Lachnum subvirgineum

Werter Herr Wagner,

ist Ihnen dieser Sachverhalt bekannt?

Liebe Grüße
Bärbel

Lachnum subvirgineum Baral, in Baral & Krieglsteiner, Beih. Z. Mykol. 6: 83 (1985) - Nomenclatural comment: Nom. inval., Art. 36.1

ICN 2013
CHAPTER V. Valid publication of names
SECTION 1. General provisions
Article 36

36.1. A name is not validly published (a) when it is not accepted by the author in the original publication; (b) when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the future acceptance of the taxon concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of the taxon (so-called provisional name); (c) when it is merely cited as a synonym; or (d) by the mere mention of the subordinate taxa included in the taxon concerned. Art. 36.1(a) does not apply to names published with a question mark or other indication of taxonomic doubt, yet accepted by their author.
Ex. 1. (a) –œSebertia–, proposed by Pierre (ms.) for a unispecific genus, was not validly published by Baillon (in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 945. 1891) because he did not accept the genus. Although he gave a description of it, he referred its only species –œSebertia acuminata Pierre (ms.)– to the genus Sersalisia R. Br., as –œSersalisia ? acuminata–, which he thereby validly published under the provision of Art. 36.1, last sentence. The name Sebertia was validly published by Engler (1897).
Ex. 2. (a) The designations listed in the left-hand column of the Linnaean thesis Herbarium amboinense defended by Stickman (1754) were not names accepted by Linnaeus upon publication and are not validly published.
Ex. 3. (a) Coralloides gorgonina Bory was validly published in a paper by Flörke (in Mag. Neusten Entdeck. Gesammten Naturk. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 3: 125. 1809) even though Flörke did not accept it as a new species. At Bory–™s request, Flörke included Bory–™s diagnosis (and name) making Bory the publishing author as defined in Art. 46.6. The acceptance or otherwise of the name by Flörke is not, therefore, relevant for valid publication.
Ex. 4. (a) (b) The designation –œConophyton–, suggested by Haworth (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 82. 1821) for Mesembryanthemum sect. Minima Haw. (Rev. Pl. Succ.: 81. 1821) in the words –œIf this section proves to be a genus, the name of Conophyton would be apt–, was not a validly published generic name since Haworth did not adopt it or accept the genus. The name was validly published as Conophytum N. E. Br. (1922).
Ex. 5. (b) –œPteridospermaexylon– and –œP. theresiae– were published by Greguss (in Földt. Közl. 82: 171. 1952) for a genus and species of fossil wood. As Greguss explicitly stated –œVorläufig benenne ich es mit den Namen ...– [provisionally I designate it by the names ...], these are provisional names and as such are not validly published.
Ex. 6. (b) The designation –œStereocaulon subdenudatum– proposed by Havaas (in Bergens Mus. Ã…rbok. 12: 13, 20. 1954) is not validly published in spite of it being presented as a new species with a Latin diagnosis, since on both pages it was indicated to be –œad int.– [ad interim, for the time being].
Ex. 7. (c) –œOrnithogalum undulatum hort. Bouch.– was not validly published by Kunth (Enum. Pl. 4: 348. 1843) when he cited it as a synonym under Myogalum boucheanum Kunth; the combination under Ornithogalum L. was validly published later: O. boucheanum (Kunth) Asch. (1866).
Ex. 8. (d) The family designation –œRhaptopetalaceae– was not validly published by Pierre (in Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris 2: 1296. Mai 1897), who merely mentioned the constituent genera, Brazzeia Baill., Rhaptopetalum Oliv., and –œScytopetalum–, but gave no description or diagnosis; the family bears the name Scytopetalaceae Engl. (Oct 1897), which was accompanied by a description.
Ex. 9. (d) The generic designation –œIbidium– was not validly published by Salisbury (in Trans. Hort. Soc. London 1: 291. 1812), who merely mentioned four included species but supplied no generic description or diagnosis.
Ex. 10. Besenna A. Rich. and B. anthelmintica A. Rich. (1847) were simultaneously published by Richard, both with a question mark (–œBesenna ?– and –œBesenna anthelmintica ? Nob.–). Richard–™s uncertainty was due to the absence of flowers or fruits for examination, but the names were nonetheless accepted by him, with Besenna listed as such (i.e. not italicized) in the index (p. [469]).