Conservation Of Generic Names Research Articles

(2959–2960) Proposals to conserve the name Abelmoschus against Laguna, and Pavonia, nom. cons., against the additional names Malvaviscus and Malachra (Malvaceae)

(2959–2960) Proposals to conserve the name <i>Abelmoschus</i> against <i>Laguna</i>, and <i>Pavonia</i>, nom. cons., against the additional names <i>Malvaviscus</i> and <i>Malachra</i> (<i>Malvaceae</i>)

(2822) Proposal to conserve the name Cachrys libanotis (Umbelliferae) with a conserved type

(2822) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Cachrys libanotis</i> (<i>Umbelliferae</i>) with a conserved type

A PLEA TO LET STABILITY TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER PRIORITY WHERE DESIRABLE, REASONABLE, AND POSSIBLE FOR GENERIC NAMES

TAXONVolume 13, Issue 5 p. 154-157 Article A PLEA TO LET STABILITY TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER PRIORITY WHERE DESIRABLE, REASONABLE, AND POSSIBLE FOR GENERIC NAMES C. G. G. J. van Steenis, C. G. G. J. van Steenis LeidenSearch for more papers by this author C. G. G. J. van Steenis, C. G. G. J. van Steenis LeidenSearch for more papers by this author First published: June 1964 https://doi.org/10.2307/1216132Citations: 1AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume13, Issue5June 1964Pages 154-157 RelatedInformation

Conserving Names of Fungi

Having just had an opportunity to peruse Dr. Donk's article (4) on the conservation of generic names, I am moved to make a few remarks on what may be considered an already threadbare subject. However, as long as a few curious people, even in time of war, persist in pursuing and naming the lowly fungi and cannot seem to agree on any simple and rational method of choosing their names, perhaps further discussion may be justified. In recent years considerable progress has been made by international botanists toward the stabilization of generic and specific names. The type method of fixing such names has been generally adopted and also the conservation of our common and well known generic names. The conservation of specific names seems equally desirable. It is being urged by some of our English colleagues and we hope it may be provided for in the next revision of the code. It has taken much time and effort to get these principles accepted. Our chief problem now is to find some more practical plan for selecting and typifying generic names. Many of us have apparently become so attached to the priority plan that it is difficult to give it up even in special cases. Before it was agreed to make exceptions to the almost sacred law of priority we could not agree on a starting point, and so long as we make priority the major principle in the choice of names, and in addition fix various dates for the starting points of various groups of fungi, we cannot hope to reach any great degree of uniformity or stability in the choice and application of names, even after a great amount of bibliographic and herbarium work under the most favorable library and herbarium facilities, has been carried out. That priority with its multiple starting points is the cause of much confusion and waste of time and effort in reaching any satisfactory conclusion by the present plan is most forcibly and convincingly illustrated by Dr. Donk's discussion of Corticium (4, p. 164-7) as well as other generic names. Persoon (9), who first used the 267