
01-04-2025 23:18
Yanick BOULANGERBonsoirRécolté par un ami sur dans un tas de bra

29-03-2025 09:08

Bonjour.J’ai essayé d’étudier un Daldinia.Qu

30-03-2025 10:24
Gonzalez Garcia MartaGood morning, I would like to know the opinion of

31-03-2025 17:01
akcay mustafa emreHello everyone, My name is Mustafa Emre Akçay, a

30-03-2025 12:41
Me mandan el material seco de Galicia (España), r

24-03-2025 21:26
Bonjour, J'ai besoin d'une confirmation ou infirm

29-03-2025 06:21

Hi! I found this interesting tiny ascomycete on i

29-03-2025 05:45
Sebastien BassoHello, I'm conducting a mycological inventory in
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