Compositae vs. Asteraceae ??

[Bryan Ness]

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 they 
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?

Bryan

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 rank
>can bear only one correct name, the earliest that is in accordance with the
>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 Jussieu
>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
>Compositae.
>
>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 hgmp.mrc.ac.uk.plantbio@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>
>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 names
> > are actually correct.  The name Asteraceae is correct by the current
>naming
> > 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 been
> > of such long-standing use and banning them would cause too much
> > confusion.  It appears that retaining these names sometimes also causes
> > 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


---