[Taxacom] ICBN question

Wed Jul 18 10:10:41 CDT 2007

Dear Torbjörn

I forwarded your query to Dan Nicolson here at the Smithsonian who is a member of the Editorial Committee.  Here is his response:

I discussed the question with Fred Barrie (another member of the Editorial Committee of the Botanical Code who is visiting). We agree that the Code is explicitly clear ... "on or after 1 January 2001 ... the typification statement for a given name must include the phrase 'designated here' (hic designatus) or an equivalent."
The word "equivalent" allows some possibility for the individual statement to vary from "designated here" (i.e., it would not have to be in English).
However, we do not think that it can be stretched to be a statement in the introduction indicating that 41 lectotypifications appear in the paper, none with the statement "designated here".
Before 1 Jan 2001 this would have been possible but not after 1 Jan 2001 when the rule was tightened at the St. Louis Congress (2000).

Dan H. Nicolson

+++++++++

Anna L. Weitzman, PhD
Botanical and Biodiversity Informatics Research
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution

office: 202.633.0846
mobile: 202.415.4684
weitzman at si.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Torbjörn Tyler
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:21 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] ICBN question

Dear colleagues,

Owing to ignorant editors I have faced a problem forcing me to understand exactly how Art. 7.11 in the ICBN should be interpreted. It states that in order to be valid a lectotypification has to include the phrase "designated here (or equivalent)" in the "typification statement".

The problem has arisen since I have just published a paper whith lectotypifications where this phrase is absent. It is not really my fault since the "equivalent" phrase "selected here" was written directly after "lectotype" in each case in my original manuscript, but the editor/typsetter omitted it throughout when layouting the publication (indeed I can understand that he/she considered it unnessesery to repeat this phrase 41 times in the same paper), and I did not notice it when I got the last proofs...

The whole publication deals solely with lectotypifications and the short introduction ends "Lectotypes for 41 names ... are selected below" and then follows a list of combinations, each with a statement like "Lectotype: ....". In addition, it is stated in the Abstract that "names ... are lectotified".

The question now is if the last sentence in the introduction may be interpreted as part of the "typification statement" in the sense of the Code or if the whole publication has to be regarded as invalid simply because it does not state "Lectotype SELECTED HERE: ...." (as in my original manuscript) in each and every case.

Anyone out there who has some advice? May the lectotypifications still be treated as valid from this publication or do I have to try to force the editor to re-publish the whole paper???

Torbjörn Tyler

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Torbjörn Tyler, Ph.D, 

- Editor in Chief of Nordic Journal of Botany.
- Deputy secretary of Lund Botanical Society, with special responsibility for Projekt Skånes Mossor.
- Responsible for the project The Hieracia of Sweden.

Department of Ecology
Plant Ecology and Systematics
Ecology Building					
Sölvegatan 37			
SE-223 62 Lund	

OR (address for Hieracium herbarium specimen and all mail concerning Lund Botanical Society / Projekt Skånes Mossor): 

Botanical Museum
Ö. Vallgatan 18
SE-223 61 Lund

tel. +(0)46-222 89 78

e-mail: torbjorn.tyler at ekol.lu.se

Private address: Bredgatan 12B, SE-243 32 Höör (=Hoeoer), tel. +(0)413-23123.
___________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom