Guidelines for requests for binding decisions on application of the Code

By McNeill John  

Taxon, Vol. 61, Iss. 2, 2012-04 ,pp. : 477-478

International Association for Plant Taxonomy

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

(30–41) Requests for binding decisions on the descriptive statements associated with 12 species in Conrad Loddiges and Sons' The Botanical Cabinet

By Turner I.M.  

Taxon, Vol. 64, Iss. 6, 2015-12 ,pp. : 1333-1335

International Association for Plant Taxonomy

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

(15–16) Requests for binding decisions on whether Hoppea Willd. (1801) (Gentianaceae) and Hoppia Nees (1842) (Cyperaceae), and Hoppea Willd. and Hopea Roxb. (1811) (Dipterocarpaceae) are sufficiently alike to be confused

By Marinho Lucas Cardoso   Machado Anderson Ferreira Pinto  

Taxon, Vol. 63, Iss. 4, 2014-08 ,pp. : 949-950

International Association for Plant Taxonomy

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

(23–24) Requests for binding decisions on whether Rubus chingii Hu and R. chingianus Hand.-Mazz., and Rubus tsangii Merr. and R. tsangiorum Hand.-Mazz. (Rosaceae) are sufficiently alike to be confused

By Deng Yun-Fei  

Taxon, Vol. 64, Iss. 2, 2015-05 ,pp. : 394-395

International Association for Plant Taxonomy

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

The foundation of the Melbourne Code Appendices: Announcing a new paradigm for tracking nomenclatural decisions

By  

Taxon, Vol. 64, Iss. 5, 2015-10 ,pp. : 1021-1027

International Association for Plant Taxonomy

Access to resources Recommend Favorite