Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:24:15 -0800 (PST) From: Barry Meyers-Rice <bamrice@ucdavis.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg532$foo@default> Subject: Is Sarracenia rosea valid?
Hey Paul
You wrote:
> 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
Since the name _Sarracenia rosea_ has been established, in accordance with
botanical rules, I certainly accept the *name* as having been correctly
and legally established. HOWEVER, this is not the same as saying that I
agree the new *taxon* has validity in the natural world.
I have just gotten back from a trip, am still only about 1/3 of the way
through my email-mountain, and will air my views on _Sarracenia rosea_ if
I think I have anything valuable to say about it. I have no doubt that Jan
will include the new name in the CP database.
For that matter, I should clarify that even though CPN publishes new-taxon
descriptions, it does not necessarily mean that either Jan or I agree with
the science behind them. This is more the responsibility of the anonymous
referees who read the paper before publication, and for the readers of CPN
to decide upon for themselves. The inside cover of CPN states that the
editors do not necessarily agree with the views of the authors, etc.
I hope I am clear on this topic.
Later
Barry
------------------------
Dr. Barry A. Meyers-Rice
Carnivorous Plant Newsletter
Conservation Coeditor
barry@carnivorousplants.org
http://www.carnivorousplants.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:06 PST