Infraspecific citations

[Joe Laferriere]

> Date:    Fri, 5 Jan 1996 12:38:24 -0800
> From:    Curtis Clark <jcclark at CSUPOMONA.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Infraspecific author citations
>
> At 01:01 PM 1/5/96 -0700, Joe Laferriere wrote:
> >Thus the infraspecific name includes the name of the species, making the
> >trinomial a single entity. The name of the author who coined
> >the name of the species is completely irrelevant. Sticking his/her name
> >in the middle of the trinomial is the equivalent of saying
>
> This is *your opinion*, not part of the code.
>
> Although I am predisposed to opine differently, I have tried to give this
> view fair consideration, but I do come up with one case where it is
> counterproductive.  Let's say you are naming a new subsp. of Ivieia
> neocalifornica Ross (which has conveniently become a plant for this
> example), and you will call it subsp. arizonica.  Your publication would say
>
> Ivieia neocalifornica subsp. arizonica Laferriere, subsp. nov.
>
> But let's say that there is also Ivieia neocalifornica Clark, a different
> plant. Regardless of which Ivieia neocalifornica is valid and which is a
> later homonym, from the facts presented so far a reader in the future could
> not clearly determine which Ivieia you were naming a subspecies of.  Since
> in one case, your name would be invalid, this becomes important both
> taxonomically and nomeclaturally.
>
> "But," you might well say, "most reputable journals require the author
> citation for every binomial that appears in the paper."  Fine.  So why can't
> it be as part of the publication of the new name?  Bibliographically, the
> author of the species belongs in the paper.  Is there any logic to keeping
> it out of the actual protologue?

Laferriere replies:

1) My statement was not an opinion, but the result of a very careful
reading of the ICBN and discussions with several distinguished
botanists, some of whom have had a major hand in writing the
aforementioned Code. An opinion is defined (ICBN Art. 92.1 [just
kidding!]) as a statement of preference, not a result of a reading of
someone else's work. I have  already stated that my preference would be
to ammend the ICBN to make this optional.

2) The logic behind the ICBN is, as I have already stated, that just as one
does not place the generic authority in the middle of a species name,
e.g.

Zea L. mays L.

one does not stick the specific authority in the middle of a
infraspecific name. I did not say that I prefer this logic; I merely
stated that a careful reading of the ICBN (both its rules and its
examples) reveals that this is the logic used therein.