duplicate publication of plant name

[Jacques Melot]

[Version ASCII, version integre a la suite :]

   Le 4/02/99, a 13:14 -0000, nous recevions de JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE :

>I have a hypothetical question for the ICBN experts
>in the crowd.
>   Suppose, hypothetically speaking, a name were published
>in two places by the same author with the same type, with
>no reference in either publication of the other publication.



   Cela se produit encore, notamment en mycologie. Pour gagner du temps o=
u
pour d'autres raisons, il arrive qu'un auteur publie le meme nom (base su=
r
le meme type) dans des publications differentes.
   Parmi ces publications, c'est la premiere parue effectivement qui
constitue la publication originale, les autres ne sont que des artefacts
bibliographiques.
   Ceci est une mauvaise pratique pour plusieurs raisons, specialement
parce que certains periodiques indiquent la date de parution sous forme d=
u
mois de publication (par exemple, mai 1995) d'autres sous une forme plus
precise (par exemple, 12 mai 1995). Dans ce cas, il est souvent impossibl=
e
de savoir laquelle des deux est prioritaire. C'est genant pour les
citations de publication originale, car dans le doute on est oblige d'en
citer deux ou plus.



>I have seen this happen, for example, in early editions of
>Curtis's Botanical Magazine when authors start quoting
>unpublished manuscripts of their colleagues. If, for
>example, Ker-Gawler were to say "My distinguished colleague
>Mr. Brown describes this plant as "Folia ternata purpurea
>lanata lagomorphomorpha," [i.e. Leaves ternate, purple,
>woolly, rabbit-shaped] according to our late-20th-Century
>ICBN Brown is the authority, and the plant is to be cited
>as "Brown in Ker-Gawler."



   La nouvelle formulation (Tokyo) de l'article 46 est destinee a resoudr=
e
ce genre de probleme, en attribuant a son auteur reel un nom qui, sinon,
serait attribue a un autre auteur.



>   Suppose, however, that the distinguished Mr. Brown then published
>this same plant name in his own book, with no reference to
>Ker-Gawler's paper in Bot Mag. Technically, if you want to
>get picky, his name is both a conspecific synonym and an
>illegitimate homonym. It is likely that many workers
>would cite Brown's publication as the original place of
>publication, ignoring Ker-Gawler's previous note.
>   My question is: what difference does this make?



   Si Ker-Gawler a clairement cite le type de participation de Mr. Brown
dans l'elaboration du nom, l'article 46 s'applique et Mr. Brown est
l'auteur a citer. Donc pas de probleme.



>What
>problems would be caused by people citing the later
>publication with the same name by the same author with
>the same type? By my reading of the ICBN, the only
>difficulty would be if someone were to use Brown's name
>as basionym for a new combination. Even then, one could
>argue that citing the later work would be fine because of
>the clause in the ICBN saying "Errors in citation of
>basionyms do not invalidate publication"



   Oui, c'est une erreur dans une citation bibliographique au sens large.



>or something
>to that effect. Can anyone think of any other problems
>citation of the later publication would cause?



   Non. Le Code est parfait !!!



>   This question is purely hypothetical. Honest.
>
>
>
>--
>Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere
>"Computito ergo sum ...  I link therefore I am."


   Salutations amicales,

   Jacques Melot, Reykjavik

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
[Version int=E8gre :]

=A0Le 4/02/99, =E0 13:14 -0000, nous recevions de JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE :

>I have a hypothetical question for the ICBN experts
>in the crowd.
>   Suppose, hypothetically speaking, a name were published
>in two places by the same author with the same type, with
>no reference in either publication of the other publication.



   Cela se produit encore, notamment en mycologie. Pour gagner du temps o=
u
pour d'autres raisons, il arrive qu'un auteur publie le m=EAme nom (bas=E9=
 sur
le m=EAme type) dans des publications diff=E9rentes.
   Parmi ces publications, c'est la premi=E8re parue effectivement qui
constitue la publication originale, les autres ne sont que des artefacts
bibliographiques.
   Ceci est une mauvaise pratique pour plusieurs raisons, sp=E9cialement
parce que certains p=E9riodiques indiquent la date de parution sous forme=
 du
mois de publication (par exemple, mai 1995) d'autres sous une forme plus
pr=E9cise (par exemple, 12 mai 1995). Dans ce cas, il est souvent impossi=
ble
de savoir laquelle des deux est prioritaire. C'est g=EAnant pour les
citations de publication originale, car dans le doute on est oblig=E9 d'e=
n
citer deux ou plus.



>I have seen this happen, for example, in early editions of
>Curtis's Botanical Magazine when authors start quoting
>unpublished manuscripts of their colleagues. If, for
>example, Ker-Gawler were to say "My distinguished colleague
>Mr. Brown describes this plant as "Folia ternata purpurea
>lanata lagomorphomorpha," [i.e. Leaves ternate, purple,
>woolly, rabbit-shaped] according to our late-20th-Century
>ICBN Brown is the authority, and the plant is to be cited
>as "Brown in Ker-Gawler."



   La nouvelle formulation (Tokyo) de l'article 46 est destin=E9e =E0 r=E9=
soudre
ce genre de probl=E8me, en attribuant =E0 son auteur r=E9el un nom qui, s=
inon,
serait attribu=E9 =E0 un autre auteur.



>   Suppose, however, that the distinguished Mr. Brown then published
>this same plant name in his own book, with no reference to
>Ker-Gawler's paper in Bot Mag. Technically, if you want to
>get picky, his name is both a conspecific synonym and an
>illegitimate homonym. It is likely that many workers
>would cite Brown's publication as the original place of
>publication, ignoring Ker-Gawler's previous note.
>   My question is: what difference does this make?


   Si Ker-Gawler =E0 clairement cit=E9 le type de participation de Mr. Br=
own
dans l'=E9laboration du nom, l'article 46 s'applique et Mr. Brown est
l'auteur =E0 citer. Donc pas de probl=E8me.


>What
>problems would be caused by people citing the later
>publication with the same name by the same author with
>the same type? By my reading of the ICBN, the only
>difficulty would be if someone were to use Brown's name
>as basionym for a new combination. Even then, one could
>argue that citing the later work would be fine because of
>the clause in the ICBN saying "Errors in citation of
>basionyms do not invalidate publication"


   Oui, c'est une erreur dans une citation bibliographique au sens large.


>or something
>to that effect. Can anyone think of any other problems
>citation of the later publication would cause?



   Non. Le Code est parfait !!!



>   This question is purely hypothetical. Honest.
>
>
>
>--
>Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere
>"Computito ergo sum ...  I link therefore I am."


   Salutations amicales,

   Jacques Melot, Reykjavik