citation of basionyms

[Andreas Gminder]

JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE wrote:
>
> I just thought of another anomalous situation I encountered
> years ago. A book contained several new taxa. For each, the
> majority of the protologue was in the main body of the book
> (name, type designation, and English description), but the
> Latin diagnoses were relegated to fine print in an appendix
> in the back. What page do you cite?
>


This situation is not as uncommon as one might think. I know of some
books where at the end all taxonomic arrangements are summed up. As an
example you may take the Psathyrella monographie of K. v. WAVEREN
(1985):
For the new species I cite the page number of the appendix, because it
is the latin diagnosis that makes the new species valid, not the
description.
For new combinations I cite the page number of the main part, because
the basionym is already listed there (but without mentioning it
explicitely as "basionym") and is only recapitulated in the appendix

best wishes to all

Andreas Gminder - Stuttgart - Germany