obscure publications

[JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE]

Someone was kind enough to write off-list to point out
to me two fairly recent examples of obscure publications.
On first glance, both seemed the polar opposites
of my inquiry this morning. But they do have some
similarities.
   Both cases involved authors privately printing books or
pamphlets but then refusing to sell them to botanists.
Indeed, according to my source, the BM sued to obtain
a copy of one of these but failed. It was not until years
after they were printed that one of the private recipients
donated copies to a library open to the botanical
community at large.
   My reading of Article 29.1 of the ICBN seems very clear
in indicating that the names contained therein were not
effectively published until the library obtained them. Art
29.1 says a publication must be either "distributed to the
general public" or to "libraries accessible to botanists
generally." Something printed privately and distributed
only to a select few individuals quite clearly does
not meet either of these criteria.
   What I was looking for this morning was items distributed
to the public but so ephemeral that no library saw
fit to preserve copies. My examples of Grateful Dead
concert programs and fliers dropped from airplanes were
facetious, but I can think of real examples where organisms
might be described: gardening brochures, tourist pamphlets
extolling the vegetation surrounding some tropical hotel,
hiking guides to national parks, etc. If any of these
was issued before 1935 with a description in any language,
plus a binomial name not found in Index Kewensis, it
constitutes an effectively published name under 29.1
as currently worded.

--
Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere
who believes very strongly that one should
not have opinions.