Basionym/Protologue -- One more question

[Curtis Clark]

At 15:23 2002-06-29, Richard Pyle wrote:
>O.K., so if, suppose, the name first appears in one publication,

Nomen nudum.

>and then
>the diagnosis is supplied by a later publication,

Assuming the name is "repeated", this is the protologue, with basionym. In
the unlikely even that the diagnosis referred to the name only by
bibliographic citation, without repeating it, the diagnosis is of no
meaning wrt the Code.

>then do I understand
>correctly that the latter represents both the source of the Basionym *and*
>the complete Protologue (with its associated authorship), with the former
>publication not constituting any part of either the Basionym or the
>Protologue?

Exactly (at least in ICBN).

>Same question applies to a case where an earlier publication
>asserts a diagnosis for something along the lines of "the western population
>of GenusX speciesY", and a latter publication assigns the new name "GenusX
>speciesQ" with reference to the earlier-pubished diagnosis,

If there were no diagnosis accompanying the name, but only a bibliographic
reference to one (and the name were new), I suspect this would be a nomen
nudum according to the ICBN, but I'm no Code Warrior.


--
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Biological Sciences Department            Voice: +1 909 869 4062
California State Polytechnic University     FAX: +1 909 869 4078
Pomona CA 91768-4032  USA                  jcclark at csupomona.edu