ICBN requirements

[JOSEPH E. LAFERRIERE]

Some interesting suggestions were made yesterday
for changing the ICBN's minimum requirements for
publication. I applaud the creativity of the writer.
However, I see a few problems in the suggestions,
stemming mostly from the lack of universality.

1. Providing a key to all the members of the
genus in which the new species is placed.

Quercus?? Solanum?? Selaginella??

2. Providing a key to the ten closest relatives of the new species.

Several problems here. a) Suppose there are only 4 other
species in the genus [I suppose you could solve this
problem by allowing the author to opt for #1 above].
b) Suppose there is an unresolved taxonomic problem
between two or more of the existing species. This proposal
would seem to require resolution of that problem before
any new species could be described, even if the new species
is far removed from the problematic species.  c) Suppose
the author makes an error in the key, an error concerning
two of the old taxa but not affecting the new one. Does
this invalidate the new name?

One must distinguish between recommendations and requirements.
A recommendation represents the ideal situation which may
apply to many if not most situations. A requirement, on the
other hand, must be applicable to 100% of all conceivable
possibilities. The current requirement is that a Latin
description or diagnosis must in the opinion of its author
distinguish between the new taxon and ALL previously known
taxa. Thus if 100 members of a genus are known, all with
yellow flowers, and you discover one with red flowers, you
need only two words of Latin: "Flos ruber." Nobody will
take issue with this.
   The problem of course lies in the infamous "in the opinion
of its author" clause. I shall gladly pay $10 if you can
point out a description its own author does not feel meets
the minimum requirement. Still, there are some things (such
as keys) which in my humble opinion belong in the realm of
editorial discretion rather than being mandated by the ICBN.
   In contrast to Tom, I prefer a Latin description in the
nominative rather than a diagnosis in the ablative. These
I find much easier to write and easier to read. Most ablative
diagnoses I have seen take the pattern "Similar to Planta
hypothetica but ..." Thus the author is in fact distinguishing
between the new taxon and ONE old taxon. A nominative
description by its very nature needs to distinguish
between the new taxon and all the old taxa.

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