superfluous names

[Jacques Melot]

Le 4/01/97, a 6:04, vous ecriviez :

>To answer Dr. Metzing's question as to whether the current
>ICBN allows names to be rendered superfluous by typification
>of older names, the answer technically is no. The ICBN defines
>the term "Superfluous" as referring only to names which were
>illegitimate at the time they were published because they were
>recognized by the author as synonymous with an older name.
>Thus if I were to coin the name "Zea triploperennis" and
>state in my description that this is the same species as
>Zea mays, my new name is superfluous.
>   However, a name may be rendered a junior synonym by the
>method suggested by Dr. Reveal. He was using a more informal
>definition of the word "superfluous."

On peut prendre le mot <<superfluous>> au sens du langage courant. Un nom
relevant de l'Art. 52.1 est alors <<superfluous and illegitimate>> ou
<<nomenclaturally superfluous>>.

Avantage:
-- si, dans les conditions de l'Art. 52.1, le type a ete designe
posterieurement a la publication, le nom est simplement <<superfluous>>
(cf. intervention de James L. Reveal, 31 dec. 1996: les deux noms ont le
meme type, ils sont donc synonymes, mais le plus recent n'est pas
illegitime pour le premier, seulement superflu).
-- si le type a ete designe prealablement (<<previously>>) le nom est
<<nomenclaturally superfluous>> ou <<superfluous and illegitimate>>. (Un
nom peut etre <<illegitimate>> sans etre <<superfluous>>: cas des
homonymes.)

>It is fortunate that
>there is a limited number of such untypified older names with
>which to cause such havoc, but it is indeed permitted.

c'est trop frequent en Mycologie!

>Joseph E. Laferriere
>Tucson, Arizona, USA
>JosephL at aztec.asu.edu

Salutations distinguees.

Jacques Melot, Reykjavik
melot at itn.is