nomenclature precedence

[Joseph H. Kirkbride, Jr.]

Nigel has referred to one of the rarely mentioned difficulties arising
from past and present codes of botanical nomenclature.  The ICBN
stipulates that a description or diagnosis must accompany each publication
of a new name.  Tom Lammers cited several pertinant articles, but he
failed to cite the critical one for this case:

32.2 A diagnosis of a taxon is a statement of that which in the opinion of
its author distinguishes the taxon from others.

The diagnosis must be considered in the context of its author.  If the
diagnosis is totally and completely inadequate in the present, modern
context, that has NO bearing on the validity of the name.  I studied
nomenclature with Arthur Cronquist, and he illustrated this point by
comparing some of Linneaus' 'phrase names' with modern descriptions of the
same species.  Cronquist concluded that Linnaeus' 'phrase names' were
inadequate as diagnoses at the present time, but his species were valid
because in Linnaeus' opinion they were adequate for distinguishing the
taxa in his publication.

Another example is illustrated in the following publication:

Kirkbride, J.H., Jr.  1982.  The Cinchona species of Jose Celestino Mutis.
Taxon 31(4): 693-697.

Mutis published four species of Cinchona in a local newspaper in Bogota,
Colombia, on 11 October 1793 (Fig. 1, Kirkbride, 1982): Cinchona
lancifolia: "Hoj. de lanza"; C. oblongifolia: "Hoja oblonga"; C.
cordifolia: "Hoj. de Corazon"; and C. ovalifolia: "Hoja oval".  These four
species are validly published because they have diagnoses in Spanish which
distinguish them, one from another, in the opinion of their author, Jose
Celestino Mutis.

Therefore Author X (the author of the recent paper) can NOT dismiss the
name of author Y, published in 1821, because authur Y "failed to give a
clear definition of the taxon".  If author Y gave any sort of description,
then obviously author Y accepted his desciption as "adequate", and his
name is validly published.

Joseph H. Kirkbride, Jr.
USDA, Agricultural Research Service
Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory
Room 304, Building 011A, BARC-West
Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350 USA
Voice telephone: 301-504-9447
FAX: 301-504-5810
Internet: jkirkbri at asrr.arsusda.gov


On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Colin Smith wrote:

> Hi
>
> Could someone help me with the following problem?  Please return e-mails to the list or blackstn at edgehill.ac.uk.
>
> In a recent paper author X states that author Y (published in 1821) failed to give a clear definition of a taxon (plant).  Author X therefore re-names this taxon using what he considers to be the first validly published name.  However, author Y refers to an earlier plate (published in 1820) which author X accepts as representing a pure specimen of this taxon (indeed author X even lectotypifies the taxon with this plate).  Was author Y required to give a full description in order for his name to be validly published given that the plate he refers to is accepted as an accurate representation of this taxon?  In other words should I use the modern name or the 1821 name in my work.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nigel Blackstock
>