Proposal (68) on Article 57.2 to Correct the Triticum Example

Proposal (68) on Article 57.2 to Correct the Triticum Example
Author(s): M. Kerguélen
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Taxon, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Aug., 1980), pp. 516-517
Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1220650 .
Accessed: 16/08/2012 03:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Taxon.
http://www.jstor.org
Modernmethodsof printinganddistributionare such thatthe wordingof Art. 29.1 ' ..... by
distributionof printedmatter.....
or at least to botanicalinstitutionswith librariesaccessible
to botanistsgenerally'is ratheroutmoded,and shouldbe regardedas a minimumrequirement
primarilyapplicableto old literature.It shouldnot applyto the currentpublicationof a thesis for
a degree. It mightbe clearerto add as Proposal67:
"Publicationon or after Jan. 1982 of any new names in independentlyissued theses for
degrees does not constituteeffective publication.
Note. New names included in a thesis which is effectively publishedby its inclusion in a
journalor book meetingthe requirementimpliedin Recommendation29A are validatedat the
date of issue of thejournalor book andnot at the date of independentdistributionof the thesis."
The wordingof Art. 29 is ambiguousalso in some other respects. It is desirablethat the
special committeecheck the presentwordingand modify it in a more suitablewordingwhich
will correspondto modernmethodsof printing,reproductionanddistributionof publicationsin
general.Also it will be very useful if a guide for publishingnew names validlyis insertedat the
end of the Code.
At any rate, it is urgentto discuss the problemin detail in orderto avoid furtherconfusion,
and we recommendthat the problembe referredto a special committeefor study.
Proposedby: H. Hara, Universityof Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku,Tokyo, and H. Eichler,CSIRO,P.O.
Box 1600,CanberraCity, A.C.T. 2601, Australia.
Proposal(68) on Article 57.2 to correctthe Triticumexample
Le Ble tendre(Wheat, Saat-Weizen)est actuellementnomm6Triticumaestivum L. emend.
Fiori et Paoletti, Fl. Ital., 1(1):107(1896),exemple retenudans le Code de Nomenclature,Art.
57, exemple 2 (1978), propose par Prokhanov(Taxon, 7: 271. 1958)
Les noms Triticumsativum Lam., Fl. fr., ed. 1, 3: 625 (1779)et T. vulgare Vill., Hist. PI.
Dauph.,2: 153(1787),g6enralementutilis6sdansla plupartdes floresfrancaisessont illegitimes,
incluantd'ailleursa la fois T. aestivum L. et T. hybernumL.
CependantFioriet Paoletti(1896)sont loin d'etre les premiersa avoir proposela r6uniondes
deux taxons de Linn6(1753)sous un seul nom.
En effet, Merat, Nouv. Fl. EnvironsParis, ed. 2: 2:36 (1821)avait r6uniles deux noms en
retenant T. hybernum L. 'hibernum', incluant le "Var. B. T. aestivum Lin."
Cette citation de Meratest inchang6edans l'edition 4: p. 16 (1836), et figure probablement
dans l'edition 3 (non consult6e).
I1est possibleque Meratait retenuTriticumhybernumen corrigeantl'edition 1de sa Flore,p.
45 (1812) ou il citait "T. sativum Lam ....
T. hybernum Lin ....
Var. B. T. aestivum Lin.
.. . . "-en remarquant que T. hybernum avait priorit6 sur T. sativum Lam.?
Nous n'avons pu trouver d'exemple plus ancien de reunion de T. aestivum L. et de T.
hybernumL. et il semble assez probableque le choix de Merat, T. hybernumL. (incl. T.
aestivum L.) doive 6tre suivi.
Proposition(68):Remplacerla premierepartiede 1'exempledonne sous l'Article57.2 (Triticum)
par:
"Merat (Nouv. Fl. Env. Paris, ed. 2,2: 36, 1821) a r6uni Triticum aestivum L. (Sp. PI.: 85. 1753)
et T. hybernumL. (Sp. PI.:85. 1753)en une seule espece en choisissantun des deux noms, T.
hybernum L.".
Bibliographie
Anonyme. 1976.Regles internationalespourles Essais de Semences. Seed Sci. & Technol.,4:
557-608 (French translation)-(Triticumaestivum L. emend. Fiori et Paoletti, p. 631,
516
TAXON
VOLUME 29
retainedas stabilizedname)
Merat, F. V. Nouvelle Flore des environsde Paris. Paris, Typ. Chapelet.6d. 1. (1812);ed. 2
(1821):6d. 3(1831 + 1834);ed. 4(1836).
Stafleu, F. A. & al. (1978). InternationalCode of Botanical Nomenclature. Utrecht, Bohn,
Scheltema& Holkema:XIV + 457 pp.
Proposedby: M. Kerguelen,InstitutNationalde la RechercheAgronomique.G. E. V. E. S., La
MiniereF. 78280Guyancourt(France).
Proposal(69) to amendRecommendation75A. 1 and correctionin the Germantext.
There is a minor editorialerror in the Germantext of Recommendation75A.1 (I.C.B.N.,
1978)regardingthe grammaticalgenderof certaingenericnames, "Der NameHemerocallis. ..
sollte ... als Femininumbehandeltwerden, damitdieser Name im Geschlechtmit allen anderen auf-is endendenGattungsnamenin Ubereinstimmung
gebrachtwird." The erroris that the
other texts do not state that all othergenericnamesendingin -is are feminine.The Englishtext
says "almost all" and the French text says "presque tous." To bringthe Germantext into
conformitywith the English text (arbitrarilyregardedas correct, teste Preamble,p. xii), the
following should be considered ". . . mit beinahe allen anderen .. ." in place of "mit allen
anderen. . ." Examplesof othermasculinegenericnamesendingin-is areCucumisandfossil
pollen generic names ending in -pollis. However, the followingdiscussion suggests a need for
furtherchanges which make this correctionunnecessary.
There is some question that Hemerocallis should be singledout as a specific example of a
namewhich was originallytreatedas masculine.Linnaeus(Sp. PI. p. 324. 1753)listedonly two
species, H. Lilio-Asphodelusand H. Liliastrum,the formerepithet being masculineand the
latter neuter. Both were capitalized by Linnaeus and are substantiveepithets with gender
independentof the generic name, not adjectivalepithets. It is likely that the listed varietal
names H. Lilio-Asphodelusvar.flavus andfulvus are masculinebecause they agree with the
substantivespecific epithet, not because LinnaeusregardedHemerocallisas masculine.In any
case, in the second editionof the Species PlantarumLinnaeusrecognizedH. flava andH. fulva,
clearly showing he regardedHemerocallisas feminine.
We believe it would be simplerfor the text of this Recommendationto be more straightforwardand less discursive.The followingproposalmaintainsthe presentsense of the text and all
names presently specified, but deletes the possible controversialstatements as to how and
where gender varied. The first three sentences remainunchanged.
Proposal (69): Delete the last two sentences of Rec, 71A.1 and substitute: "The following
names, however, shouldbe treatedas femininein accordancewith botanicalcustom, irrespective of classical usageor the author'soriginalusage:Adonis, Diospyros, Hemerocallis,Orchis,
Stachys and Strychnos.
Proposed by: K. Adolphi, Kolpingstrasse36, D-5461 Rossbach, West Germany,and Dan H.
Nicolson, SmithsonianInstitution#166, Washington,D.C. 20560, U.S.A.
AUGUST 1980
517