
06-05-2025 13:37
Thomas FlammerMunk, Anders (1953). The System of the Pyrenomycet

08-05-2025 20:50
Andreas JacobGood evening, due to contstant drought I started

07-05-2025 18:29

I found this small hyaline ascomycete on moist, de

08-05-2025 02:22

I found this white, hairy ascomycete on the bark o

08-05-2025 18:32
Ethan CrensonHello all, I was looking at leaves of Yucca from

08-05-2025 08:59
Me mandan el material de Galicia, (España) , reco

07-05-2025 10:18
Thomas FlammerI have found on Genistae sth. that looks like puli

05-05-2025 09:35

Bonjour à tous,Marie-Rose d'Angelo de la SociétÃ

06-05-2025 12:52
Me mandan el material de Galicia (España), reco
Question on nomenclature
Thomas Lehr,
09-03-2005 17:01
I have a question concerning the author citation in case of a new combination.
Art. 33.2. of the International Code of Botanical Nomeclature (ICBN) says: "A new combination, or an avowed substitute (nomen novum), published on or after 1 January 1953, for a previously and validly published name is not validly published unless its basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing syn-onym) or the replaced synonym (when a new name is proposed) is clearly indicated and a full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid publication with page or plate reference and date."
But what is going to happen with new combinations before 1953?
Let's have a look at an example, which was the concrete reason for my question:
Ciboria coryli was described by Schellenberg the first time as Sclerotinia coryli (1906). In 1943 Buchwald published the new combination Ciboria coryli in an article on Monilinia fructigena. He did it just in a footnote, which does not stand in direct connection to Schellenbergs article of 1906. The footnote says just: "Sclerotinia coryli Schellenb. er i Virkeligheden slet ikke en Sclerotinia-Art, men bør henføres til Ciboria, C. coryli (Schellenb.) comb. nov." That means that there is no "full and direct reference given to its author and place of valid publication with page or plate reference and date" as the ICBN demands. Is the new combination nevertheless valid because published before 1953? Or do we have to refer to Whetzel (1947), who gives a full reference to Schellenbergs article?
Ciboria coryli (Schell). Buchw. 1943 or (Schell.) Whetz. 1947?
Thanks for every information and greetings from Germany
Thomas
Nicolas VAN VOOREN,
09-03-2005 17:32

Re:Question on nomenclature
Hello.
It means that before 1953 (january, 1st) the citation of the basionym isn't mandatory. So the correct citation for Ciboria coryli is Ciboria coryli (Schell.) Buchw.
Regards.
Nicolas
It means that before 1953 (january, 1st) the citation of the basionym isn't mandatory. So the correct citation for Ciboria coryli is Ciboria coryli (Schell.) Buchw.
Regards.
Nicolas
Thomas Lehr,
09-03-2005 17:43
Re:Question on nomenclature
Hello Nicolas,
long question, short answer ... :-)
Thanks a lot for your fast and precise help!!
Greetings
Thomas
long question, short answer ... :-)
Thanks a lot for your fast and precise help!!
Greetings
Thomas