[Taxacom] Botanical Code Issue

[Tony Rees]

Hi Michael, I think this is a perfectly good question for an on-list
discussion, unless there are other privacy issues regarding your particular
case...

Animal taxa (fossils are the ones I know of) have been described as plants
in the past on a number of occasions. For the ones I am aware of, the name
remains as "available" (botanical equivalent: validly published) in botany
for the purposes of homonym, even though the taxon is no longer classified
there, and the name then ports to the animal kingdom (other publication
criteria being met) where it can be treated also as an available name, then
either treated as accepted name, synonym, or whatever, according to current
taxonomic opinion (which can of course change through time and with
additional knowledge or alternative views).

The situation in reverse (plant originally being described as animal) may
be less clear since zoological descriptions are not required to be in
latin, whereas (until very recently) botanical ones are/were (someone else
can jump in if there are special cases), so normally a name described
correctly under zoological nomenclature would not be validly published in
botany.

For an example of an animal originally described as a plant in my own
database, see https://irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1079503 . The
botanical nomenclature information therein came originally from Index
Nominum Genericorum, where I imagine the same still resides.

Hoping this may help; more or less exhausting my knowledge of the subject,
though...

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
www.irmng.org


On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 03:40, Michael A. Ivie via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

> Dear Taxacomers,
>
> I am a zoologist, with zero understanding of the Botanical Code. I have
> tried to solve my problem myself, but I simply cannot figure it out. Is
> there a BotCode expert that would be willing to help me off-list?  It
> involved a fossil that is named as a new plant, but is not only not the
> taxon it is placed in, but not apparently even a plant, or any other
> organism.  What happens to that "plant" name? Insects are involved, so I
> can't just ignore it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
> --
> __________________________________________________
>
> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
>
> NOTE: two addresses with different Zip Codes depending on carriers
>
> US Post Office Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> PO Box 173145
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59717
> USA
>
> UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
> Montana Entomology Collection
> Marsh Labs, Room 50
> 1911 West Lincoln Street
> Montana State University
> Bozeman, MT 59718
> USA
>
>
> (406) 994-4610 (voice)
> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
> mivie at montana.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>