UNPALATABLE CONSEQUENCES OF CERTAIN RULES

Abstract

It is not rare to find botanists who treat nomenclatural problems subjectively and present an objective discussion in a false perspective. Ross, (Taxon 7(9): 365. 1958) suggested a modification of the rule of superfluous names when applied to a new combination, the basionym of which has the correct epithet for the taxon under consideration. His aim was to remove from the Code a flaw which obviously goes against the spirit of the legislation. In my limited experience with taxonomy I have yet to find a systematist who, while accepting the type method, would reject as illegitimate (impriorable) a new combination like Chloris radiatus (L.) Sw. (1788) merely because, while instating it, an older, priorable binomial, Andropogon fasciculatum L. (1753), was wrongly quoted as a synonym. In this case Ross cannot be considered as a botanist who has broken or disregarded a provision of the Code; rather he seeks the cooperation of his fellow botanists in order to make the wording of the pertinent article conform to its spirit and give thereby a due regard to what seems to be the best nomenclatural procedure current at present. In the example quoted he proposes that Ch. radiatus (L.) Sw. be retained as the correct name to the taxon whose oldest priorable epithet is found in Agrostis radiata L. (1759) and from which Andropogon fasciculatum L. has been excluded.