new names for already described taxon

[redeuilh]

Dans votre exemple:

Planta viridis serait un nom VALIDE mais seulement en tant que sp. nov.,
sous r=E9serve d'avoir ete valide avec diagnose latine (si la validation =
est
post-1935) + Type (si la validation est post-1958).=20
Ce nom serait legitime, parce qu'il est d'un rang different de var.
=20
Si ces conditions ne sont pas respectees, planta viridis est INVALIDE en
tant que comb. nov. (epithete differente) et en tant que nom. nov.

Comme vous l'indiquez, un nomen novum a uniquement pour objet de REMPLACE=
R
un nom qui est (ou qui serait) illegitime - preoccupe =3D homonyme (mais,
notez, non un nom illegitime - superflu !), mais ce n'est pas le cas que
vous envisagez.

Cordialement

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


----------
> De : METZING DETLEV <metzing at HRZ1.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
> A : Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM <TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
> Objet : new names for already described taxon
> Date=A0: mercredi 13 mai 1998 12:55
>=20
> In a small botanical journal I found several new names for taxa of
> Cactaceae. In some cases these new species names were used for taxa,
> which were already described as varieties of other species. But the
> author did not make a new combination, eg. he transferred Planta
> mirabilis var. neglecta L. to Planta neglecta (L.) Miller, but he
> choosed a new name (e.g. Planta viridis) although the former variety
> is listed as basionym.
> Is this a correct way in the sense of the ICBN? I know, that a nomen
> novum may be choosed, when a transfer from one species to another
> genus would result in an illegitime name, but may a nomen novum also
> used for the example mentioned above?
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------
> Detlev Metzing
> AG Pflanzenoekologie
> FB Biologie
> Carl von Ossietzky-Universitaet
> D - 26111 Oldenburg
> Germany
>=20
> email metzing at hrz1.uni-oldenburg.de
> Tel. ++49 441 798 3342
> Fax. ++49 4230 1571
> ---------------------------