(Disclaimers in the ICBN)

[Dipteryx]

----- Original Message -----
From: José H. Leal <jleal at SHELLMUSEUM.ORG>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Revisions in theses? (Disclaimer)


>On the topic of disclaimers (sorry for temporarily shifting the "theses"
>thread onto something else), how effective are them from a technical, ICZN
>(or ICBN) standpoint?  [...]

José H. Leal, Ph.D., Director

+++++++++++++++++++++

Actually I am curious. Disclaimers in the ICBN seem to be fairly clearcut
but there are gray areas. There appear two relevant items in the ICBN

1) valid publication requires "a description or diagnosis" (Art 32.1.c) with
a diagnosis defined as "... in the opinion of its author distinguishes the
taxon from others." (Art 32.2)

2) valid publication requires acceptance by the author (Art 34.1.a: "when it
is not accepted by the author in the original publication;")

So I am dealing with a case where a name was published and
1) the author did not intend this as valid publication (it is something
intended for the popular press and he intends to follow it up with a formal
botanical publication to the state of the art. He states this explicitly.
Unfortunately he dies before finishing his "real" work, which remains
unpublished until much later).
2) his "description" is so vague as to be barely recognizable (if that) as
applying to that taxon (it is for the popular press!)
3) the author does not accept the publication. However in a sense he does
accept the name in that it is the one he (probably) will use in the
publication that counts.
4) botanical tradition is divided as to accepting these names, but these are
in the Index Kewensis and several reference works. At least sort of (it is
an early nineteenth century publication). Most of the names are of no
consequence (synonyms when published, etc) but two remain of some currency.

Any thoughts?

Best, Paul van Rijckevorsel