Abstract
cases to establish the circumscription the author had in mind, for this is what we need to find out in order to establish whether there were earlier names that ought to have been adopted under the rules. The number of superfluous names, especially of big genera, is much bigger than is supposed. In mycology nobody has seriously bothered about applying Art. 63: it would lead to a dismal slaughter of many (generic) names in current use. One of the strongest arguments against retaining superfluous names is the amount of time, irritation, and discussions that is now wasted on them: it would definitely enslave the meek taxonomist who would become the handmaiden of the Code instead of the reverse. Those less servile will no doubt eventually turn away from the Code in disgust. In my considered opinion it is undeniable that up till now usage has ignored to a very large extent the prescriptions of the Code in regard to *illegitimate names and has treated later homonyms as illegitimate (normal illegitimacy) and the superfluous names of Art. 63 as 'available'. It is high time that this practice is made legal again.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
