Reply: ICBN articles 33.2 and 33.3

[Gerry Moore]

        The examples cited by JC Coatzee address two different issues. The
example (Ex. 4) under Art 33.2 deals with the errors of proper citation of
page or plate reference (i.e,. citing the correct publication but
deliberately citing the wrong pagination sequence), while the example (Ex.
6) under Article 33.3 deals with errors of bibliographic citation (i.e.,
citing an incorrect place, author, date of valid publication).
        Peerally (Ex 4), deliberately cited the entire article rather than
the p. or pp. on which the basionym or protologue was validly published.
Thus, he did not follow the rules of the operating Berlin Code (p. 33,
footnote 1; Art. 33.2, Note 1 of Tokyo Code). If his citation error were
typographical, one might use Art. 33.3 to claim that his combination was
validly published.
        Tryon's (Ex. 6) error of giving an incorrect bibliographic citation
does seem more severe than Peerally's, but I think the key here was his
error was not deliberately done. He thought he was citing the correct place
of valid publication for the basionym Alsophila kalbreyi but his C. Chr.
1905 Index Filic. citation was predated by Baker Summ. New Ferns 1892.
        Writing a rule that would invalidate Tryon's combination due to his
error of bibliographic citation is made difficult by the fact that what
constitutes the correct author place, and date of valid publication can
vary from Code to Code, as subsequent editions tinker with requirements of
valid publication (e.g., through suppression of works, changing the
starting dates of priority). See Example 7 under Art. 33.3 for an example
of shifting dates and place of valid publication from Code to Code. I
suspect it would be most difficult to write and apply  a rule of
nomenclature that would tease apart the Tryon case (an error under the Code
operating at the time as well as the current Code) and cases involving
correct citations under the then operating Code but incorrect under the
current Code. This is quite different than the more stable issue of page
citation on which the basionym was validly published or on which the
protologue is printed (Note: Michael Vincent in a subsequent posting
stated: "It seems to me that the entire pagination of the protologue should
be cited..." Actually the Code does permit you to cite the entire
protologue (see p. 10, footnote 1 of ICBN for definition of protologue) -
it does not permit you to cite the entire article if the two are not
coextensive).
         It may seem unfair to invalidate Peerally's "combination"  on the
grounds that he deliberately cited a few extra pages. But rewriting the
rule (Art. 33.2) to permit the entire article to be cited even when it is
not coextensive with the protologue has its problems as well. For example,
someone publishing a new combination based on a basionym buried in a 3000
page, unindexed monograph would need only cite the pagination of the whole
article (3000 pp.) and leave subsequent workers wading through the
monograph in search of the basionym of concern.
        Thus, I really don't see a contradiction. Trying to remedy the
perceived unfairness regarding Peerally (he is treated in a heavy-handed
manner) and Tryon (he is let off rather easily) will probably have other
negative consequences discussed above. Codes can't always be fair. Think of
all the magnificent pre-Linnaean works that today are rarely consulted
because they are no longer regarded as validly published under the Code.

Cheers,

Gerry Moore
Postdoctoral Fellow
Department of Botany
Duke University
Durham, N.C.