Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:46:29 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3545$foo@default> Subject: Re: Jan's CP Database (Adding comments on names)
Dear Paul, Charles & al.,
Thanks for your approval of the cp database. The database would,
however, not exist without the help from many fellow enthusiasts and
scientists. Above all, Rick's achievement of writing the necessary
software (and steadily improving it!) should be mentioned.
As far as names are concerned, you are of course right that only
valid names should be used (and contained in a database). Some
invalid names have been added because they are +/- frequently seen
in living and herbarium collections, and sometimes also in
publications. But what Charles meant was not the technical
(nomenclatural) aspect of validity but the taxonomic decision of
acceptance.
A name is valid when it was formed and published according to the
rules of the ICBN. Of course, a species should be *new* when it is
described as a "species nova". But unfortunately, the ICBN will not
tell you if something is new or not. A database (like the cp
database) can at the most (i.e. if the database is sufficiently
comprehensive and up-to-date) tell you if a particular name has been
used for a plant already.
The question of sufficient distinction from already described taxa
cannot be answered with a simple, limited set of rules. This is why
opinion (some prefer the term "interpretation" that sounds more
scientific) marks any taxonomic work. Most of the names in the cp
database are valid (the exceptions being mainly nomina nuda and later
homonyms), but most of these valid names are not accepted because
they are *considered* to be synonyms, i.e. they are *interpreted* to
belong to other, validly named taxa.
What Charles asked me to do is to comment *why* certain names are
accepted in the cp database and why others are not. This was/is,
however, not my intention with the database. Commenting each entry
(or even updating these comments appropriately) would take more than
a lifetime if it should be done in a sufficient quality. Peter Taylor
worked for more than 50 years on a collection of comments on
_Utricularia_ alone, commonly known as his monograph. Although this
was the best and most comprehensive taxonomic text that was ever
written on _Utricularia_, the genus still leaves enough open
questions for at least another 50 years of research.
A simple and possibly satisfactory improvement of the cp database
would be the addition of "disqualifiers". At the moment, no
difference is made between unaccept*ed* (in the taxonomic concept
used in the database) and invalid (generally unaccept*able* for
nomenclatural reasons) names. Both do not bear the qualifier "+"
preceding their names. I could add a "-" (if that is compatible with
Rick's program) preceding invalid names, thus documenting their
nomenclaturally unacceptable status.
Please note that the (un)accepted/(in)valid distinction does only
apply to taxonomic names of wild plants. Names of cultivated plants
(cultivars, cultivar groups, chimaeras) are not comparable with
taxonomic names, they are formed according to the ICNCP. For this
reason, they have been removed from the original database and are now
listed separately (in the International Register of Cultivated
Carnivorous Plants). Users of the cp database will notice this by the
fact that some search results are sorted in two alphabetically
ordered groups, one for taxonomic names and one for names of
cultivated CPs.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:38 PST