Proposal to Establish Rankless Suprageneric Names

[redeuilh]

OBJET: votre proposition de terminaison  -ina pour des noms suprag=E9n=E9=
riques
qui pourraient =EAtre valid=E9s dans le futur =E0 un rang ind=E9termin=E9=
:

Les avantages que vous mentionnez sont r=E9els mais je ferai quelques
remarques:

1. L'abandon de l'Art.35.1 (et 34.1b) pour ce cas particulier constitue u=
ne
entorse (infringement) non n=E9gligeable =E0 l'esprit du Code, ce qui pou=
rrait
choquer les puristes ...=20

2. Ce serait une complication suppl=E9mentaire du Code, pour un relativem=
ent
"petit" b=E9n=E9fice.

3. Il existerait un risque de confusion entre cette terminaison -ina et l=
a
terminaison -phytina / -mycotina attribu=E9e au rang subdivisio / subphyl=
lum.
=20

Il me semble que si un Auteur a des doutes sur le rang taxonomique =E0
adopter pour un taxon (que par ailleurs il reconna=EEt en tant que tel), =
il
doit le publier "ad int." Certes, dans ce cas, il perd la paternit=E9 du
basionyme mais, dans la plupart des cas, si un autre auteur valide
ult=E9rieurement ce nom, il le fera sous la forme "Auteur ex *** " et le =
lien
de "paternit=E9" ne sera pas totalement perdu.
   Enfin il reste =E0 cet auteur la possibilit=E9 de valider le nom =E0 u=
n rang
d=E9termin=E9, selon les r=E8gles actuelles, m=EAme si ce rang est approx=
imatif
dans son esprit. Lui ou un autre pourront faire un transfert plus tard, s=
i
besoin, ce qui sera moins "p=E9nalisant" pour la communaut=E9 scientifiqu=
e
qu'un amendement sp=E9cial dans le Code.

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

J'ai parcouru tr=E8s rapidement votre URL  "Seventeen proposals to amend =
the
Code on suprageneric names" (en attendant de le faire plus =E0 fond apr=E8=
s la
publication dans Taxon). Une remarque:

16  / Ex. 10=20
.. Even though Candolle (Prodr. 1: 624. 1824) cited Cedrelaceae R. Br. (i=
n
Flinders, Voy. Terra Austr. 2: 595, 596. 1814) when he transferred the
family name to the rank of tribe, the correct authorship of the tribe is
Cedreleae DC., because Candolle provided a validating Latin diagnosis."=20

La fin de la phrase pourrait =EAtre :
..... the correct authorship of the tribe is Cedreleae DC (or Cedreleae R.
Br. ex DC.), because Candolle provided a validating Latin diagnosis and
ascribed the name to R. Brown (Art.46.4)."=20

Cordialement

Guy  Redeuilh
Tel =3D Fax: 00 33 1 30 90 84 47
redeuilh at club-internet.fr

----------
> De : jr19 <James_L_REVEAL at UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
> A : Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM <TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
> Objet : Proposal to Establish Rankless Suprageneric Names
> Date=A0: dimanche 23 novembre 1997 11:51
>=20
> An article, "Seventeen proposals to amend the Code on suprageneric
names,"
> is published electronically in approximately the manner to be presented
by
> Taxon in early 1998. The proposals are made public at this time to allo=
w
> individuals time to send comments to me prior to final page proofs.
>=20
> One subject not addressed in the article is the concept expressed
recently
> by Kron (Aliso 15(2). 1997) of using a single termination for all
non-ranked
> taxa above the rank of genus. Her idea is to establish the termination
-ina
> as a uniform ending for all names for which a  formal Linnaean rank is
> intentionally not given. To accomplish this task, I would like to make
the
> following  suggestion.
>=20
> Add to Art. 16 (see proposal 8 below) the following:
>=20
> h. Rankless: -ina. Restricted to otherwise validly published supragener=
ic
> names published on or after 1 Jan 2000 for which a rank, contrary to Ar=
t.
> 35.1, is purposefully not assigned.
>=20
> This would accomplish three important goals. For names above the rank o=
f
> genus it would be possible to use suprageneric names without rank with
> position determined within the classification scheme by whatever means
one
> might wish (e.g., indentation, adding numbers, etc.). Second, it would
> require persons using such names to otherwise follow provisions of the
> International Code of Botanical Nomenclature thereby making names
available
> for transfer to recognized ranks if so desired by other workers. Third,
the
> use of a single, distinctive termination would make such names instantl=
y
> recognizable as purposefully rankless names which are not to be confuse=
d
> with names otherwise given formal rank according to established
tradition.
>=20
> The above proposal does not prevent one from using a multitude of named
> ranks as the Code already permits this (Art. 4.3). The sequence of rank=
s
and
> their terminations, however, must conform to those in the Code.
Additional
> ranks and novel terminations can be used as long as they do not cause
> confusion or error. The proposal, therefore, does not prevent the
ultimate
> establishment of numerous new ranks and terminations, but allows either
the
> development of them or the total abandonment of them as one wishes.
>=20
> I would particularly like to hear comments on this point. It is past ti=
me
to
> submit proposals, but perhaps the editors of Taxon would allow an
additional
> proposal if this can be discussed in a timely fashion.
>=20
> http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/fam/articles.html
>=20
> James L. Reveal
> (MARY)