(Fwd) Re: (Fwd) ICBN Articles 33.2 & 33.3

[Jacques Melot]

=A0Le 9/11/98, =E0 14:14 +0100, nous recevions de Rodham E. Tulloss :

>I believe that the first article governs publication at present (how
>one should write an article proposing a new name today).  The second
>article refers to liberal interpretation of old authors.  At least that
>is the way I have always thought about the pair in question.

   Cher Rodham,

   Le second article (Art. 33.3) s'applique, comme le premier, aux noms p=
ublies a partir du 1er janvier 1953, donc aussi aux auteurs actuels. Au s=
urplus, les exemples donnes concernent des publication faites en 1969, 19=
70 et 1980 respectivement.

   Amicalement,

   Jacques Melot, Reykjavik


>And...I heartily concur with Mike Vincent's comments about full paginati=
on
>of the original description (if that happens to be the same as the
>pagination of the article in which the name is proposed, OK).  It might
>be just as worthy an approach (for easy of photocopy access, for example=
)
>if the rule were to allow citation of all page number on which the
>epithet in question or the new species is referenced in the article
>containing the original description (say on first and last pages
>in summary comments, on page 133 in comparison to another new taxon, and
>on pages 129-131 in the full original description).
>
>In other words, there should be no harm in "indexing" the original
>publication.
>
>Very best,
>
>Rod