Latin descriptions

[JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE]

This debate has been fun. I am sorry to see it winding down.


>Good editors will not accept poor descriptions.

The problem is not with good editors but with bad ones, or
at least ones editing papers outside their own specialties.
Several years ago, I was asked to critique an ethnobotanical
manuscript. The author proposed creating new infraspecific
taxa based solely on isozyme analysis, without any correlating
morphological characters. The Latin diagnosis had nothing
but isozyme information. I recommended that this was a bad
idea, that the paper be rewritten. The editor, an archaeologist,
published it anyway, over my objections.

>And, if the descriptions are
>poor, this can be used as a basis for invalidating the name.

The ICBN says that a new plant taxon must contain a description
or diagnosis that "in the opinion of its author" distinguishes
the new taxon from older ones. In the case of a bad description,
an examination of the type may lead to synonymization, but
nothing short of a rewriting of the ICBN can invalidate the name.

--
Dr. Joseph E. Laferriere
"Computito ergo sum ...  I link therefore I am."