So much for nomenclatural stability

[veldkamp]

Both the ICBN and the ICZN stress their independence from each other, but
not from any particular country's legal system. They state that a name may
be coined any way its author pleases. Moreover, Art. 51 of the ICBN states
that a name is not to be rejected if it is inappropriate or disagreeable,
or when an other is preferable. No doubt the ICZN has a similar statement.

I'd like to see how any government will be able to force the Zoological or
Botanical Congresses to adopt a name that displeases them for rejection. My
guess is that these meetings will become quite mutinous and contrary and
will reject any such proposal just on principle. It would be an interesting
spectacle to see how any judge would be able to force the Codes to include
such an entry!

A previous attempt to make a plant name politically correct is the change
of the lauraceous Phoebe formosana (Hayata) Hayata to Phoebe taiwaniana
Hayata by the anonymous committee that published the series Iconographia
cormophytorum sinicorum 1 (1972) 830, t. 1659. Note the retention of the
authorship!

This nomen politicum is not even mentioned as a synonym in the subsequent
Flora reipublicae popularis sinicae 31 (1982) 115.

I haven't heard of any proposal by the Selby Botanical Garden to propose
Phragmipedium kovachii for rejection. See
http://persoon.si.edu/codes/props/index.cfm which keeps track of such things.

JeF