Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 22:09:09 +0000 From: Paul Temple <paultemple@ecologycal.demon.co.uk> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg468$foo@default> Subject: Re: Sarracenia rosea
Barry's comment on the "new" species reminds me of a general point.
>This species, called Sarracenia rosea, will test the ranks of CPers the
> world over, as some may accept it and others may not. Essentially, it
is a
> subpopulation of plants that, before this paper, would have been
lumped
> with Sarracenia purpurea subsp. purpurea.
There have been a few questions over the validity of several "species"
and it's not uncommon, even within our own ranks, to find that certain
names are not very well accepted.
But not to accept a published species name is surely contrary to the
Tokyo Convention on naming standards (or the equivalent convention for
cultivars). I would therefore assume that, if indeed a new species name
has been validly published according to the correct and current
coventions, we must (must is emphasised) accept it (ie. anyone not doing
so is making a casual statement, not a scientific one). Anyone who
wishes to do otherwise would be obliged to publish their own revision.
This means that published lists of CP's should use the curretly valid
published names irrespective of the views of the lit's
publisher/author. Any published list that contains names that are not
published valid AND current (where such is not made clear), would
invalidate the whole list; because if a list uses one invalid name, then
one
can not trust that any of the other names are valid, so all must be
treated as potentially invalid until proven otherwise. What I'm trying
to say is that pubished names and lists of names can not represent
personal opinion, they must represent the current validly published
names according to international convention. So, for example, if
Sarracenia rosea has indeed been published,
we should now be using that name and not the name it revised (even if we
disagree!).
Cheers
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:05 PST