nomenclature again

[Teuvo Ahti]

Dear Mr. Marhold: I would like to clarify your second question with a
real example (another real example is cited in the Botanical Code, Art.
43.1, Ex. 2): Vainio in Hue 1898 published a new species, Cladonia
varians Vain., and divided it into two varieties, var. glaucoflava Vain.
(it could have been var. typica Vain., for example, no difference) and
var. erythrospermoides Vain. However, he did not give a description for
the species but only to each of the varieties. Therefore, all the three
names were technically invalidly published. Cladonia varians Vain. ex
Ahti was validated only in 1987. Ted Ahti.
On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, Karol Marhold wrote:

> Thank you to everybody who responded until now to my
> nomenclature questions (see below).
>
> The first point does not seem to be a big problem. The name of the
> variety can be used also if it was published under the illegitimate
> species name. The point which is not solved is if the whole name
> of the variety (subspecies) published under the illegitimate
> species name is illegitimate as well. E.g. say the name "Planta
> virida Author" is illegitimate question is if the subspecies name
> "Planta virida Author subsp. lutea Author" is illegitimate as well.
>
> To the second question I have received several responses. I will
> prepare summary of them, but the important point is that there
> are two kinds of responses - yes, the name is valid, no the name
> is invalid.
>
> original questions:
> 1/ if plant species name is illegitimate, is the name of variety
>         described "within" this name illegitimate as well?
> 2/ is it possible to accept as a validly published species name the
>         name for which no description is provided in the protologue,
>         when author at the same place provided the description of
>         the typical variety (subspecies)?
>