new names in theses

[Robert Mill]

Kirkbride's recommendation for a page stating that the names are not
meant to fulfil the requirements of ICBN seems eminently sensible,
although names in theses are not validly published there anyway as
others have already noted.

Indicating future intent by Genus sp.nov. 1, Genus sp.nov. 2 etc. as
proposed by Wuster seems to me to raise more problems than it
solves. What is to stop someone consulting the thesis, before its
author has got round to validly publishing the intended names, from
giving sp.nov. 1 etc. names that the author of the thesis did not
intend?? (You might even have a situation where a "pilferer" names
the sp. after the person that wrote the thesis!!). Indeed, if two or
more people consult the thesis you could theoretically end up with
two or more different valid names for the same taxon and you'd then
have to work out which was correct under the priority rules.

Best wishes

Robert Mill




      ********************************************************
      (Dr) ROBERT R MILL
      Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh
      20a Inverleith Row, EDINBURGH EH3 5LR, SCOTLAND, U.K.

      Electronic Mail:   R.Mill at rbge.org.uk OR robert at rbge.org.uk
      Telephone:         + 44 131 552 7171 exts. 240 or 449
      Facsimile:         + 44 131 552 0382

     ***********************************************************