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

[Michael Vincent]

Forwarded message:
From:     Self <CASSERVER1/VINCENMA>
To: TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) ICBN Articles 33.2 & 33.3
Reply-to: vincenma at muohio.edu
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 07:44:57 -0500

I agree with Dr. Coetzee that there is a problem here. We have
discussed these same examples in the past here as well, and have
agreed that Tryon's error was much more severe than Peerally's.  This
is a fluke in the ICBN which needs to be changed.

It seems to me that if the objective of these articles in the ICBN is
to make it possible to find the protologue of the basionym,
Peerally's citation would accomplish that in 1 step (finding the
correct pages in the original article), while Tryon's mistake
requires 2 steps to do the same...finding the Index Filicum, and then
finding out that Tryon was incorrect and tracking down the correct
protologue.  Tryon's mistake seems much more problematic than
Peerally's!

I have always objected to the way basionyms are cited in
publications.  Why only list one page, when the protologue may
actually cover 2 or 3 or 4?  It seems to me that the entire
pagination of the protologue should be cited, not just the page on
which the Latin diagnosis begins...  I have had trouble over the
years obtaining full protologues, through interlibrary loan for
example, because of the fact that the major indices only list the
first page of a protologue...Why is it that botanists cling to this
archaic means of citation when citing the full protologue pagination
is just a small change from what is done now?

M.A. Vincent
Dr. Michael A. Vincent, Curator    TEL: 513-529-2755
W.S. Turrell Herbarium (MU)        FAX: 513-529-4243
Department of Botany
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio 45056 USA
Email: Vincenma at MUOhio.edu