Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
EDIBLE AND POISONOUS MUSHROOMS OF CANADA<br />
In the first place it is necessary to have a starting point for our nomencla-<br />
ture and although for the higher plants this is Linnaeus' Species Plantarum,<br />
1753, for most of the fungi it has been decided to start with the Systerna<br />
Mycologicum published in 1821 by the Swedish mycologist E. M. Fries.<br />
In order to have any claim to recognition, a name must be validly and<br />
effectively published. It is not sufficient to put a name on a specimen in a<br />
herbarium or botanic garden, or to mention it at a public meeting or refer to it<br />
in a thesis. It must be made available to botanists everywhere. Names published<br />
before the official starting point are regarded as not validly published. A<br />
name must be accompanied by a description and since 1935 a name is not<br />
considered to be validly published unless it is accompanied by a Latin diagnosis.<br />
Sometimes more than one name may be vaHdly pubhshed for the same<br />
plant and in that case the earliest name is considered to be the correct one.<br />
These are, perhaps, the most important rules but there are others which,<br />
if they are not complied with, render a name illegitimate. If a name is found<br />
to be illegitimate it cannot be used and the earliest legitimate name must be<br />
chosen for the plant. If none exists, the plant must be given a new name.<br />
It is usual when writing the scientific name of a plant to give also the<br />
name of the author who proposed the name. If the species is later transferred<br />
to another genus, the name of the original author is placed in parentheses<br />
followed by the name of the author who made the transfer. This practice has<br />
sometimes been criticized as a form of self-advertisement on the part of the<br />
authors, but that is not the purpose. It is rather to supply a reference to the<br />
source of the name, thus enabling taxonomists to check on the validity and<br />
legitimacy of the names and determine exactly to what plants they apply, and<br />
in this way these author references are invaluable to the research taxonomist.<br />
A primary aim of the Code is, of course, to bring about stabihty of names<br />
and one of the most important means of achieving this is the use of the type<br />
concept. When an author describes a new species he is expected to designate<br />
some particular specimen as the type of that species. If he does not do so,<br />
some specimen must subsequently be chosen as the type. The name is then per-<br />
manently fixed to that specimen and when we apply the name to any other<br />
specimen we are, in effect, saying that it belongs to the same species as the<br />
type. If, as sometimes happens, it is found that a name has been applied to<br />
plants belonging to more than one species, the name must be retained for those<br />
that match the type and the others must be given another name. Sometimes an<br />
author may make an error in describing a species or misinterpret structures he<br />
has observed ; the concept of the species is then determined by the type specimen<br />
and not by what the author said about it.<br />
Similarly when a genus is established, one species is taken as the type of<br />
the genus and the application of the name is determined by that species. For<br />
example, if it is considered that unrelated species may have been placed in the<br />
same genus and it is necessary to divide the old genus into two or more genera,<br />
the original name must be retained for the type species and others that may be<br />
considered congeneric with it. A good example of this is seen in the mush-<br />
20
Change language