Nomenclatural Status of Berchtold & Presl (1820) tribal names

Tue Apr 13 09:06:06 CDT 1999

--------------4D30B98E704A0F6F983DC9B1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks are due to JeF Velkamp, Rijksherbarium, Leiden, for reviewing the original
publication of Berchtold & Presl to determine the ranks they used.  This brings
up a question that may be worthy of discussion here.
http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/default.htm
-ICBN Art. 18.2 specifies that when the rank of Ordo is used in the modern sense
of Family, the taxon referred to that rank is to be accepted at the rank of
Family.  There is no closing date for this practice.  Art. 19.2 specifies
likewise for Subordos, that these be accepted as Subfamilies.
-Complications in the application of the Code arise when an author used both Ordo
and Family, as was done by Berchtold & Presl and numerous other 19th and early
20th century authors.  Under Art. 33.5 one of these is to be considered misplaced
in rank and thus invalid.  Which rank taxa are invalid in this case, the Ordo
names corrected to Family or those originally ranked as Family ?
-Reveal has considered  in this case that those published as Families are
invalid.  In this publication the Ordo Gramineae Juss. was already published, and
is today accepted as fam. Gramineae. If this is correct it seems to an example of
this ought to be added to the code.
-What if both were new taxa?

Rob  Soreng

jr19 wrote:

> The Berchtold & Presl (1820) invalidly published names
> reported in Indices Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum
> Vascularium at the rank of tribe
>
> In 1996 I attributed the rank of tribe to a series of Berchtold and Presl
> infrafamilial names published in 1820. In doing this I followed the advise of
> others being personally unaware that on page 202, Berchtold and Presl
> specifically equated their rank of "celed" with "familia" under a higher rank
> ("rad") they considered to be the same as "ordo" or what we would now term
> "family" (Art. 18.2). As a result, the some 80 tribal names attributed to
> Berchtold and Presl and reported by me over the years in Indices Nominum
> Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium must now be
> considered invalidly published (Art. 33.5) and new places of publication
> reported for each name. See:
> http://matrix.nal.usda.gov:8080/star/supragenericname.html
>
> In my listing, I give the Berchtold and Presl names reported by me with the
> now corrected authorship and place of publication noted. At present, I have
> not found valid places of publication at the rank of tribe for seven names
> (Baeckeeae, Browallieae, Daleeae, Mercurialideae, Mesueae, Rhapideae and
> Robinieae).
>
> I wish to thank Robert Soreng of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
> DC, for bring this to my attention.
>
> See the listing at http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/PBIO/fam/Berch&Presl.html
>
> Jim Reveal (MARY)

--------------4D30B98E704A0F6F983DC9B1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>
Thanks are due to JeF Velkamp, Rijksherbarium, Leiden, for reviewing the
original publication of Berchtold & Presl to determine the ranks they
used.  This brings up a question that may be worthy of discussion
here.
 <A HREF="http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/default.htm">http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/default.htm</A>
 -ICBN Art. 18.2 specifies that when the rank of Ordo is used in the
modern sense of Family, the taxon referred to that rank is to be accepted
at the rank of Family.  There is no closing date for this practice. 
Art. 19.2 specifies likewise for Subordos, that these be accepted as Subfamilies.
 -Complications in the application of the Code arise when an author
used both Ordo and Family, as was done by Berchtold & Presl and numerous
other 19th and early 20th century authors.  Under Art. 33.5 one of
these is to be considered misplaced in rank and thus invalid.  Which
rank taxa are invalid in this case, the Ordo names corrected to Family
or those originally ranked as Family ?
 -Reveal has considered  in this case that those published as Families
are invalid.  In this publication the Ordo Gramineae Juss. was already
published, and is today accepted as fam. Gramineae. If this is correct
it seems to an example of this ought to be added to the code.
 -What if both were new taxa?

<P>Rob  Soreng

<P>jr19 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>The Berchtold & Presl (1820) invalidly published
names
<BR>reported in Indices Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum
<BR>Vascularium at the rank of tribe

In 1996 I attributed the rank of tribe to a series of Berchtold and
Presl
 infrafamilial names published in 1820. In doing this I followed the
advise of
 others being personally unaware that on page 202, Berchtold and Presl
 specifically equated their rank of "celed" with "familia" under a higher
rank
 ("rad") they considered to be the same as "ordo" or what we would now
term
 "family" (Art. 18.2). As a result, the some 80 tribal names attributed
to
 Berchtold and Presl and reported by me over the years in Indices Nominum
 Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium must now be
 considered invalidly published (Art. 33.5) and new places of publication
 reported for each name. See:
 <A HREF="http://matrix.nal.usda.gov:8080/star/supragenericname.html">http://matrix.nal.usda.gov:8080/star/supragenericname.html</A>

In my listing, I give the Berchtold and Presl names reported by me with
the
 now corrected authorship and place of publication noted. At present,
I have
 not found valid places of publication at the rank of tribe for seven
names
 (Baeckeeae, Browallieae, Daleeae, Mercurialideae, Mesueae, Rhapideae
and
 Robinieae).

I wish to thank Robert Soreng of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
 DC, for bring this to my attention.

<P>See the listing at <A HREF="http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/PBIO/fam/Berch&Presl.html">http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/PBIO/fam/Berch&Presl.html</A>

<P>Jim Reveal (MARY)</BLOCKQUOTE>
 </HTML>

--------------4D30B98E704A0F6F983DC9B1--