Opinion 132 deals with a Request for an Opinion asking the Judicial Commission to assess the nomenclatural status of Skermania piniformis (Blackall et al. 1989) Chun et al. 1997, a new combination affected by an unusual change in the epithet of its basonym, Nocardia pinensis Blackall et al. 1989. This is done by re-evaluating Opinion 85, which sets a precedent. The reasons and consequences of this earlier Opinion are explained in detail, and corresponding guidelines for orthographic corrections are given, along with further guidance derived from more recently published Judicial Opinions. The request to change the epithet to Skermania pinensis corrig. (Blackall et al. 1989) Chun et al. 1997 is granted, and it is also emphasized that this does not affect the legitimacy or the date of valid publication of the names involved. The Judicial Commission also grants the third request made in the same article and rules that, according to Rule 54 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP), it is not necessary, and even unwise, to propose two names for the same taxon in the same study to replace an illegitimate name.
Judicial Opinion 132
Ventura S.;
2025
Abstract
Opinion 132 deals with a Request for an Opinion asking the Judicial Commission to assess the nomenclatural status of Skermania piniformis (Blackall et al. 1989) Chun et al. 1997, a new combination affected by an unusual change in the epithet of its basonym, Nocardia pinensis Blackall et al. 1989. This is done by re-evaluating Opinion 85, which sets a precedent. The reasons and consequences of this earlier Opinion are explained in detail, and corresponding guidelines for orthographic corrections are given, along with further guidance derived from more recently published Judicial Opinions. The request to change the epithet to Skermania pinensis corrig. (Blackall et al. 1989) Chun et al. 1997 is granted, and it is also emphasized that this does not affect the legitimacy or the date of valid publication of the names involved. The Judicial Commission also grants the third request made in the same article and rules that, according to Rule 54 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP), it is not necessary, and even unwise, to propose two names for the same taxon in the same study to replace an illegitimate name.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
ijsem006819_Judicial_Opinion_132.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
196.48 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
196.48 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


