holidays,

Mark





>Dear Mark:
>
>I think your answer lies in Art. 33.3 of the ICBN:
>
>"33.3.  A new combination, or an avowed 
>substitute (replacement name, nomen novum), 
>published on or after 1 January 1953 based on a 
>previously and validly published name is not 
>validly published unless its basionym 
>(name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym) or 
>the replaced synonym (when a new name is 
>proposed) is clearly indicated and a full and 
>direct reference given to its author and place 
>of valid publication, with page or plate 
>reference and date (but see Art. 33.2, 33.4, and 
>33.6)."
>
>As I very much doubt that a regional plant guide 
>book, even by a reputable author and publisher, 
>would provide for these varieties "a full and 
>direct reference given to its author and place 
>of valid publication" of the name at subspecies 
>rank, I suspect that they are not validly 
>published and can be ignored.  But, if the 
>requirements of Art. 33.3 are met, then these 
>will be validly published varietal names.
>
>For our zoological colleagues, I should explain 
>that the ICBN does not have the rank-group 
>concept, i.e. "species group", "genus group" and 
>"family group". Instead, as Art. 11.2 states: 
>"11.2.  In no case does a name have priority 
>outside the rank in which it is published"
>
>John
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>John McNeill, Rapporteur-général, Nomenclature Section, IBC
>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 (mail to johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>>  Mark Egger <m.egger at COMCAST.NET> 12/26/05 4:18 PM >>>
>I noticed in a recently published regional plant 
>guide book by a reputable author and publisher 
>two cases of mistaken status. In both cases 
>names that have been valid published at the 
>subspecies rank were published in this book as 
>varieties. Although the taxa are described & 
>distinguished from related taxa, there is no 
>inclusion of "stat. nov." and no citation or 
>discussion of author names or basionyms.
>
>Can such new combinations be regarded as validly 
>published (since they are not new names as 
>such?) and in what manner should they be treated 
>in synonymy lists if one is trying to deal in 
>some way with all published names within a 
>particular genus?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mark
>--
>Mark Egger
>Seattle, WA
>USA
>mailto:m.egger at comcast.net


--
Mark Egger
Seattle, WA
USA
mailto:m.egger at comcast.net