Re: Odd nomenclatural sidenote for Europasaurus

[gerarus@westnet.com.au]

>> (in my experience, _ex_ is used a lot more commonly than _vide_
>
>You are a botanist, right? :o)

No, I'm an arachnologist (entomologist, if you're a lumper, but I'd
prefer you didn't :-P).

>
>> (for instance, if Mike coined
>> a _nomen nudum_ somewhere that I later validated by publishing a
>> description, an appropriate citation would be Keesey _ex_ Taylor).
>
>Do botanists do that? In zoology, nomina nuda officially don't exist
>(e. g. 
>they don't participate in the homonymy and synonymy games), and if
>you 
>validly published the name before the original author, you'd usually
>be seen 
>as robbing him -- see the *Galve(o)saurus* case; the original author
>would 
>_not_ be cited at all because he wouldn't have had anything to do
>with 
>making the name valid.
>
    It's not uncommon. I don't know if the ICBN mandates recognition
of the original name-coiner, or if it's up to the honesty of the
validating author (I've never actually read the ICBN, and probably
never will - just going by botanical papers, it makes the ICZN look
incredibly simple). Three points, though - (1) many such names are
taken from labels in herbaria, and the original coiner may be long
passed on, (2) the ICBN is a _heck_ of a lot more stringent than the
ICZN about necessary criteria for valid publication, making it much
easier to publish an invalid name, and any subsequent author is
effectively required to validate it before they can refer to it, (3)
no respectable botanist ever drops the coiner in subsequent citations
though the validating author often is, and _Xus xus_ Keesey _ex_
Taylor would be referred to as _Xus xus_ Keesey, not _Xus xus_ Taylor
(author citation practices are rather different in botany from
zoology). I don't know what the general feelings are in botany about
taxonomic robbery - I've not encountered any cases directly referring
to it...

    Cheers,

        Christopher Taylor