citation of basionyms

[JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE]

Terima kasih banyak kedua kali kepada kawanku Jacques Melot.
(= Muchas gracias otra vez a mi colega Juaquin Melot).

This time, I am afraid I must agree with my distinguished
colleague concerning my first problem, in which a protologue
was interrupted with the words "To be continued." If, as I
stated, this was published in 1906, no type designation was
necessary. All that was necessary was a description. About two
years ago, we had a long discussion on Taxacom on the question
of what constituted an adequate description. We concluded that the
"in the opinion of the author" clause in the ICBN meant that even
a single word of description (e.g., "Tree.") was sufficient.
Before 1935, this could have been in any language: English, Icelandic,
French, Bahasa Indonesia, or Klingon. Thus, if the second part of the
description were followed by a typification, this would not be
part of the protologue and should be regarded as a lecto- or neo-
typification rather than a holotypification.
   As for second example, in which the majority of the protologue
was in one part of the book but the Latin diagnosis in an
appendix in the rear, someone suggested in personal communication
that the Latinless diagnosis in the front established a nomen nudum,
invalidating the formally described name later on. Two problems
with that: 1) a nomen nudum has no standing and does not invalidate
later formal descriptions using the same name; and 2) there is
no such thing as page priority under the ICBN. If page 10 and
page 100 were published on the same day, they have equal priority.
My own answer to my own question is that you would probably have
to cite both pages. Recent plant descriptions require three
elements: Latin description or diagnosis, type designation, and
indication of where the type is housed. Putting these on three
different pages of the same book would be inconvenient for
someone trying to cite the protologue, but it would cover the
law.
  Incidentally, on the subject of indications of where a type
is housed, I have also seen statements in the introductions of
lengthy articles saying "All specimens cited are housed at NY"
or something like that. Thus, technically, that statement would
have to be considered part of the protologue even if it were on
page 2 and the diagnosis and typification were on page 36.

--
Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere
"Computito ergo sum ...  I link therefore I am."