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

[Gurcharan Singh]

I think I have made my point.

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 Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Paul Kirk <P.Kirk at kew.org> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>