Hate to lose an argument, eh Bryan?
Teacher can never make a mistake?
You are simply repeating what you have been taught without knowing why it is
so. Understanding why something is is more important than just memorizing
If a rule is a valid one there should be no exceptions.
Finding an exception is proof that it is not a rule at all.
You are talking politics not botany.
I already said why the obsolete Jussieu family names have been tolerated.
According to the ICBN they should be discarded in favor of the conserved
family names. Get with the program.
Are you one of the old guard?
Bryan Ness <bness at puc.edu> wrote in message
news:184.108.40.206.2.20010807134902.0163f158 at puc.edu...
> I hate to be argumentative, but right there in the appendix it states that
> Compositae is a "nom. alt." for Asteraceae. Unless someone has ruled
> otherwise in the ICBN, then Compositae still remains a valid
> name. Personally, I prefer the Asteraceae name because it does actually
> follow the rules, but I don't begrudge anyone the use of Compositae if
> like it better. It is certainly a more descriptive name.
>> So, you are right in saying that only one name is correct according to the
> current code, with the exception of families like Compositae, Arecacea,
> Leguminosae, Labiatae, Gramineae, etc. There is an exception to every
> rule, isn't there?
>> At 04:32 PM 8/7/2001 +0000, Cereoid* wrote:
> >Not true. Only one name can be correct according to the current rules.
> >Principle IV of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN)
> >specifically states:
> >"Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position, and
> >can bear only one correct name, the earliest that is in accordance with
> >Rules, except in specified cases."
> >http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/Contents.htm> >
> >The old Jussieu plant names were allowed (tolerated) for many years to
> >placate the old guard botanists who insisted upon using them. It was
> >politics not botany that allowed their continued use. Now that those
> >individual have all long since passed away, the Jussieu names are to be
> >rejected in favor of plant family names in proper form. Before you cite
> >articles 18.5 and 18.6 in rebuttal, I would say that even though the
> >names are validly published, they are in improper form and should be
> >rejected for that reason.
> >Look in Appendix IIB of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature
> >(ICBN) for the list of conserved (accepted) plant family names. You will
> >find that the family name Asteraceae is conserved over the obsolete
> >http://www.bgbm.fu-berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/App2bE.htm> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Bryan Ness <bness at puc.edu>
> >To: Cereoid* <cereoid at prodigy.net>;
> ><plant-ed at firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:46 PM
> >Subject: Re: Compositae vs. Asteraceae ??
> > > As a plant taxonomist I thought I better chime in on this one. Both
> > > are actually correct. The name Asteraceae is correct by the current
> > > rules, but Compositae is also correct. Compositae is one of several
> > > so-called conserved names that are considered valid. These names are
> > > allowed as official exceptions to the normal rules because they have
> > > of such long-standing use and banning them would cause too much
> > > confusion. It appears that retaining these names sometimes also
> > > confusion.
> > >
> > > Bryan
> > >
> > > Bryan Ness (bness at puc.edu) http://www.puc.edu/Faculty/Bryan_Ness/> > > Office Phone: 707-965-6634 Department of Biology
> > > Home Phone: 707-965-2220 Pacific Union College
> > > FAX: 707-965-6390 Angwin, CA 94508
> > > !!Also see the Botany Site at http://botany.about.com> > >
> > > Ants are so much like human beings as to be an embarrassment...They do
> > > everything but watch television. -- Lewis Thomas
> > >
> > >
> Bryan Ness (bness at puc.edu) http://www.puc.edu/Faculty/Bryan_Ness/> Office Phone: 707-965-6634 Department of Biology
> Home Phone: 707-965-2220 Pacific Union College
> FAX: 707-965-6390 Angwin, CA 94508
> !!Also see the Botany Site at http://botany.about.com>> Ants are so much like human beings as to be an embarrassment...They do
> everything but watch television. -- Lewis Thomas