What's in a Name?

[Richard Pyle]

Hi Paul,

Many thanks for the prompt and informative reply!

> For botanical names the words "new combination" are used only in the
> relevant publication (as "comb.nov.") to mark the event. After that it is
> just a combination, no longer being new.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm looking for -- the relevant publication where
the combination is *first* established.  Does the botanical code require
that "comb. nov." or equivalent be explicitly stated to "count" as a
"legitiamte" new combination (i.e., to warrant subsequent authorship
citation)?  Or does simply the act of *using* the new combination in a
publication for the first time represent designation as a "legitimate" new
combination?

> > [1] Anthias ventralis Randall hawaiiensis Randall
> > [2] Pseudanthias ventralis (Randall) Smith subspecies hawaiiensis
> (Randall) Hoover
> > [3] Pseudanthias hawaiiensis (Randall) Randall
>
> > The "Smith" in the second one is
> fictitious in this case, but represents whoever it was that first placed
> "ventralis" in the genus Pseudanthias.
> + + + published the epithet "ventralis" at the rank of species in
> the genus
> Pseudanthias + + +

Yes, exactly.

> > "Hoover" in the second one represents
> the first person to publish the subspecies epithet "hawaiiensis" in the
> context of the genus Pseudanthias.
> + + +  Hoover was the one to publish hawaiiensis at the rank of
> subspecies within the species P.ventralis. If somebody else moved
> it to the
> rank of variety it would get a new authority. Also for forma. + + +

Got it -- so that addresses my subsequent questions about rank-shifts
constituting an act of "new combination" worthy of authorhip recognition.

> + + + Randall was the one to publish this epithet at the rank of
> species in
> Pseudanthias. It might have been a species in another genus before. + + +

Got it -- so if "Jones" had published "Anthias hawaiiensis (Randall) Jones"
before the second Randall publication, then "Psuedanthias hawaiiensis
(Randall) Randall" would still be cited as such (i.e., with both Randall
authorships).

> The operative words are "effective publication" ie the physical
> thing (book,
> magazine, but not CD) in Art 29 (30, 31) and "valid publication" which is
> the information, covered in Art 32-45

Thanks -- that answers my questions (as well as the other questions not
quoted above, which had straightforward answers).

> Hoping to have covered the main points

Very mich so, thank you!

Aloha,
Rich

> Paul van Rijckevorsel
> Utrecht, NL