SPECIAL ISSUE 34a.pdf - Biology International

Bioiogy International, SpeciaI Issue No. 34 (1997)
that the author(s) include in the publication a description in a more familiar
language" (BC Rec. 25a).
(ii) Starting-point dates
Differences in starting-point dates, although on the face of it an inherently self-
contained matter, in that the different starting-point dates apply to different
groups of organisms, can be of significance in determining the correct name of
taxa that have been considered under more than one Code. 1 January 1758 is the
starting-point for al1 names under the zoological Code (the date upon which
both Linnaeus's Systema Naturae edition 10 and Clerck's Aranei Svecici are
deemed to have been published, although the latter, covering the Arachnida,
was actually published in 1757 and is given precedence over Linnaeus's
publication), and 1 May 1753 for most groups under the botanical Code, but
with nurnerous exceptions involving six different dates, ranging fiom 1801 for
the mosses (Sphagnaceae excepted), through 1820 for al1 groups of fossil
plants, to as late as 1900 for the algal family Oedogoniaceae. Until the Sydney
Congress of 198 1, the starting-point dates for names of fungi were either 180 1
(Uredinales (smuts), Ustilaginales (rusts) and Gasteromycetes) or 182 1 (al1
other fungi), the dates of significant publications by Persoon (Synopsis method-
ica fungorum) and Fries (Systema mycologicum), respectively; although the
starting point is now the same as that of most other organisms covered by the
botanical Code, these works are granted special status under a procedure known
as sanctioning, analogous to conservation en bloc (see ICBN M. 15). Apart
from the specific starting dates under the ICBN of 1 January 1886 and 1892 for
the homo- and hetero-cystous Nostocaceae, respectively, which, as
Cyanobacteria, some might wish to treat under the Bacteriological Code, with
its starting-point date of 1 January 1980 (Rule 24a), divergence in starting-point
date is unlikely to be a serious problem, as it Ca., in practice, only effect those
few names of organisms that might be treated under the botanical or zoological
Codes, that were published between 1753 and 1758.
(iii) Mandatory designation of type
Whereas the ICBN has required, since 1952, specific designation of a type for
establishment (valid publication) of the name of a new taxon, this, although
considered good zoological practice, has not hitherto been mandatory, although
the provision will be included in the forthcoming fourth edition of the ICZN.
The BC also makes designation of a type mandatory for effective publication
(Rule 16). As this requirement has been a feature of the BC since its inception,
that Code has no need for specific rules governing the designation of alter-
natives to a holotype, as have the botanical and zoological Codes. Whereas the
ICZN requires that the first choice of lectotype must be followed unless it can be
shown that the designated specimen was not eligible (not being a syntype) (Art.
74(a)), the ICBN can permit supersession of such a choice if the element chosen
is in conflict with the protologue (i.e. the original description and associated
material).