silence882
February 16th, 2006, 04:54 PM
Hello all, While thumbing through the ICBN recently (just a bit less exciting than watching paint dry), I had a question about one of the articles:
42.1. The names of a genus and a species may be simultaneously validated by provision of a single description (descriptio generico-specifica) or diagnosis, even though this may have been intended as only generic or specific, if all of the following conditions obtain: (a) the genus is at that time monotypic; (b) no other names (at any rank) have previously been validly published based on the same type; and (c) the names of the genus and species otherwise fulfil the requirements for valid publication. Reference to an earlier description or diagnosis is not acceptable in place of a descriptio generico-specifica.
42.2. For the purpose of Art. 42, a monotypic genus is one for which a single binomial is validly published, even though the author may indicate that other species are attributable to the genus.
42.3. Prior to 1 January 1908 an illustration with analysis, or for non-vascular plants a single figure showing details aiding identification, is acceptable, for the purpose of this Article, in place of a written description or diagnosis.
42.4. For the purpose of Art. 42, an analysis is a figure or group of figures, commonly separate from the main illustration of the plant (though usually on the same page or plate), showing details aiding identification, with or without a separate caption.
Of specific interest to me is the statement 'For the purpose of Art. 42' in 42.4. This indicates to me that 42.4 only applies to the descriptions relevant to a monotypic genus. Does anyone have any ideas or conflicting opinions?
--Stephen
42.1. The names of a genus and a species may be simultaneously validated by provision of a single description (descriptio generico-specifica) or diagnosis, even though this may have been intended as only generic or specific, if all of the following conditions obtain: (a) the genus is at that time monotypic; (b) no other names (at any rank) have previously been validly published based on the same type; and (c) the names of the genus and species otherwise fulfil the requirements for valid publication. Reference to an earlier description or diagnosis is not acceptable in place of a descriptio generico-specifica.
42.2. For the purpose of Art. 42, a monotypic genus is one for which a single binomial is validly published, even though the author may indicate that other species are attributable to the genus.
42.3. Prior to 1 January 1908 an illustration with analysis, or for non-vascular plants a single figure showing details aiding identification, is acceptable, for the purpose of this Article, in place of a written description or diagnosis.
42.4. For the purpose of Art. 42, an analysis is a figure or group of figures, commonly separate from the main illustration of the plant (though usually on the same page or plate), showing details aiding identification, with or without a separate caption.
Of specific interest to me is the statement 'For the purpose of Art. 42' in 42.4. This indicates to me that 42.4 only applies to the descriptions relevant to a monotypic genus. Does anyone have any ideas or conflicting opinions?
--Stephen