What's in a Name?

[Paul Kirk]

Richard,

New combination do not require 'comb. nov.', they just require an
association of (in this case) a generic name and specific epithet for the
first time in a 'valid context' (see Arts 32-45, ICBN) - they may not (date
limited) require citation of the basionym or its authors or a reference
(http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/0037Ch4Sec2a
033.htm).

vague or what ;-)

Paul

Dr Paul M. Kirk
Biosystematist
CABI Bioscience
Bakeham Lane
Egham
Surrey TW20 9TY
UK

tel. (+44) (0)1491 829023, fax (+44) (0)1491 829100, email p.kirk at cabi.org
www.cabi-bioscience.org
***********************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it
is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If
you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution,
copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited.


Whilst CAB International takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses
via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from
computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own
anti-virus precautions.

If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail
at cabi at cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the
e-mail and any copies of it.

***********************************************************************



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pyle [mailto:deepreef at BISHOPMUSEUM.ORG]
Sent: 16 June 2003 07:18
To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] What's in a Name?


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