Premium
(223–225) Proposals to amend Articles 38.5 and 38.6 for valid publication
Author(s) -
Wang Ruijiang
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
taxon
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.819
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1996-8175
pISSN - 0040-0262
DOI - 10.12705/652.50
Subject(s) - china , chinese academy of sciences , key (lock) , library science , citation , computer science , political science , law , computer security
Neupane & al. (in Taxon 64: 299–322. 2015) raised Hedyotis sect. Involucrella Benth. & Hook. f. (in Gen. Pl. 2: 57. 1873) to generic rank and designated Involucrella coronaria (Kurz) Neupane & N. Wikstr. (≡ Scleromitrion coronarium Kurz [in J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt. 2, Nat. Hist. 46: 136. 1877]) as the type, as this name was thought to be based on the earliest validly published and legitimate name conspecific with material cited in the protologue of the section. Therefore, they regarded Hedyotis merguensis Hook. f. to be a “nom. nud.”, although this was published simultaneously with Hedyotis sect. Involucrella as its only species, along with the citation of a voucher (Griffith s.n. from Mergui). They thus accepted the valid publication of this new section, but not that of “Hedyotis merguensis”, but no provisions of the ICN (Melbourne Code; McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) pertaining to this decision were mentioned in a Nomenclature Editor’s (= Gerry Moore’s) footnote. This treatment is obviously contrary to the usage by Dutta & Deb (in Tax. Revis. Hedyotis Ind. Subcont.: 90–91. 2004) and Chen & Taylor (in Fl. China 19: 166. 2011), who all recognized H. merguensis as an accepted name. The arguments in this circumstance are probably caused by the unclear and incomplete explanation of Art. 38.5 and Art. 38.6 in the Melbourne Code, which neglects the cases occurring at the rank of subdivision of a genus (e.g., section, subgenus, etc.). The rigid understanding and slavish application to these rules has resulted in unreasonable and improper nomenclatural treatment in general practice. In order to maintain nomenclatural stability and remove the ambiguity, amendments are here proposed for these two Articles of the ICN.