la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_Latina_botanica
1 correction found
et praecipue ad nova taxa describenda usque adhuc obligata est.
This is outdated. Under the current International Code of Nomenclature, names of new taxa published on or after January 1, 2012 may be accompanied by a Latin or English description or diagnosis, so Latin is no longer obligatory for that purpose.
Full reasoning
The page says botanical Latin is still obligatory for describing new taxa. That was true under older botanical nomenclature rules, but it is no longer true today.
The current official International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants states in Article 39.2 that, for a new taxon name published on or after 1 January 2012, valid publication requires "a Latin or English description or diagnosis". In other words, English is now accepted as an alternative, so Latin is not still mandatory.
This is also confirmed by the official summary of the Melbourne Congress changes, which explains that the former requirement for a Latin description/diagnosis was modified so that for names published on or after 1 January 2012, the description/diagnosis must be in either English or Latin.
So the article's wording is outdated: botanical Latin remains important and widely used, but it is not still obligatory for new-taxon descriptions in the way this sentence claims.
2 sources
- Article 39 — International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants
39.2. In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon published on or after 1 January 2012 must be accompanied by a Latin or English description or diagnosis...
- Major changes to the Code of Nomenclature—Melbourne, July 2011
...for names published on or after 1 January 2012, the description and/or diagnosis must be in either English or Latin.