Terminology question

Aad van Beek via pbs pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
Thu, 16 Jul 2020 10:54:34 PDT
If I understand correctly this is gonna be published on the PBS site.

That means *nomen nudem* is a nice find but it won't ring a bell for most people including me and only used by the happy few that read those scientific journals. So my suggestion is keep it simple as not everybody interested in hippeastrum from Bolivia has a PhD

Cheers Aad
________________________________
From: pbs <pbs-bounces@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> on behalf of Cody H via pbs <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:25:58 PM
To: Pacific Bulb Society <pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net>
Cc: Cody H <plantboy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [pbs] Terminology question

Nice find John. Now that you mention it, I remember having seen this term
in the literature.

Jane, if you did publish the manuscript with the names for the
unconfirmed/provisional species in the same format as typical scientific
names, I think that would make them *nomina nuda*. However, I also think
most taxonomists would advise against the intentional creation of *nomina
nuda*. I’d still suggest the format I previously described.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:57 AM John Ralph Carpenter via pbs <
pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net> wrote:

> I've seen *nomen nudem* used for as yet unpublished names.
>
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…


More information about the pbs mailing list