Dandy Dime

[JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE]

I  wish   to  call  to  everyone's  attention  the  following
advertizement, which  appeared in
the 28  March issue  of the  Dandy Dime.  The Dandy  Dime  of
Tucson, Arizona,  USA, should  not be confused with the Nifty
Nickel from Las Cruces, New Mexico. The entire text of the ad
reads:

Pliny  the  Elder's  cactus  (Mammillaria  volubilis,  foliis
viridibus) is  now on sale. The plant is typified by Ludlow's
plant #4764  at Harvard's  Arnold  Arboretum,  but  is  well-
adapted to Tucson's climate. 326-4868.

Thus Mammillaria  volubilis is now a validly and legitimately
published scientific name. I cite the following articles from
the ICBN in support of this.

29.1 Publication  is effected  under this  Code only  by  the
distribution of  printed matter  (through sale,  exchange, or
gift)  to  the  general  public  or  at  least  to  botanical
institutions   with   libraries   accessible   to   botanists
generally.

The Dandy Dime is published by printing press (NOT photocopy)
in Tucson  and distributed  free of  charge at  every grocery
store and  convenience store  in  the  metropolitan  area.  I
checked the on-line catalogues of the only three libraries in
Tucson (University  of Arizona,  Pima Community  College, and
Pima County  Public) and  none of  them had it. However, this
appears unnecessary.  Indeed, the way Article 29.1 is worded,
it appears  to favor  distribution to the general public over
deposition  of   the  material  in  libraries,  botanical  or
otherwise.

30.3  Publication  on  or  after  1  January  1953  in  trade
catalogues or  non-scientific newspapers,  and on  or after 1
January 1973  in seed-exchange  lists,  does  not  constitute
effective publication.

The Dandy  Dime is  obviously not  a seed-exchange list nor a
trade catalogue.  It is  certainly non-scientific, but cannot
reasonably be  referred to as a newspaper because it does not
include any news. It consists 100% of paid advertizements. If
the presence  of paid  ads in  a periodical  removes it  from
being an  acceptible venue  for publication,  even Science is
disqualified. The fact that some mysterious person or persons
paid $6.40  for the ad is also irrelevent, as many scientific
journals also  have page charges. Hence Article 30.3 does not
exclude the name published there from validity.

46.6  In   determining  the  correct  author  citation,  only
internal evidence  in the  publication  where  the  name  was
validly published is to be accepted.

Hence Gaius  Plinius Secundus is the author to be cited, even
though "Pliny the Elder" died in 79 A.D. and never heard of a
dime (dandy or otherwise). The full citation is thus

Mammillaria volubilis  Plinius, Dandy  Dime, 28 March 1997, p
12, 1997.

11.2 In no case does a name have priority outside the rank in
which it is published.

The holotype of this name (Ludlow et al. 4769 at A) is also a
paratype of

Scrophularia  chasmophila   subsp.  xizangensis  Hong,  Novon
6:374, 1996.

Hence if this taxon is ever recognised at the species level,
the correct name will be

Scrophularia volubilis (Plinius) Whoever.

The fact  that Scrophularia  and Mammillaria are in different
families  (Scrophulariaceae   and   Cactaceae)   is   totally
irrelevant.

The anonymous author of the ad asked me to convey her sincere
apologies to the next person to monograph Scrophularia.

I shall deposit a copy of the appropriate issue of Dandy Dime
in the  herbarium library  at HUMO  and send  another to  the
editors  of  Index  Kewensis  (along  with  a  copy  of  this
posting). I have a few extras if anyone is interested. Others
can probably be obtained from the Dandy Dime (Address: 4574 E
Broadway, Tucson AZ 85711 USA; 520-327-4907).

Poor Erika.

--
Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere, 4717 E First St., Tucson AZ 85711 USA.
After 10 Apr 1997: Herbario, CEAMISH, Universidad Autonoma del
Estado de Morelos, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.