[Taxacom] Nomina nuda and genbank?

[Thomas G. Lammers]

At 11:09 AM 10/30/2009, Sergio Vargas wrote:
>this question may have a trivial answer: names published in NCBI
>Genbank are not valid, but... out of curiosity: what would happen if
>publish a paper using a GenBank name without checking (not many people
>check anyways) that the name actually exists? Would this name be a
>Nomen Nudum then? and if so... does any one knows how are we going to
>handle the Nomina Nuda in the future... GenBank is a major source of
>funny names!!!!

I can only speak for plants and the ICBN.

In order to be validly published, a name must have a type specimen 
designated and a Latin diagnosis or description (if it is a new taxon) or a 
reference to a previously published homotypic name (if it is a new 
combination or an avowed substitute).  If one or both are lacking, it is 
NOT a "name" (naked or otherwise) under Art. 6.3.  And if it does not 
satisfy Art. 6.3, then under Art. 12.1, it has NO standing under the ICBN.

Short answer: "nomina nuda" DO NOT EXIST.  They are to be ignored.


Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.

Associate Professor
Curator of the Neil A. Harriman Herbarium (OSH)
Department of Biology and Microbiology
800 Algoma Blvd.
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901-8640 USA

e-mail:       lammers at uwosh.edu
phone:      920-424-1002
fax:           920-424-1101

Plant systematics; classification, nomenclature, evolution, and 
biogeography of the Campanulaceae s. lat.

Webpages:
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/Lammers.htm
http://www.uwosh.edu/departments/biology/herbarium/herbarium.html
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=297234
http://www.mbgpress.info/index.php?task=id&id=90602
http://www.kewbooks.com/asps/ShowDetails.asp?id=615
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Resort/7156/lammers.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that stood his ground."
                                                               -- Anonymous