Priority rules

[Joe Laferriere]

> Date:    Wed, 10 Jan 1996 09:33:04 -0400
> From:    p stevens <p_stevens at NOCMSMGW.HARVARD.EDU>
> Subject: nomenclature and the code

> Why not restart the clock when a group is
> monographed, to the effect that only names that are accepted in that
> monograph have any nomenclatural standing?

I share my good friend Peter's concern about the need to review very old
names every  time one works on a group. If Peter can express this concern
even with  Harvard's library at his disposal, think of all the people who
must rely  on Interlibrary Loan to track down 18th and 19th Century
publications.

However, I see a major problem with his proposal in that it may be
difficult to agree on what constitutes a monograph. I have seen some
rather poor papers referred to as monographs, works done by people who
obviously have not done their homework. The most recent "monograph" on
Berberis, for example, misses a lot of species and has inaccurate
descriptions, unusable keys, etc. The classic work on Mammillaria was
written by a dentist whose keys and descriptions are atrocious, yet that
is the most recent major work dealing with the whole genus. Where to draw
the line between monograph and non-monograph might prove a big can or worms.