[Taxacom] Malus domestica conservation proposal

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

Well, I was just making an observation (just in case that the 
matter had escaped attention).

Another matter which might be worth considering is the
inclusion in this database of decisions regarding names-
to-be-treated-as-homonyms and names-that-have-been-
decided-to-be-not-validly-published (either because of 
an inadequate description or diagnosis or because they 
are in works-to-be-suppressed), and of course names that 
have been put forward as such, but where a decision has 
been made the other way. At the moment, these are 
untraceable, except to those who are willing to dig through
a very considerable pile of issues of Taxon.

Paul

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John McNeill 
  To: dipteryx at freeler.nl ; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
  Cc: jmcneill at rbge.ac.uk 
  Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 10:25 AM
  Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Malus domestica conservation proposal


  Paul, Scott & al.

  The "Proposals and Disposals" site was maintained by Dan Nicolson whose health now precludes any botanical work.  The Department of Botany at the Smithsonian Institution have now made arrangements for the site to continue to be maintained, but, again for reasons outside of their control, there has been some delay in getting it up-to-date.

  John

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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:    +44-131-248-2848;  fax: +44-131-248-2901
  Home office:  +44-162-088-0651
  e-mail: jmcneill at rbge.ac.uk (mail to johnm at rom.on.ca is also read)
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  >>> "Paul van Rijckevorsel" <dipteryx at freeler.nl> 05/25/12 8:41 AM >>>
  Yes, the "Proposals and Disposals" site at the Smithsonian can be very useful, but the Malus domestica proposal is not listed, nor are the actions taken on the Malus toringoides proposal, although this has been reported on by the special Committee and the General Committee, and has been accepted by the Melbourne Congress. The Malus domestica proposal was published in April 2010, so it looks as if the site lags more than two years behind? Perhaps an additional person should be assigned to keep it up to date?

  Publishing the deliberations of a Committee looks to be a very attractive idea, but perhaps for some groups of taxa the outside pressure is felt to be too severe for such openness to be risked?

  Paul