Dear Ms. Rashida, Theophastrus did gave classification of some plants but he never used Binomial Nomenclature so his names are botanically invalid, and same goes to the famous indian treatise of Hortus Malabaricus.
At the same time, Linnaeus never claimed himself that he was the first one. If you go through his texts in Species Plantarum, he has compiled all the information on the same plant by previous authors including some of his own works. But its Article 7.7 of ICBN Vienna Code, which states that: "A name validly published by reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis (Art. 32.1(d)) is to be typified by an element selected from the context of the validating description or diagnosis, unless the validating author has definitely designated a different type (but see Art. 10.2). However, the type of a name of a taxon assigned to a group with a nomenclatural starting-point later than 1 May 1753 (see Art. 13.1) is to be determined in accordance with the indication or descriptive and other matter accompanying its valid publication (see Art. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)." Even another strange fact is, both volumes of Species Plantarum were not published on 1st of May 1753 but the second was somewhere in August. But according to ICBN both has to be considered published on 1 May 1753. All according to the convenience of those Europeans who loved Linnaeus most probably. Regards Pankaj On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Rashida Atthar <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Dr. Pankaj for this interesting info. and the sketch too. After all > Linnaeus improved upon the system, that way even Theophrastus who first > classified plants much before Clifford would claim all the credit ! > > regards, > Rashida. > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Pankaj Kumar <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Dear Ms. Rashida, >> >> Nothing special about being displayed in a trophy. People have their >> own way of decorating their herbarium sheets. George Clifford had his >> own ways and this is one of them. Same goes to the label. Ideally the >> paper is supposed to be of A3 size with a label on lower right hand >> side. But there is no such written rule in ICBN or anywhere. This is >> just to make it acceptable through out the world for carrying, >> distribution and exchange for scientific purpose. During old periods, >> herbariums used to exchange their sheets in return for other sheets >> from the next herbaria. Clifford's specimens were used almost 15 years >> later by Linnaeus to describe many of his species. Infact there was a >> time when Linnaeus used to work for Clifford on the catalogue of the >> plants in his garden and herbarium and came out with Hortus >> Cliffortianus in 1738, much before his own Species Plantarum (1753), >> though Species Plantarum is considered as first Taxonomic treatise >> with binomial nomenclature, which it is not!! >> >> One such great example is of N. Wallich. He collected hell lot of >> samples and made 20 copies of each taxa from Indian subcontinent. >> Though he never could describe most of them himself. 1000s of new >> species emerged from his specimens later. Because he did one very nice >> effort by distributing his specimens to 8 different herbaria of the >> world to facilitate others to work upon. He could do this, because he >> maintained the same format for all sheets. >> >> Even for labelling the specimens, ideally calligraphic ink pen is >> supposed to be used and there used to be specialised calligraphers >> appointed for this purpose during those periods. Hooker and Wallich >> were supposed to be very good calligraphers themselves. Those were the >> good old taxonomic days. >> >> You know in Germany, the Berlin herbarium was destroyed during the >> world war and many of their sheets were lost, including lots of type >> sheets. So these high profile herbarium have now another set preserved >> in war proof rooms so that, incase if there is again a bomb on their >> herbarium, then they will have sheets to revive their herbarium. They >> have specialized, isolated underground, war proof zones with >> restricted entry. >> >> Just to make it interesting, I am attaching a sketch of Rauvolfia >> tetraphylla L. Sp. Pl. 1: 208. 1753. Though the original citation >> belong to Hort. Cliff. but Species Plantarum is considered as its >> original description. Interestingly the sketch is from Hortus >> Cliffortianus written in 1737-38. >> >> Regards >> Pankaj >> >> HOPE THIS IS NOT BORING.... >> >> >> >> -- >> *********************************************** >> "TAXONOMISTS GETTING EXTINCT AND SPECIES DATA DEFICIENT !!" >> >> >> Pankaj Kumar Ph.D. (Orchidaceae) >> Research Associate >> Greater Kailash Sacred Landscape Project >> Department of Habitat Ecology >> Wildlife Institute of India >> Post Box # 18 >> Dehradun - 248001, India > > -- *********************************************** "TAXONOMISTS GETTING EXTINCT AND SPECIES DATA DEFICIENT !!" Pankaj Kumar Ph.D. (Orchidaceae) Research Associate Greater Kailash Sacred Landscape Project Department of Habitat Ecology Wildlife Institute of India Post Box # 18 Dehradun - 248001, India
