Date:         Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:58:13 +1300
Reply-To:     Conchologists of America List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sender:       Conchologists of America List <CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject:      Re: anabathrum
In-Reply-To:  <003a01c3c9c2$32c53810$8951b141@Laptop1>
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii

>Some treat C. anabathrum burryae as a separate species (e.g. Conus burryae
>Clench, 1942).  I believe this is not allowed since the taxon was originally
>proposed as a subspecies.  For names originally proposed as subspecies, the
>International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature needs to be petitioned
>to elevate the taxon in rank to a species.

Since when?


If a "subspecies" is really distinct and does not intergrade with the
species, then it really belongs at specific rank. I don't believe
that it needs any petition, as the name is valid and available.
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin, New Zealand
64 (3) 473-8863
<andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Fossil preparator
Seashell, Macintosh & VW/Toyota van nut
________________________________
I want your sinistral gastropods!
________________________________
Opinions in this e-mail are my own, not those of my institution
_______________________________________________
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?