[Taxacom] ICBN question

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

It looks pretty unambiguous to me:
7.11.  For purposes of priority (Art. 9.17, 9.18, and 10.5), designation
of a type is achieved only if the type is definitely accepted as such by
the typifying author, if the type element is clearly indicated by direct
citation including the term "type" (typus) or an equivalent, and, on or
after 1 January 2001, if the typification statement includes the phrase
"designated here" (hic designatus) or an equivalent.

--- 

The typification statement concerns the indication of the type,
namely of that particular type element. The typification statement
should contain the word Lectotype (or an equivalent) and the
phrase "designated here" or an equivalent.

So, I am afraid that designation of a type has not been achieved, not in any 
of these cases.

Yet another example of the dangers of "copy-editting"
Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Torbjörn Tyler" <Torbjorn.Tyler at sysbot.lu.se>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:21 PM
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