[Taxacom] The Index Kewensis we were once Proud of and ThePlantList

[Paul Kirk]

Authorship for the 'parent' of an infraspecific name is 'superfluous' for any name that is being proposed as correct - just leave it out. Orthographic variants do not have authorship different from the orthographically correct form of the name ... something which has 'crept into' The Plant List for one of the examples cited at the start of this thread.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Paul van Rijckevorsel
Sent: 15 September 2014 10:23
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] The Index Kewensis we were once Proud of and ThePlantList

It looks safe to say that just about anybody would think it unusual to list differences between a variety and a subspecies.

As to Curtis Clark's point that the name of an infraspecific taxon consists of three parts, this has been the case for a long time, to be precise since the 1966, Edinburgh Code (now in Art. 24.1 and Art. 24 Ex. 1).

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gurcharan Singh" <singhg45 at gmail.com>
To: "Curtis Clark" <lists at curtisclark.org>
Cc: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2014 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] The Index Kewensis we were once Proud of and ThePlantList


>I just have a simple question. Since while discussing taxa in a
> publication, we mainly use accepted names, will it be alright if I use the
> statement "Anagallis arvensis L. var. caerulea (L.) Gouan differes from
> Anagallis arvensis L. subsp. foemina (Mill.) Schinz & Thell in following
> characters................................................................"
> , will it be alright for my *more expert scholars??*
> 
> 
> Dr. Gurcharan Singh
> Retired  Associate Professor
> SGTB Khalsa College, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007
> Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.
> Phone: 011-25518297  Mob: 9810359089
> http://www.gurcharanfamily.com/
> http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/
> 
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Curtis Clark <lists at curtisclark.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-09-13 8:54 AM, Gurcharan Singh wrote:
>>
>>> More so
>>> if we have a subspecies foemina, we also need to have a subspecies
>>> anagallis, and var. caerulea has to find place among any of these two, not
>>> just a variety under the species. The example I have given defies all
>>> rules
>>> of botanical nomenclature.
>>>
>>
>> I used to think that, too, but several years ago on Taxacom it was pointed
>> out by several scholars more expert in the Code than I that placing a
>> variety within a subspecies is a classification, not a name.
>>
>> --
>> Curtis Clark        http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
>> Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4140
>> Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.