Premium
(035–037) Three proposals on illustrations with analysis
Author(s) -
Sennikov Alexander N.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
taxon
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.819
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1996-8175
pISSN - 0040-0262
DOI - 10.12705/641.14
Subject(s) - herbarium , citation , library science , natural history , history , botanical garden , art history , computer science , biology , botany
(035) Amend Art. 9.3 as follows (new text in bold, deleted text in strikethrough): “9.3. For the purposes of this Code, original material comprises the following elements: (a) those specimens and illustrations (both unpublished and published either prior to or together with the protologue) upon which it can be shown that the description or, diagnosis, or other material validating the name (Art. 38.1(a)) was based; (b) the holotype and those specimens which, even if not seen by the author of the description or diagnosis validating the name, were indicated as types (syntypes or paratypes) of the name at its valid publication; and (c) the isotypes or isosyntypes of the name irrespective of whether such specimens were seen by either the author of the validating description or diagnosis or the author of the name (but see Art. 7.7, 7.8, and 9.10).” It seems that the provisions of Art. 38.7 and 38.8 are not incorporated into the wording of Article 9.3. A plate with analysis is not a description or diagnosis but is acceptable as an equivalent of such. This fact is reflected in the proposed correction.