(155) Proposal to disallow descriptive names for subdivisions of families

Abstract

As pointed out by Davies & Brummitt (in Taxon 35: 883–884. 1986), the Code specifies only for the ranks of subfamily, tribe, or subtribe that names must be formed from a generic name (Art. 19.1 and 19.3). For other ranks of subdivisions of families, the Code, as now phrased, allows names that are not formed from a generic name: descriptive names. Davies & Brummitt mentioned the names Diandrae, Monandrae, Convolutae, and Duplicatae for groups in the Orchidaceae. However, Art. 10.9 (dealing with types of names of families and subdivisions of families) assumes that all names of families and subdivisions of families are formed from a generic name, excepting only nine family names (Art. 18.5) and one subfamily name (Art. 19.8). Therefore, Art. 10.9 and Art. 19 are in conflict. There appear to be three options to reconcile Art. 10.9 and Art. 19: (1) allow descriptive names of subdivisions of families to be untypified (as those in Art. 16.1); this would require making an exception to Art. 7.1 (and Art. 10.9); (2) alter Art. 10.9 to prescribe how descriptive names of subdivisions of families are to be typified; or (3) reconsider the proposal of Davies & Brummitt (l.c.: 884) to the Berlin Congress, in updated form. This last option seems simplest and least disruptive. At the Berlin Congress, the proposal of Davies & Brummitt was rejected; several attendees arguing that it would limit the use of informal names and clade names (in Englera 9: 71. 1989). Given that informal names and clade names are outside the remit of the Code, this seems an argument that should not be given undue weight (or any). “19.1. The name of a subdivision of a family is a plural adjective used as a noun; it is formed in the same manner as the name of a family (Art. 18.1) but by adding the an appropriate termination (see Art. 19.3) -oideae instead of -aceae.” “19.3. The name of a tribe or subtribe is formed in the same manner as the name of a subfamily (Art. 19.1), except that the termination is -oideae for a subfamily, -eae for a tribe, and -inae (but not -virinae) for a subtribe.” This would disallow the descriptive names of subdivisions of families, mentioned by Davies & Brummitt. These descriptive names would hereby cease to be validly published (Art. 32.1), and would no longer be formal names (they can still be used as informal names, if so desired). There is the slight difficulty that Art. 19 specifies terminations at only three ranks, so that “the appropriate termination” would be too much, whereas “an appropriate termination” is not as specific as would be possible in the case of those three ranks. A further option would be to join Art. 19.3 to 19.1.