Orchid taxonomy and naming authority?

[tropterrarium]

Thanks Lambelkip, quite instructive.

A new "Kew Rule" name, without Latin description or designation of new type, must be some sort of invalid name [nudum, illeg.]; that is also how previous authors have tagged it (who could be wrong, of course). Or is the situation similar as in nomen novum, where the nomen novum takes the description and type material of the old homonym, therefore becoming a homotypic = nomenclatural synonym? Any suggestion where these matters are dealt with in ICBN/ICN? (specific articles)

Interesting that only a valid name transfer leads to genus transfer credit. Any suggestion where these matters are dealt with in ICBN/ICN? (specific articles)

The older A name is also preoccupied by a senior homonym, so the correct name is neither A's nor B's, but a later synonym is considered the correct name today, so Kew does not show the genus transfer credit of the A's name. This was more re how to cite taxa properly in the historical context.

[lambelkip]

Originally Posted by tropterrarium

A new "Kew Rule" name, without Latin description or designation of new type, must be some sort of invalid name [nudum, illeg.]; that is also how previous authors have tagged it (who could be wrong, of course). Or is the situation similar as in nomen novum, where the nomen novum takes the description and type material of the old homonym, therefore becoming a homotypic = nomenclatural synonym? Any suggestion where these matters are dealt with in ICBN/ICN? (specific articles)

when a species is transfered to a new genus, it creates a nomen novum. this is the only way a nomen novum is created - in other cases, the first published name would be the valid one. (Chapter IV, Section 2 of the Vienna code)

Originally Posted by tropterrarium

Interesting that only a valid name transfer leads to genus transfer credit. Any suggestion where these matters are dealt with in ICBN/ICN? (specific articles)

this is because of the definition of the word "valid" - a publication that is not valid does not have any effect on anything. the original name remains unchanged, and the species still belongs to the old genus.

Originally Posted by tropterrarium

The older A name is also preoccupied by a senior homonym, so the correct name is neither A's nor B's, but a later synonym is considered the correct name today, so Kew does not show the genus transfer credit of the A's name. This was more re how to cite taxa properly in the historical context.

if the species is transfered a second time, the transfer made by A is no longer valid (it is no longer considered part of the genus A placed it in)

[goodgollymissmolly]

Please, please, please understand this...there is no such thing as a "KEW Rule". If you wish to join those who seem to hate taxonomy at least aim at a suspect, not a messenger.

Read this three times ...KEW does not make botanical nomenclature rules. Notice the period at the end because there are no qualifications on that statement. Botanical nomenclature rules are controlled by ICBN and ICNCP. No exceptions.

KEW, IPNI, and Tropicos (and some other more obscure groups) simply maintain a database of the properly described names. They also (based on advisory panels of their own) make a decision of which name they believe is the scientific peer accepted name. They don't always agree with each other on that score,but they usually do. Notice that no where in here does horticulture in general or any individual horticulturist get to decide the name. These are botanical issues, not horticultural. They are not intended to please or displease horticulture. This is science not Horticulture 101. Also the synonyms, both homotypic and heterotypic, are valid names. They are not the names in common usage or "accepted", but they are valid. The KEW (and other) databases are historical records of the validly published names.

If you don't agree with names that's fine, I guess, but it smacks of a certain hard headedness because you or me have no vote on the issue. So disagreeing is sort of a windmill thing.

[lambelkip]

thanks for pointing out that these rules are not made by Kew. the rules we have been discussing here are laid out in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (ICN), and in the earlier International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN). I have been referring to the ICBN, since it is freely available online.

when Kew, IPNI or Tropicos do not make a decision on a "peer accepted name" - they simply check to see if it was validly published under the rules of the ICN

a name that is not validly published under these rules is absolutely not valid, and can never be made valid.

[tropterrarium]

Sorry about the "Kew Rule" confusion.
150% agreed that today neither Kew nor any other group has any power to validate, accept, approve of any names.
I referred to a 18xx concept/practice, which also today is not accepted under ICBN/ICN. I use a term for an outdated, historical practice.

I am still not clear on what type of nomenclatural error is involved with "Kew Rule" names according to ICBN/ICN.

[Andrew]

I’m not a taxonomist but I grow orchids and I whinge about having to write out labels, which apparently qualifies me to take part in taxonomic debate.

Goodgollymissmolly,
The Kew Rule that Tropterrarium seems to be referring to was proposed by Kew in the latter part of the 1800’s, whereby the name given to a species when it was first moved into a genus had priority over any names it had whilst it was included in other genera. It has nothing to do with Kew-bashing.

Tropterrarium,
Is the Kew Rule still being used? I was under the impression that it was a relic from an old debate that eventually resolved itself somewhere between the ICBN's recommendations for naming priority and conservation.

Regarding the situation you’re describing in terms of modern taxonomy, I don’t speak legalese but from how I read ICBN Article: 14; Recommendations: “What do facts have to do with science.” to “If I say it, it must be true. La la la. I’m not listening.” a species that is nomen illegitimum or nomen nudem is legitimate if it is considered nomen conservandum. In which case, if species B is conserved, it has priority. If not, species A has priority.

[tropterrarium]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Tropterrarium,
Is the Kew Rule still being used? I was under the impression that it was a relic from an old debate that eventually resolved itself somewhere between the ICBN's recommendations for naming priority and conservation.

No, "Kew Rule" it not used by anybody (as far as I know), and is 100% faulty by ICZN standards. I brought it up, because I try to understand *historical* changes. Like trying to understand arguments for Lamarckism in a historical context, but understanding that it is not accepted today.