[Taxacom] species names based on rejected genera

[Veldkamp, J.F. (Jan Frits)]

See Art. 55

55.1. A name of a species or subdivision of a genus may be legitimate
even if its epithet was originally placed under an illegitimate generic
name (see also Art. 22.5). 

Ex. 1. Agathophyllum Juss. (1789) is an illegitimate name, being a
superfluous substitute for Ravensara Sonn. (1782). Nevertheless the name
A. neesianum Blume (1851) is legitimate. Because Meisner (1864) cited A.
neesianum as a synonym of his new Mespilodaphne mauritiana but did not
adopt the epithet neesiana, M. mauritiana Meisn. is a superfluous name
and hence illegitimate. 
55.2. An infraspecific name may be legitimate even if its final epithet
was originally placed under an illegitimate specific name (see also Art.
27.2). 

Ex. 2. Agropyron japonicum var. hackelianum Honda (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo)
41: 385. 1927) is legitimate, even though it was published under the
illegitimate A. japonicum Honda (1927), a later homonym of A. japonicum
(Miq.) P. Candargy (1901) (see also Art. 27 Ex. 1). 
55.3. The names of species and of subdivisions of genera assigned to
genera the names of which are conserved or sanctioned later homonyms,
and which had earlier been assigned to the genera under the rejected
homonyms, are legitimate under the conserved or sanctioned names without
change of authorship or date if there is no other obstacle under the
rules. 

Ex. 3. Alpinia languas J. F. Gmel. (1791) and Alpinia galanga (L.)
Willd. (1797) are to be accepted although Alpinia L. (1753), to which
they were assigned by their authors, is rejected and the genus in which
they are now placed is named Alpinia Roxb. (1810), nom. cons.

JeF

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Athanasios
Athanasiadis
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:47 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] species names based on rejected genera

Hej taxacomers,

who could answer these questions ?
are species names of rejected genera, legitimate ? and which article
regulates that ?

E.g., is Neurocarpus membranaceus Weber et Mohr (1805), listed as the
type of the rejected Neurocarpus (ICBN: 177) available to be used in a
different combination ?

thanks in advance,
Athanasios

Dr. A. Athanasiadis
University of Gothenburg
Marine Botany
P.O. Box 461
SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
Fax int-31-7862727

check updates on antithamniod algae & Aegean seaweeds at:
www.marecol.gu.se/Personal/Athanasios_Athanasiadis_sv/






_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here