What's in a Name?

[Dipteryx]

Hi Rich,

glad it helped!

> > 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
"legitimate" 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?

+ + +
I am not sure. The use of "gen.nov.", "spec.nov.", "nom.nov.", "comb.nov.",
"stat.nov." is very well established and I would have accepted that this is
required (analogous to Art 9.21 and 37.5 on types). However the ICBN does
not appear to actually require this. All I can come up with is Art 7.4,
which only refers to it, but requires nothing of the sort.

Certainly the older literature does contain nothing like the abbreviations
now in use.

Paul van Rijckevorsel
Utrecht, NL