(070) Proposal to add a new example after article 9 note 6 to illustrate when the term “holotype” cannot be corrected
Some confusion may arise regarding the application of Art. 9.10 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). When the term “holotype”is misused, it can be corrected (to lecto-, neo-or epitype). For this, the requirements of Art. 7.11 must be met. While Art. 9 Ex. 11 illustrates...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Articulo article acceptedVersion |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
International Association for Plant Taxonomy
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://rdi.uncoma.edu.ar/handle/uncomaid/16208 https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12469 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tax.12469 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | Some confusion may arise regarding the application of Art. 9.10 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). When the term “holotype”is misused, it can be corrected (to lecto-, neo-or epitype). For this, the requirements of Art. 7.11 must be met. While Art. 9 Ex. 11 illustrates when the misused term “holotype” can be corrected, there is no Example illustrating when the term cannot be corrected. Although Art. 7.11 is clear, and a typification statement on or after 1 January 2001 must include the phrase “designated here” or an equivalent, adding an Example after Art. 9 Note 6 could be clarifying. Hence, I feel that the following new Example should be included in the Code. |
|---|