|Date: ||Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:45:50 -0400|
|Reply-To: ||Conchologists of America List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|Sender: ||Conchologists of America List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||"Harry G. Lee" <shells@HGLEE.COM>|
|Subject: ||Re: varietal names c. 1890|
This problem is addressed in the fourth edition of the Code as "Determination
of subspecific or infrasubspecific rank of names following a binomen."
Article 45.6.4 deals with such names proposed before 1961 and basically states
that, if the author didn't clearly indicate (explicitly or by context) that the
taxon was infrasubspecific, that nomen is to be treated as a subspecies. In
addition (Article 126.96.36.199) even an overtly infrasubspecific name of that
vintage is available if subsequently, but before 1985, it was treated as a
species, subspecies, or senior homonym by a revisor. In my experience, most
such names are deemed subspecific and are thus "available" in the
ICZN (International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature), 1999.
International code of zoological nomenclature fourth edition. I.C.Z.N., London.
pp. 1-306 + i-xxix.
Ride, W. D. L., H. G. Cogger, C. Dupuis, O. Kraus, A. Minelli, F. C. Thompson,
and P. K. Tubbs, 1999. International code of zoological nomenclature. Fourth
edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, xxix + pp.
1-306 + i-xxix.
At 05:27 PM 6/21/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>If a name was proposed for a varietal form in 1890, clearly indicated to be
>a member of an established species but given a new varietal (latin,
>descriptive) name, does that name have any current status? Should it be
>cited in synonomy, and if so, as a species name or as a variety?
Harry G. Lee
1801 Barrs St.
Jacksonville, FL 32204
Visit the Jacksonville Shell Club Home Page at:
oo .--. oo .--. oo .--.
\\(____)_ \\(____)_ \\(____)_
`~~~~~~~` `~~~~~~~` `~~~~~~~`