E of publication, it was pretty clear that Tuckerman get Eledoisin described it
E of publication, it was extremely clear that Tuckerman described it as a new subspecies for Erioderma chilense and he did not believe that the author had any doubt that the subspecies was not connected to E. velligerum. McNeill responded that it was very clear that his action was not in accord with Art. 33 as at the moment written.Report on botanical nomenclature Vienna 2005: Art.Hawksworth noted that it was a scenario discovered in Theodore Magnus Fries too. He added that there have been other circumstances and it could frequently rely on the layout, providing the example that it was not uncommon in the time for lichenologists to location such names underneath the species that was intended in the layout. He pointed out that these had been accepted as validly published in these ranks and he was not be happy with the proposal without further study on how lots of names could be impacted. McNeill agreed that, if names had been indented beneath the species name, it fulfilled the needs of Art. 33. and would not be affected, but he had looked at this case and could find no way in which it reflected the Short article, albeit the intent was clear. Per Magnus J gensen explained that it was a case he had come across when he worked around the genus. He was uncertain what to accomplish with it, based on the Code and believed in the beginning that it was valid, but now he was certainly convinced that Tuckerman did not associate the names despite getting a taxonomic opinion about it, but that was a distinctive matter. Ahti was unhappy about the Instance. He argued that when the Section wanted great examples of subspecies described with no indicating below which species they should be placed, there have been lots of fantastic examples beneath Hieracium in Sweden and Finland, where lots of taxa were recognized at the rank of subspecies within the 800’s. He felt the suggested Instance was very uncommon and maybe questionable. Nicolson had a question for J gensen: was the “combinatiovaligerum” a species mixture or was that his subspecies Per Magnus J gensen replied that that was the issue and it was not feasible to utilize the Code in this case which was why he had approached McNeill regarding the question. McNeill believed that it was not valid and J gensen believed that it was required as an Example, perhaps a voted Instance. Nicolson confessed that it didn’t happen to him that it was not anything but a species name for which the author had neglected to provide the subspecies names. Per Magnus J gensen believed that what had happened, was that Tuckerman originally thought it was a species but changed his thoughts while publishing. The type mentioned “sp. nov.”, but he published it as a subsp. nov. which was not a misprint; it was a taxonomic decision and the ruling was concerning the names, but he clearly did not associate the [specific and subspecific] names that is what had caused the muddle. Hawksworth noted that there have been some examples, Saccardo used to perform it too. He PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25211762 thought it was a harmful thought with out a lot more analysis. McNeill recommended that as there was a strongly positive mail vote, the Section could refer it towards the Editorial Committee. His guess was that there will be a lichenologist on it. If this Instance was not deemed a suitable Instance, the Editorial Committee would add a further suitable Instance, say a Fries or Saccardo case, where by indentation or other indication the truth that it was associated was illustrated. But that will be a matter of editorial judgment, if the Editorial Committee deemed this Example suitable for inclusio.
