[Taxacom] Why Amomum (1753) rejected Zingiber (1754) accepted

[Paul van Rijckevorsel]

Like Tony Rees said names can be conserved or rejected
(that is, an International Botanical Congress may decide to
include a name in a list of exceptions, a list that is part of 
the ICNafp).

As Dr Singh points out Amomum is not rejected against
Zingiber, and there is a long history of both Amomum and
Zingiber being in use side by side, so this was not felt to
be a problem.

Of course, this phenomenon of the conservation of
Amomum is a fairly uncomfortable one. There is a
degree of continuity between the 1753 Amomum
of Linnaeus (which goes back to 1737) and the name
now in use. But it has been decided to conserve
a later use, with a different type (and a circumscription
quite different from that of Linnaeus). In this way a
new name is created, without being validly published
in the first place, while the original name is henceforth
treated as an earlier homonym, not illegitimate, but
unavailable for use.

Paul

From: "Pudji Widodo" <pudjiwi at yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 1:57 AM

Dear Sirs,
I would like to ask you. Why
Amomum L., Sp. Pl.: 1 (1753), nom. rej.
Zingiber Mill., Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4: s.p. (1754), nom.
cons.


Infact in ICNafp Principle
III The nomenclature of a taxonomic
group is based upon priority of publication.
Thank you

Yours Sincerely
Pudji Widodo
Fakultas Biologi, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman
Jl. Dr Soeparno 63
Purwokerto 53122, INDONESIA
Phone (62) 281 638794, Fax (62) 281 631700, mobile:085716518425
pudjiwi at yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.


-----
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 2014.0.4259 / Virusdatabase: 3705/7111 - datum van uitgifte: 
02/20/14