Conservation question

[redeuilh]

Voici quelques elements dereponse.

Je reprends votre proposition sans avoir verifie Bulliard.

La planche originale comportant la validation (Bull. 1782-1783, Herb. Fr., pl. 98), seul matiriel
original eligible en thiorie (` confirmer, voir si Bulliard n'a pas indique de synonymes) n'est pas
explicite, mais la planche publiee ulterieurement (Bull. 1791, Herb. Fr., pl. 512) est explicite.

Fries (S. M. 1:14, 1821) a sanctionne Ag. vaginatus Bull. :Fr. en se referant a ces deux planches
(j'ai verifie).

Le statut special de typification des noms sanctionnes (Art.7.8) permet aujourd'hui de les typifier
en associant le materiel indique par l'auteur sanctionnant (Fries) au materiel original, lorsqu'il
en resulte un avantage du point de vue de la stabilite nomenclaturale. Cette disposition peut donc
s'appliquer ici: vous pouvez designer formellement sans autre procedure la planche n0 512 de
Bulliard comme type de Ag. vaginatus Bull. :Fr., puisque vous la jugez representative du taxon.

On considere que ce type sera assimilable ` un neotype et non a un lectotype (le Code ne dit rien
sur ce point mais un consensus s'etablit actuellement dans ce sens).

C'est seulement ulterieurement, si un mycologue estime que ce type est ambigu ou non interpretable,
que la designation d'un epitype moderne (spicimen) pourra jtre proposee.

Salutations

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

----------
> De : Rodham E. Tulloss <ret at PLUTO.NJCC.COM>
> A : Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM <TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
> Objet : Conservation question
> Date : dimanche 26 juillet 1998 03:00
>
> This is question about the definition of "name" in the ICBN.
>
> The change of starting dates for some fungi from Fries to Linnaeus has
> altered the meaning of a key name in the genus Amanita.  Namely, Amanita
> vaginata.  The change of starting date makes the correct author citation
> "(Bull.:Fr.) Lamarck."  The problem arises because of the requirements
> regarding lectotypification.  The only piece of original material available
> would be Bulliard's first plate of Agaricus vaginatus.  Whatever this
> entity is (and this is quite unclear), it is not what has been understood
> as A. vaginata since Fries' times.  Amanita vaginata is the type of the
> conserved generic name Amanitopsis.  Amanita vaginata is also the type
> of a major section of the genus Amanita (sect. Vaginatae).  The alteration
> of the meaning of the name would be extremely undesirable.
>
> So we turn to the possibility of proposing conservation or rejection of
> a specific combination in favor of the same combination by a later author
> (reject A. vaginata (Bull.:Fr.) Lamarck or conserve A. vaginata (Bull.:Fr.)
> Vitt.)  OR
> rejection of the first publication of the name Agaricus vaginatus Bull. (with
> the uninterpretable and distressing plate) in favor of the second publication
> of the same name several years later with a plate, that while definitely
> requiring an epitype for interpretation, is at least interpretable in a way
> that doesn't disrupt the typification of a genus or a section.
>
> Can the concept of "name" be sliced this thin?
>
> I would be very interested in the expert opinions of taxacom participants.
>
> sincerely,
>
> Rod Tulloss