A zoologist asks: botanical names practice

[Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG]

My understanding is that there are two levels of using names.

The first is the monograph or revision or checklist, in which correct names
are distinguished from homotypic and heterotypic synonyms.

The second is miscellaneous floristic, vegetational and ecological reports
that cite or imply a particular latest or accepted checklist/revision -- the
correct names of which are followed (without authority citation).

Sure, we tack on authorities when only a few names are included, but
sometimes the practice is not necessary, such as in long lists of species
names, especially when identity is less important than e.g. ecology or
evolutionary relationships, and clearly based on relevant taxonomic
checklists or revisions.


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Petit [mailto:r.e.petit at WORLDNET.ATT.NET]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 9:23 AM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] A zoologist asks: botanical names practice

I am also amazed at the suggestion by others on TAXACOM that references to
original citations are unnecessary. How else can it be insured that all
workers are referring to the same taxon?