"Nadia talent" schreef in
I see the problem. Indeed your interpretation seems reasonable, but it is
not what the article says, as it is worded. I will post this on Taxacom,
and perhaps that way someone will point me to a published statement about
interpretation, or at least the ambiguity will be brought to the attention
of the editorial committee of the code.

Nadia Talent

***
Well, the wording in the ICBN is often such that some background reading is
necessary. In this case the wording is fairly straightforward, but it does
help to have seen some of the older literature. For example if you had seen
some of Linnaeus Species Plantarum (available at gallica) you would have
aware how he recognises a rank below that of species, marked only by a Greek
letter.

Do keep in mind that we have 250 years of nomenclature, covered by only a
hundred years of Code (and only fifty years of ICBN proper). This is quite
a paradox! Wording in the ICBN is like a house of cards, when it comes to
making changes.

PvR