Seventy-Two Proposals for the Conservation of Types of Selected Linnaean Generic Names

Seventy-Two Proposals for the Conservation of Types of Selected Linnaean Generic Names,
the Report of Subcommittee 3C on the Lectotypification of Linnaean Generic Names
Author(s): C. E. Jarvis
Source: Taxon, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Aug., 1992), pp. 552-583
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1222833
Accessed: 01-02-2019 04:11 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1222833?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
552
TAXON
VOLUME
41
PROPOSALS TO CONSERVE OR REJECT
Edited by Dan H. Nicolson1
Seventy-two proposals for the conservation of types of selected Lin
names, the report of Subcommittee 3C on the lectotypification of Linnae
names.
Introduction
Subcommittee 3C was the third of three subcommittees comprising the Special Com-
mittee on Lectotypification authorised by the Berlin Congress (see McNeill, 1987;
Nicolson, 1988). The Subcommittee's mandate came from a proposal made by W. T.
Stearn in connection with the discussion of Art. 8 Prop. A at Berlin (see Greuter & al.,
1989: 46-54). Stearn suggested that as the consistent adoption of either the Britton &
Brown (1913) choices of type for Linnaean generic names or those of Hitchcock (1929)
and Green (1929) would fail to maintain current usage of some names, causing disruption, it would be better, where a conflict existed, to choose the type that would best
maintain usage of the name in question. Subcommittee 3C was subsequently
established to produce specific proposals aimed at avoiding disadvantageous changes
in the usage of Linnaean generic names.
Background
Since the XII International Botanical Congress in Seattle in 1969, the priorability of
typifications made by Britton and co-workers under the American code (Arthur & al.,
1907) has been limited by Art. 8. Hence for Linnaean generic names, these American
code typifications have often been regarded as having been made mechanically or
arbitrarily and, as a result, have been ignored although they usually pre-date the
choices made by Hitchcock and Green. However, the Committee on Lectotypification
that reported to the Berlin Congress (McNeill, 1986) concluded that there was no
justification for the automatic exclusion of American code typifications. McNeill &
al. (1987) attempted to investigate, predominantly from literature sources, the
nomenclatural consequences of the 'reinstatement' of the priority of such earlier
choices of type on 112 Linnaean generic names where conflicting decisions have been
made. This was the starting point for Subcommittee 3C.
Membership
The Subcommittee had the following members: C. E. Jarvis (BM), Secretary; P. F.
Cannon (IMI, Kew); P. Isoviita (H, Helsinki); C. Jeffrey (K, Kew); B. Jonsell (SBT,
Stockholm); J. McNeill (TRT, Toronto) and W. T. Stearn (Kew). Two others, D. H.
Nicolson (Secretary, General Committee) and W. Greuter (Rapporteur-g6n6ral) were
non-voting ex officio members.
Department of Botany, NHB-166, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
1992
553
Methods
It became clear that the work necessary to provide the information that would enable
proposals to be produced was not particularly suited to being undertaken by the whole
Subcommittee and so the initial gathering of information on the generic names was
undertaken by the Secretary. In this task he was greatly assisted by Ellen Farr who
kindly provided a data file of the information on Linnaean generic names from the
Index nominum genericorum (ING) database. Fred Barrie assisted in the computer
handling of these data in London. To the ING entries of Linnaean generic names for
which more than one type had been indicated (c. 150) was added information from the
Linnaean Typification Project's database (Cannon & al., 1983; Jarvis, 1986) on the
typification of the species names involved. This was felt to be necessary because under
Art. 10.1, "The type of the name of a genus ... is the type of the name of a species".
Although the citation of a species name "... is considered as the full equivalent of its
type" (Art. 10.1), it is clear that the choice of a species name as a generitype is
precarious in fixing the application of the generic name until that species name is
itself typified. As the remit of the Subcommittee was essentially to make proposals
aimed at avoiding further uncertainty in the application of Linnaean generic names,
this is an aspect that could not be neglected. Where relevant, reference was added to
McNeill & al.s (1987) assessment of the consequences of adopting one or other choice
of type.
Each of the 150 generic summaries was then sent to a specialist on the genus in question together with a request for an assessment of the nomenclatural impact, if any, of
the adoption of competing typifications. In addition, where no typification of the
relevant species name had been located, specialists were encouraged to identify
original material with a view to providing definitive typifications. The full list of
genera formed part of the mailing to committee members.
The response by specialists to the mailing of individual accounts of genera was
extremely good (over 70 Wo) and has, in some cases, led to an extended exchange of
correspondence. The Subcommittee is particularly grateful to those specialists, in
addition to members of the Subcommittee, who have taken the time to comment,
often extensively, on questions posed by the Secretary. On behalf of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank G. Argus, R. M. Baldini, R. Barneby, E R. Barrie, A. Baytop,
C. C. Berg, C. Blanche i Verges, D. Bridson, R. K. Brummitt, B. L. Burtt, W. D.
Clayton, T. A. Cope, A. Cronquist, G. Dahlgren, J. A. Devesa, B. E. Dutton, J.
Edmondson, E. Ehrendorfer, E. Farr, I. K. Ferguson, C. Feuillet, P. A. Fryxell, E.
Gabrielian, P. Gibbs, M. G. Gilbert, A. Goldberg, P. Goldblatt, D. Goyder, J. Grau, R.
Grolle, K. Hammer, H. 't Hart, I. C. Hedge, W. Hempel, H. J. Hewson, D. J. N. Hind,
L. B. Holm-Nielsen, W. Huber, C. J. Humphries, H.-D. Ihlenfeldt, L. Irvine, D. Isely,
I. Kress, I. Kukkonen, H. W. Lack, E. Landolt, P. Lassen, L. C. Leach, A. J. M.
Leeuwenberg, G. L6pez Gonzalez, J. M. MacDougal, B. Mathew, J. S. Miller, J.
Molero, J. Moore, J. K. Morton, D. McClintock, A. Paton, D. P. Petit, R. E. G. PichiSermolli, R. M. Polhill, J. R. Press, A. Radcliffe-Smith, H. Rasmussen, J.-P. Reduron,
J. L. Reveal, H. Riedl, N. K. B. Robson, R. C. Rollins, G. D. Rowley, R. W. Sanders,
M. W. van Slageren, E. Small, A. J. E. Smith, P. M. Smith, B. Stannard, C. Stirton, A.
Stork, E. E. Terrell, M. A. Thi6baud, M. Thulin, H. R. Toelken, C. Townsend, P.
Uotila, S. Vander Kloet, B. Verdcourt, K. B. Vollesen, M. J. Warnock, H. E. Weber, D.
O. Wijnands, K. L. Wilson, and G. Zijlstra for their contributions.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
554
TAXON
The
VOLUME
Linnaean
41
gener
where
different
choi
Green
respectively.
H
by
other
authors
(and
sidered.
These
addit
Boerhavia,
Byssus,
C
Erica,
Galium,
Hedyo
bryanthemum,
Morus
baldia,
Sorbus,
Stapeli
Results
From the results of this survey, many Linnaean generic names were eliminated from
further consideration. Baccharis, Bignonia, Byssus, Cytisus, Gerardia, Leontodon,
Medicago, Mesembryanthemum, Polygonum, Scirpus and Tremella were already dealt
with via some form of conservation or rejection. For Achillea, Ajuga, Androsace,
Bauhinia, Boerhavia, Chara, Cyperus, Duranta, Fevillea, Fritillaria, Glycyrrhiza,
Gossypium, Hypochaeris, Iva, Lobelia, Lunaria, Mercurialis, Mimosa, Momordica,
Morus, Pancratium, Pedicularis, Rudbeckia, Salsola, Sanguisorba, Sesamum, Sida,
Sideritis, Silene, Tagetes, Typha, Valeriana and Vinca, no nomenclatural disruption (at
any rank) would occur irrespective of which of the proposed types was adopted. The
priority of choice is largely undisputed for Adiantum, Asplenium, Cornus, Erisymum,
Myrica, Nigella, Poterium, Pteris, Sibbaldia and Sorbus. The potential disruption to
nomenclature was not thought to be serious enough to justify proposals for Anthemis,
Chenopodium, Echium, Equisetum, Lythrum and Ranunculus. The Subcommittee was
unable to obtain enough information concerning Astragalus, Lamium and Phaca to
make any proposal. Verbesina is the subject of a separate proposal by C. Jeffrey.
The Subcommittee eventually voted on 77 proposals (involving 76 generic names)
for the adoption of conserved types. Of these, 64 were approved with a two-thirds
majority (26 unanimously) and relevant conserved types are proposed here, by the
Subcommittee, for Linnaean generic names where disruption of usage would otherwise be likely to occur. Votes cast are shown for each proposal in the usual sequence of
votes for, votes against and abstentions. Six of the eligible seven members took part in
the voting (McNeill and the ineligible Greuter and Nicolson did not take part). In
adopted proposals, votes cast against usually reflected a belief that the proposal was
unnecessary, often because the chosen type had priority. Abstentions most frequently
indicated that members were unfamiliar with the genus concerned and that they were
consequently reluctant to influence the voting one way or another. Eight proposals
gained a simple majority, but failed to attain one of two-thirds (those for Bupleurum,
Coronilla, Daphne, Melampyrum, Melochia, Rubus, Salix and Thalictrum). These are
appended to this Report for possible consideration by the General Committee.
Four proposals were rejected by the Subcommittee. Members felt that the potential
disruption to infrageneric nomenclature did not justify the adoption as "typ. cons' of
Lonicera xylosteum (votes 1 : 4 : 0), or Atractylis cancellata (votes 0 : 3 : 1). Similarly,
the complexities of the infrageneric nomenclature of Tulipa resulted in the rejection of
two proposals, for the adoption as "typ. cons"' of T gesneriana (votes 2 : 3 : 1) and T
sylvestris (votes 1 : 1 : 2). A proposal with respect to Antholyza was withdrawn at a late
stage when it became clear that adoption of A. ringens as "typ. cons' would severely
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
1992
disrupt
Vos (1989).
a
555
rece
The continuing uncertainty over the status of American code typifications under
the present Code has convinced us that stability would be best served by the proposal
of all these 65 cases. As this Subcommittee reports to the General Committee, its pro-
posals can be considered there and submitted for ratification directly to the
Nomeclature Section, rather than being considered once more, individually, by the
appropriate Permanent Committees. With 65 proposals, each is necessarily concise.
However, for many of these names, further information can be found in the specific
references to McNeill & al. (1987).
2328 Achyranthes Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 204. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (5 :0 : 0)
T.: A. aspera Linnaeus (T. [designated by Townsend (1974: 35)]: Herb. Hermann
No. 105, vol. 2: 69, BM), typ. cons. prop.
Adoption of the earlier choice, Achyranthes repens L. (Standley, 1915), would mean
that the 200 species now recognized as comprising Alternanthera would have to be
placed in Achyranthes (Townsend, in lit.; McNeill & al., 1987: 356). Acceptance of A.
aspera (Hitchcock, 1929, and taken up by e.g. Howard, 1988: 144) maintains usage of
the generic name.
2540 Aconitum Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 532. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (5 : 0: 1)
T.: A. napellus Linnaeus (T. [designated by Molero & Blanche (1984: 212)]: Herb.
Clifford 214, Aconitum 3, BM), typ. cons. prop.
Aconitum lycoctonum L. is the earlier choice (Britton & Brown, 1913), but it is also
the type of Lycoctonum Forreau, widely recognized at sectional rank and sometimes
as a subgenus (see McNeill & al., 1987: 356). An added complication is that the species
name has also been treated as a nomen ambiguum by many (e.g. Tutin, 1964a: 211;
Tamura & Lauener, 1979: 459; see also Munz, 1945: 464). The choice of A. napellus L.
(Green, 1929) is later, but it would maintain usage for the A. sect. Aconitum, long
applied in the sense of section "Euaconitum" or "Napellus" (J. Molero, pers. comm.).
2549 Adonis Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 547. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (4 : 1 :0)
T.: A. annua Linnaeus (T.: Herb. Linnaeus No. 714.3, LINN), typ. cons. prop.
Adonis annua (designated as type by Britton & Brown, 1913) has also been adopted
by Riedl (1963) who segregated the perennial species as A. sect. Consiligo DC. Chrtek
& Slavikovyi (1978) also treated A. annua as the type, segregating the perennials in the
genus Chrysocyathus Falconer (H. Rasmussen, pers. comm.). A. vernalis L. was
selected as lectotype by Green (1929), but the adoption of this perennial species as type
would be most disruptive (McNeill & al., 1987: 356). Usage seems better served by
adopting the earlier choice. Steinberg (1971: 320) wrongly designated a Bauhin
specimen (BAS), never seen by Linnaeus, as the lectotype of A. annua.
408 Aegilops Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 1050. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (5 : 0 : 1)
T.: A. triuncialis Linnaeus (T. [designated by Bowden (1959)]: Herb. Linnaeus
No. 1218.8, LINN), typ. cons. prop.
Aegilops ovata L., designated by Green (1929), is the earlier choice. However,
Greuter & Rechinger (1967: 170) designated the Scheuchzer plate and description
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
556
TAXON
VOLUME
41
(=
A.
neglecta
Req.
1218.1 (LINN) was ineligible. The name has been widely treated as a "nomen
ambiguum", but a proposal by Lambinon (1981: 361) to reject the name was not
accepted by the Committee for Spermatophyta (Brummitt, 1986: 557). However, the
Committee added that A. ovata should not be taken up in the sense of A. neglecta
(because this would be contrary to previous usage), pending further consideration of
the typification of A. ovata. Even if one disagreed with Greuter & Rechinger's choice
of type, there seem to be no technical grounds for rejecting it and the name has
remained in limbo, making it an unfortunate type for the name of the genus. A. triun-
cialis was selected as lectotype by Hammer (1980) and this choice would evidently
maintain usage.
242 Agrostis Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 61. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (6 : 0 : 0)
T.: A. canina Linnaeus (T. [designated by Widen (1971)]: Herb. Burser I: 3,
UPS), typ. cons. prop.
Agrostis alba L., designated as type by Hitchcock (1905), conflicts with the generic
description and is a synonym of Poa nemoralis L. (McNeill & al., 1987: 357). A.
stolonifera L. was proposed in its place by Hitchcock (1920) but the species has been
referred to Vilfa Adanson by Palisot de Beauvois which has often been recognized
subsequently at subgeneric ranks within Agrostis. Romero Garcia & al. (1988: 35-36)
argued that it, too, conflicts with the generic description (which is based on a member
of Linnaeus's Aristatae) in being one of the species from his Muticae (Romero Garcia,
pers. comm.). A. canina was designated as the lectotype by Philipson (1937) and has
been adopted by Widen (1971) and Romero Garcia & al. (1988) in their recent revision.
Its acceptance would evidently maintain usage of the generic name.
265 Aira Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 63. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (4 : : 1)
T.: A. praecox Linnaeus (T. [here designated by T. A. Cope]: Herb. Linnaeus No.
85.21, LINN), typ. cons. prop.
Aira caerulea L. was the earliest choice of type (Nash in Britton & Brown, 1913) but,
according to Zijlstra (in lit.), it conflicts with the generic protologue and is, in any
case, a species of Molinia (Trist & Sell, 1988). The next choice was A. cespitosa L.
(Hitchcock, 1920), but it also conflicts in having glumes clearly differing from one
another (Zijlstra, in lit.) and is a species of Deschampsia. A. praecox is the third choice
(Hitchcock, 1929) and, although it is also the type of Aspris Adanson, its adoption
would appear to retain current usage of the name. A. caryophyllea was chosen as type
by Cvelev in 1976 (Cope, pers. comm.; McNeill & al., 1987: 357). A proposal to conserve A. praecox as "typ. cons"' now seems preferable. Were it to be argued that the two
earlier choices are not in conflict with the generic protologue, A. praecox would not
then be the earliest choice.
134 Andropogon Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 1045. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (5 : 0 : 0)
T.: A. distachyos Linnaeus ("distachyon") (T. [designated by Clayton & Renvoize
(1982)]: Herb. BurserI: 120, UPS), typ. cons. prop.
Andropogon hirtus L., the earliest choice of type (Nash, 1912), is universally treated
as a species of Hyparrhenia (e.g. by Clayton, 1969). Acceptance of this as type would
mean that 50-70 species of Hyparrhenia would become Andropogon and the 113 or so
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ex
AUGUST
1992
557
species
currentl
Clayton,
pers.
c
Hitchcock
have
been
quences;
(1920
propo
thoug
distachyos
if
it
(proposed
by
adopted,
e.g.,
G
b
2541
Anemone
T.:
A.
coronar
710.9,
LINN),
Anemone
ty
coron
tain
current
usa
the
name
Anem
majority
of
aut
later
choice
(Gre
segregated
it
an
the
type).
Its
ad
to
the
other
10
broad
concept
nemorosa
is
va
Sylvia
(by
Tuti
recent
6082
author
to
Angelica
T.:
A.
Herb.
L
sylvestri
Clifford
Angelica
archan
the
homotypic
segregated
from
would
be
needed
1929)
but
it
pre
nomenclature
Guti6rrez
Bust
sylvestris.
How
"typical"
subspe
usage
(Reduron,
6004
Apium
Lin
T.:
A.
Herb.
graveolen
Clifford
Apium
petrosel
ton,
1918)
but
Adoption
of
thi
new
generic
nam
of
Apium
by
Hi
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
558
TAXON
2229
VOLUME
Atriplex
T.:
A.
41
Linnae
hortensis
Clifford
469,
Li
Atripl
Atriplex
hortensis
i
conflict
with
the
ge
by
Green
(1929),
is
would
cause
change
could
be
argued
that
(hence
the
single
vot
Subcommittee
chos
other
Code
changes
7973
T.:
Barleria
B.
Herb.
Linna
cristata
Linna
Linnaeus
No
Barleria
prionitis
L
of
the
g
subg.
or
sect.
subdivisions
in
B.
widely
tunate
treated
to
have
as
the
to
ren
2889
Biscutella
Linn
T.:
B.
didyma
Linn
Biscutella
2,
BM),
ty
Green
(1925a)
first
species
in
both
Hor
Thellung's
protest,
was
on
the
grounds
that
implied
by
the
the
genus.
The
earlie
Zijlstra,
in
lit.,
feels
unfortunate choice of type as recent authors (e.g. Guinea & Heywood, 1964;
Olowokudejo & Heywood, 1984) treat it in B. subg. or sect. Iondraba (2 species) and
Olowokudejo (1987) has suggested that the subgenus warrants generic status as Jondraba. Adoption of B. auriculata would mean the autonym being applied to the small
B. subg. Iondraba and a new name being applied to the large B. subg. Biscutella (32
spp.). For those who recognize 2 genera, Biscutella would become the correct name for
Jondraba and a new generic name would be necessary for the much larger group of
species now called Biscutella. In contrast, most authors have accepted B. didyma as the
generitype (those cited above and e.g. Raffaelli, 1991), placing it in B. subg. and sect.
Biscutella. It therefore agrees with current usage of the generic name and would result
in no unfortunate nomenclatural changes.
367 Briza Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 70. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (4 : 0 : 2)
T.: B. minor Linnaeus (T. [designated by Hubbard (1970)]: Herb. Linnaeus No.
88.1, LINN), typ. cons. prop.
Briza minor (chosen by Nash in Britton & Brown, 1913) is the earlier choice, which
has been followed by Matthei (1975), Nicora & Rugolo (1981), and Clayton & Renvoize
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
1992
559
(1986),
though
was
later
chose
Cvelev
(McNeil
of
B.
minor.
408
Bromus
L
T.:
B.
secalinu
No.
93.1,
LIN
Bromus
secali
(1913),
is
the
e
subgeneric
ran
on
the
other
h
or
sect.
Bromu
B. subg. Stenobromus (Griseb.) Hackel. As it is not inconceivable that these
subgeneric categories may be recognized at generic rank in the future, this choice is
less than ideal (Smith, in lit.). B. arvensis L. has also been proposed as the type by
Wagnon (1952). See McNeill & al. (1987: 362).
8820 Cacalia Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 834. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (4: 1 :0)
T.: C alpina Linnaeus (T. [here designated by C. Jeffrey]: Herb. Burser X: 155,
UPS), typ. cons. prop.
All options lead to some disruption of nomenclature. However, Cacalia alpina is the
earliest choice (P. A. Rydberg, 1924) and is not in serious conflict with the protologue.
Jeffrey (1992) adopted this choice and made necessary combinations as a consequence. Three European species of Adenostyles revert to Cacalia; seven North
American species remain as Arnoglossum, and Parasenecio is released for about 50
eastern Asian species. C atriplicifolia L. was the next choice (Green, 1929), but its
adoption would lead to disruption of Cacalia and Arnoglossum at generic rank. C
hastata L., chosen by Kitamura (1938), also competes but would disrupt Parasenecio
and Cacalia (Jeffrey, 1979; Jeffrey & Chen, 1984; Jeffrey in lit.). A proposal to adopt
C. alpina as "typ. cons.' seems to provide for least disruption.
525 Carex Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 972. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (4 : 0 : 1)
T.: C. hirta Linnaeus (T. [here designated by I. Kukkonen]: Herb. A. van Royen,
sheet 901, 336-595, L.), typ. cons. prop.
Carexpulicaris L. was the earliest choice (Britton, 1907) but its adoption would be
disruptive (C. subg. Primocarex would become C. subg. Carex and there would also be
disruption at lower ranks). C. hirta is the next choice (Green, 1929) and one that main-
tains recent usage (e.g. by Schultze-Motel, 1968; Voss, 1972; Chater, 1980; Egorova,
1966). C. acuta L., proposed most recently by Mackenzie (1931), would cause disruption at sectional rank if adopted (McNeill & al., 1987: 364) in this very large genus
(1000-2000 species). I. Kukkonen and K. Wilson (both in lit.) strongly support this
proposal.
4641 Cassine Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 268. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (5 :0:0)
T.: C peragua Linnaeus (T. [here designated by N. K. B. Robson]: Dillenius,
Hortus Eltham. t. 236, f 305. 1732), typ. cons. prop.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
560
TAXON
Cassine
VOLUME
41
mauroceni
with
the
type
of
M
generally
segregated
rently
with
between
rect
name
for
Maur
to
80
new
combina
has
been
taken
up
(1979),
although
th
type
son,
C.
(Zijlstra,
in
lit).
peragua
in
lit
Herb.
L
(Robson,
6631
Cerbera
Linna
T.:
C
manghas
Lin
Linnaeus
No.
298.2
Cerbera
ahouai
L.
adopted
by
ING
(Z
Thevetia
(T
ahouai
and
a
new
generic
n
as
Cerbera
(McNeill
and
seems
to
have
pold,
1980;
Boiteau,
the
generic
name
(L
by
the
McNeill
&
generitype
al.
(19
by
B
5935
Chaerophyllum
T.:
C.
temulum
Li
Herb.
Linnaeus
No
Chaerophyllum
sylv
species
is
now
cons
acceptance
as
gener
new
name
having
(Hedge,
in
lit.;
Mc
1929),
but
has
been
3082
Cleome
Linna
T.:
C
ornithopodi
Linnaeus
No.
850.1
Cleome
gynandra
L
the
type
of
the
con
e.g.,
a
new
name
n
result
from
its
ad
(1925a),
has
been
w
6993
Convolvulus
L
T.:
C.
arvensis
Lin
No.
218.1,
LINN),
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
t
AUGUST
1992
561
Convolvulus
s
homotypic
wi
Brown).
Its
ad
the
250
specie
Hitchcock
(192
7038
T.:
Cordia
C
myxa
naean
L
L
Herbari
Difficulties
ex
myxa
is
the
ea
(1951),
Kazmi
(
"nomenclatural
name...
with
C
The
species
fa
retaining
the
Cord
second
ch
posed
by
Hitch
small
C.
sect.
C
necessitate
man
in
lit.,
McNeil
and B. Verdcourt.
3164 Cotyledon Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 429. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (6 : 0 : 0)
T.: C orbiculata Linnaeus (T. [here designated by H. R. Toelken]: Hermann,
Hort. Lugd.-Bat. Cat. t. 551. 1687), typ. prop. cons.
Cotyledon hemispherica L. is the earlier choice (Green, 1929) but the species
belongs to Adromischus and, if adopted, 43 name changes would be necessary with
Cotyledon becoming the correct name for Adromischus. A new name and not fewer
than 15 new combinations would be needed for Cotyledon as currently interpreted
(Toelken, in lit.). C orbiculata is a later choice (Phillips, 1951), but it corresponds with
usage and would cause no disruption. Toelken (1979) treated the ineligible Herb. Lin-
naeus No. 594.1 (LINN) as the holotype of C orbiculata.
9605 Crepis Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 805. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (4:0: 1)
T.: C. biennis Linnaeus (T. [designated by Babcock (1947)]: Herb. Linnaeus No.
955.14, LINN), typ. cons. prop.
Neither Crepis tectorum L., designated by Britton & Brown (1913), nor C. biennis,
designated by Green (1929), conflicts with the generic protologue, but if C. tectorum
was adopted, the infrageneric nomenclature of Cerepanov (1964) and Sell (1976)
would be disrupted (Jeffrey, in lit.; McNeill & al., 1987: 366).
3669 Crotalaria Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 714. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (4 : 1 : 1)
T.: C. lotifolia Linnaeus (T. [designated by Fawcett & Rendle (1920)]: Sloane,
Voy. Mad. Jam. 2. t. 176. 1725; typotype in Herb. Sloane 6: 5, BM), typ. cons.
prop.
Crotalaria lotifolia is the earlier choice (Britton & Brown, 1913), recently adopted by
Polhill (1982; in lit.), not least because it agrees well with the generic description. C.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
562
TAXON
VOLUME
laburnifolia
and
is
also
L.
the
nomenclature
41
is
a
l
type
adopt
8622
Cucurbita
Linn
T.:
C.
pepo
Linnaeus
UPS),
typ.
cons.
pro
Cucurbita
lagenaria
tion
would
be
"nom
highly
important
ge
Miller
and
the
econ
would
have
to
be
ca
&
al.
(1987:
367).
2539
Delphinium
Li
T.:
D.
peregrinum
Clifford
213,
Delphinium
universally
Delph
consoli
treated
a
cause
40
species
of
either
Phledenium
Delphinium.
D.
per
widely
adopted
and
c
appears
in
the
Code
code
typification,
bu
with
this
and
Heath
provision
pertaining
1252
Dioscorea
Linn
T.:
D.
sativa
Linnae
in
Linnaeus,
Hort.
C
Dioscorea
sativa
is
th
usage
of
infrageneri
in
D.
subg.
Helmia,
2989
Draba
Linnaeus
T.:
D.
incana
Linn
No.
823.14,
LINN),
t
Draba
verna
L.
is
t
basionym
of
the
co
cause
Draba
to
be
r
incana
is
a
later
cho
nomenclatural
chan
411
T.:
Elymus
Linnaeu
E.
sibiricus
Lin
100.2,
LINN),
typ.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
c
AUGUST
1992
563
Elymus
arenar
sistently
treat
50
species
of
L
need
a
new
na
adopted
as
typ
causes
no
disr
6237
Erica
Lin
T.:
E.
cinerea
Linnaeus
No.
Erica
al.,
cinerea
1979,
i
Jarv
apparently
any
was
chosen
by
lit.)
has
raised
ticularly
"Peria
refers
to
Callu
of
Erica.
Bearin
proposed
8901
T.:
as
"t
Erigeron
E.
unifloru
Linnaeus
Erigeron
No.
acri
quent
treatmen
Cronquist
(1947
treatment
McNeill
&
maintain
is
al.,
usage
8486
Galium
L
T.:
G.
verum
Linnaeus
No.
Galium
mollu
treated
as
fall
Krendl
(1976).
1951)
within
G
disruptive
valuable
in
in
s
deli
8992
Gnaphali
T.:
G.
uligino
Linnaeus
No.
Gnaphalium
been
taken
uliginosum,
and
Hilliard
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
l
up
al
&
564
in
TAXON
the
VOLUME
41
interests
of
n
&
al.,
1987:
373).
A
adopted
for
Pseudo
usually
called
Gnap
Holub's
segregation
o
8136
Hedyotis
Linn
T.:
H.
fruticosa
Lin
No.
63,
1:
18,
BM),
Hedyotis
auriculari
has
been
followed
Smith
which
&
Darwin,
198
would
therefo
to
date.
H.
fruticos
others
(Bullock,
19
favour
of
adopting
H
be
caused
if
Hedyoti
4433
Jatropha
Linna
T.:
J
gossypiifolia
104)]:
Herb.
Linnae
Jatropha
urens
L.
treated
in
Cnidosc
apparently
being
don
priority,
will
lead
Cnidoscolus
and
a
n
Jatropha.
J
curcas
segregate
genus
Cu
treated
in
J
subg.
C
certainly
at
subgene
(Mackenzie,
1929),
bu
force
Jatropha
to
be
J
gossypiifolia,
1967;
type
Wilbur,
is
the
chos
1981;
only
one
8094
Justicia
Linna
T.:
J
hyssopifolia
naeus
No.
28.10,
LI
Justicia
adhatoda
Adhatoda
Miller
wh
Justicia
(McNeill
&
but
for
causes
no
Graham's
difficu
(1988)
7144
Lantana
Linna
T.:
L.
camara
Linn
Linnaeus
No.
783.4
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
1992
565
Lantana
camar
many
recent
au
later
chosen
as
al.,
1987:
376),
Callioreas
Cham
likely
part
to
of
Lantana
3854
be
seg
Lippia
trifolia
Lathyrus
T.:
L.
sylvestri
905.19,
LINN),
Lathyrus
sativu
chosen
later
by
revision
and
tre
placed
the
two
s
ance
of
L.
sylv
earlier
choice
w
795
T.:
Lemna
Lin
L.
minor
L
1093.2,
LINN),
Lemna
trisulca
within
the
L.
s
would
be
appli
become
L.
sect
pointed
out
th
("monophyllus,
in
the
"typical
McNeill
&
al.,
1
Landolt,
1986).
don,
a
name
not
of
this
generic
xiii
Lonchitis
L
T.:
L.
hirsuta
L
Amer.
t.
20.
17
Lonchitis
hirs
(1947),
Tryon
(
generic
name.
L
Underwood
(18
(1977)
identifie
species
known
was
now
to
be
a
new
hirsuta.
generic
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
a
t
566
TAXON
VOLUME
41
9339
Matricaria
Linn
T.:
M.
recutita
Linn
ruderatis
ad
urbem
Boh.-Sloven.
946.II,
K
Matricaria
chamomi
tion
by
Kay
(1976),
bu
conflicts
with
Linnaeu
1961)
and
extensive
has
been
a
discussion)
"typ.
cons'
would
avoi
interpretation
of
the
exist
for
the
typificat
material
cited
by
Pobe
355
T.:
Melica
Linnaeus,
M.
nutans
Linna
86.2,
LINN),
typ.
con
Melica
ciliata
L.
is
the
cause
considerable
dis
sect.
Beckeria
(Hempel
&
Graebner
(1900:
34
nutans
is
a
later
choic
up
(e.g.
by
Clayton
&
system
1394
and
Ophrys
T.:
O.
naeus
the
adoptio
Linnaeus
insectifera
Li
No.
1056.20,
L
Ophrys
of
its
ovata
L.
is
conserved
th
ty
Ophrys
to
fall
into
th
for
the
30
species
curr
has
been
widely
adopt
al., 1987: 379).
1089 Ornithogalum Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 306. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (5 : 0: 1)
T.: 0. umbellatum Linnaeus (T. [designated by Stearn (1983)]: Reneaulme, Sp.
Hist. P1. t. 87. 1611), typ. cons. prop.
Ornithogalum arabicum L. is the earlier choice (Britton & Brown, 1913), but it falls
within O. subg. or sect. Caruelia and is the type of Melomphis Rafin., Caruelia Parl.
and Myanthe Salisb. (Stearn in lit.). O. umbellatum is a later choice (Hitchcock, 1929)
but it belongs to O. subg. Ornithogalum and would cause no disruption to current
usage (McNeill & al., 1987: 379). If the genus was to be divided, the choice of O.
arabicum would be most unfortunate, as about 150 species of Ornithogalum would
require new combinations (Stearn, in lit.).
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
1992
567
9427
Osteosper
T.:
0.
spinosu
No.
1037.1,
LI
Osteospermum
(1943)
rejected
osteospermums
as
Chrysanthe
recognized
(e.
(Norlindh,
19
generitype
wou
and
a
new
nam
Osteospermum
5372
Passiflora
T.:
R
incarnat
1070.25,
LINN
Passiflora
Linnaeus's
incar
gene
rent
usage
(Fe
(1989a).
R
rubr
conflicts
with
disruption
to
position
(McNe
is
some
confus
MacDougal
and
204
T.:
Phalaris
L
P
canarien
Clifford
Phalaris
23,
P
arund
segregated
at
Phalaroides).
It
those
who
wish
a
new
name
w
(McNeill
&
al.,
later
choice
bu
Baldini,
1992)
(Baldini,
9575
T.:
in
Picris
P
Picris
Picris
lit.
Lin
hieracio
2,
BM),
asplenio
quently
been
saw
material
t
of
sequently
reje
sect.
Picris
an
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
568
TAXON
VOLUME
41
McNeill
&
al.,
1987:
tion
of
the
earlier
cons.'
is
put
forward
3703
Psoralea
Linna
T.:
P
pinnata
Linna
Dorycnium
1,
BM),
Psoralea
bituminosa
lit.)
argued
that,
wit
with
the
below).
P
generic
pr
bituminos
(1981a)
and
this
genu
type
of
Psoralea,
54
pinnata
is
a
later
cho
responds
with
usag
381).
Psoralea
s.l.
is
various
of
the
segre
1990).
P
pinnata
is
conceded.
xii Riccia Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 1138. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (4 : 0: 1)
T.: R. glauca Linnaeus (T. [here designated by P. Isoviita & R. Grolle]: Lichen
minimus, foliis venosis bifariam vel trifariam... Dillenius, Historia muscorum
t. 78, upper f 10. 1742; typotype in Herb. Dillenius, OXF; iso-, H-SOL, see
Grolle, 1976; Isoviita, 1970), typ. cons. prop.
Riccia crystallina L. is the earlier choice (Howe in Britton & Millspaugh, 1920
Howe, 1923). There has been some difficulty over the application of this species name,
with Isoviita (1970) originally interpreting it via a Dillenian plate. However, Isoviit
and Grolle (both in lit.) feel that usage of the name should now be in the sense
established by Jovet-Ast (1965) for the Mediterranean segregate (rather than R. caver
nosa Hoffm.). However, both R. crystallina and R. cavernosa are segregated in th
same subgenus (R. subg. Ricciella (A. Br.) Reichenb., R. crystallina being its type) and
section (R. sect. Sphongodes Nees) of the genus (see e.g. Grolle, 1983) and not in R
subg. Riccia. Adoption of R. crystallina as type would therefore be disruptive at
subgeneric and sectional ranks. Farr & al. (1979) indicated it as type, but later (Farr &
al., 1986) changed the choice to R. glauca. Zijlstra (in lit.) implied that R. crystallin
will once again be re-adopted as the type in the next supplement of ING. R. glauca is a
later choice (Hissel de Men6ndez, 1963) but has been widely adopted, falls within R
subg. Riccia and causes no disruption of usage.
3389 Rosa Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 491. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (5 : 0: 0)
T.: R. cinnamomea Linnaeus (T. [here designated by G. D. Rowley]: Herb. Lin
naeus No. 652.8, LINN), typ. cons. prop.
Rosa centifolia L. is the earliest choice (Britton & Brown, 1913), but its adoption
would apply R. subg. or sect. Rosa to the cabbage or moss roses, as the "species" is
complex hybrid containing genes from perhaps three sections of the genus (se
Rowley, 1976). Its unsuitability as a generitype prompted Heath (1985) and Yeo (1986)
to use it as an example in proposing (unsuccessfully) that the types of nothospecie
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
1992
569
names
be
ineligib
next
choice
(Rydb
Cinnamomeae.
It
a
very
suitable
c
member
of
"trib
"caninae-type
me
8546
Scabiosa
Lin
T.:
S.
columbar
No.
120.17,
LINN
Scabiosa
arvensis
argued
that
the
"involucel
witho
(L.)
Coulter).
If
Scabiosa
and
a
ne
S.
columbaria
is
falls
within
Scab
but
Devesa
(1984)
in
the
sense
of
S
There
is
therefo
argument
posed
as
could
"typ.
b
co
7234
Scutellaria
T.:
S.
galericula
No.
751.6,
LINN
Scutellaria
pereg
adoption
has
been
of
authors
since
R
a
later
choice
(Gr
above, by Paton (1990a, 1990b), who also provided an extensive infrageneric
classification.
3161 Sedum Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 430. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (6 : 0 : 0)
T.: S. acre Linnaeus (T. [here designated by H 't Hart]: Herb. Clifford 177,
Sedum 5, BM), typ. cons. prop.
Sedum telephium L. is the earlier choice (Britton & Rose, 1905), also adopted by
Farr & al. (1979), but later rejected by Farr & al. (1986) and now due for reinstatement
in the next supplement (Zijlstra, in lit.). It has often been treated in S. sect. Telephium,
but is now frequently segregated in the genus Hylotelephium (as H. telephium (L.)
Ohba). According to Hart (in lit.), Sedum is a paraphyletic taxon and is on the verge of
being split (see also Berger, 1930; Ohba, 1978; Grulich, 1984). The adoption now of S.
telephium as type would cause Sedum to be applied to the segregate genus (where
recognized), and a new generic name would have to be adopted for about 500 species
currently recognized in Sedum (McNeill & al., 1987: 384). S. acre is a later choice
(Green, 1929) but has been fairly generally accepted (e.g. by Clausen, 1975) and falls
within S. subg. Sedum. It would maintain usage irrespective of the generic concept
adopted.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
570
TAXON
VOLUME
41
2917
Sisymbrium
L
T.:
S.
altissimum
L
836.32,
LINN),
typ
Sisymbrium
nasturt
if
"a
monotypic
genu
tion.
The
name
is
th
officinale
R.
Br.).
If
&
al.,
1987:
385),
invo
S.
altissimum
is
a
lat
up
(see
Al-Shehbaz,
3602
Sophora
Linna
T.:
S.
tomentosa
Li
163,
vol.
Sophora
3:
13,
BM),
alopecuroid
al.,
1987:
385)
and
ha
However,
this
is
the
Sophora
being
split
u
the
larger
part
of
S
later
by
Hitchcock
and
Rudd
(1968)
an
advantage
of
maintai
favoured
by
Isely
(in
7281
Stachys
Linnae
T.:
S.
sylvatica
Linn
Stachys
1,
BM),
typ
Stachys
germanica
widely
treated
in
a
Eriostomum
by
L
s
mo
Rechinger,
1982).
Ad
this
large
genus
of
3
(Green,
1929)
but
it
authors
treat
it
in
S
categories
established
6885
Stapelia
Linnae
T.:
S.
hirsuta
Linn
Stapelia
2,
BM),
typ
Art.
8
Ex.
3
of
the
C
first
explicit
choice
by
Leach
(1975).
Unf
Orbea
Haw.
(of
which
1975,
1978)
which
h
Hall
&
al.,
1980;
Bon
succulent
plant
lite
recognized
previous
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
would
1985).
1992
also
The
current
avoid
G.
E.
571
hav
ado
usage,
consider
Gibbs
Ru
Rourke and B. de Winter.
7051 Tournefortia Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 140. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (4: 1 : 1)
T.: T hirsutissima Linnaeus (T. [designated by Johnston (1949)]: Plumier, P1.
Amer. t. 229. 1760), typ. cons. prop.
Tournefortia hirsutissima is the earlier choice (Britton & Millspaugh, 1920) and has
been taken up by most authors, see McNeill & al. (1987: 386) and Howard (1989b). The
genus has about 100 species, with T hirsutissima falling in T sect. "Eutournefortia" of
Johnston, to which Nowicke & Skvarla (1974) have applied the autonym. Its use as
type corresponds with current usage. T volubilis L. is a later choice (Hitchcock, 1929)
and, as it belongs to T sect. Cyphocyema, its adoption now would cause a switch in
the application of T sect. Tournefortia and a new sectional name would have to be
adopted for the present "type section". T hirsutissima is the preferable choice of type
and is therefore proposed as "typ. cons."
xiii Trichomanes Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 1097. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (4 : 0 : 1)
T.: T crispum Linnaeus (T. [designated by Proctor (1977)]: Plumier, Trait6 Foug.
Amer. t. 86. 1705), typ. cons. prop.
Trichomanes scandens L. is the earliest choice (J. Smith, 1875) and has been
adopted by numbers of authors (see McNeill & al., 1987: 387; Proctor, 1977). However,
Pichi Sermolli (1973, 1981) argued that Smith's choice was arbitrary and should be
superseded. He also made the point (Pichi Sermolli, in lit.) that Smith misapplied the
Linnaean name to a species with hairy fronds, whereas the lectotype of T scandens
(Plumier, t. 93) designated by Proctor (1985), has entirely glabrous fronds. Hence
Smith's concept of the genus was based on T scandens sensu Swartz non Linnaeus. T
scandens has been segregated in Vandenboschia (as V scandens (L.) Copeland). If a
broad generic concept is adopted (e.g. that of Morton) there would be no difficulties
but if the genus is split up (e.g. following the concepts of Copeland or Pichi Sermolli)
the T crispum group would have to be called Ragetelus (25 new combinations
necessary) and Trichomanes would replace either Mortoniopteris or Vandenboschia. T
crispum is a later choice (Underwood, 1899) but it too has been taken up by many
authors, including Farr & al. (1979). There would be minor changes in Morton's
infrageneric usage of names if this were adopted, but when the genus is split, only a
few new combinations in Vandenboschia are necessary, as nearly all have already been
made. This is because most of the treatments where Trichomanes has been split have
adopted T crispum as the generitype. It appears that less nomenclatural disruption is
likely to occur if T crispum is adopted as the type, hence its proposal as "typ. cons".
6216 Vaccinium Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 349. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (4: 1 : 0)
T.: V uliginosum Linnaeus (T. [designated by Vander Kloet (1981)]: Herb. Linnaeus No. 497.3, LINN), typ. cons. prop.
Vaccinium myrtillus L. is the earlier choice (Britton & Brown, 1913) but conflicts
with the generic diagnosis and has been rejected by Vander Kloet (1981). Adoption
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
572
TAXON
now
VOLUME
would
would
be
posed
by
41
cause
needed
Vander
V
for
Klo
usage
of
sectional
Kloet,
in
lit.)
and
therefore
likely
n
w
to
b
8516
Viburnum
Lin
T.:
V
lantana
Linn
XXIII:
18,
UPS),
ty
Viburnum
Tinus
many
tinus
L.
i
by
Miller
(17
authors
(e.g.
become V sect. Viburnum and what is now V sect. Viburnum would become V sect.
Lantana. V lantana is a later choice (Hitchcock, 1929) but has been taken up and falls
within the V sect. Viburnum (see Bean, 1980; Donoghue, 1985; McNeill & al., 1987
388).
Appendix I - Proposals passed with a less than two thirds majority
5994 Bupleurum Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 236. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (3 : 1 : 1)
T.: B. rotundifolium Linnaeus (T. [designated by Rechinger & Snogerup (1987)]:
Herb. Linnaeus No. 335.1, LINN), typ. cons. prop.
Bupleurum rigidum L. is the earlier choice (Britton & Brown, 1913) but it falls
within a different section from B. rotundifolium (chosen by Hitchcock, 1929) which
has been adopted as type in most recent treatments. Cauwet (1976) has based her sub-
division of the genus on the assumption that B. rotundifolium is the generitype.
Acceptance of B. rigidum as type would cause changes in application of B. sect.
Bupleurum and B. sect. Bupleurotypum and of a number of names at lower
supraspecific ranks (Reduron in lit.; McNeill & al., 1987: 363).
3774 Coronilla Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 742. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (3 : 1 : 1)
T.: C. valentina Linnaeus (T. [here designated by P. Lassen]: Herb. Linnaeus No.
917.4, LINN), typ. cons. prop.
Coronilla valentina is the earlier choice (Britton & Brown, 1913) which Lassen
(1989a) argued is a historically justifiable choice and not arbitrary. He has transferred
the later choice (C. varia L., chosen by Green, 1929) to the genus Securigera (Lassen,
1989b). If Britton & Brown choices were to be deemed supersedable, disruption of the
generic names involved would inevitably occur.
5455 Daphne Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 356. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (3 : 1 : 1)
T.: D. laureola Linnaeus (T. [here designated by B. Mathew]: Herb. Clifford 147,
Daphne 1, BM), typ. cons. prop.
Daphne laureola appears to be the earliest choice (Meyer, 1843) and falls within D.
sect. "Eudaphne" of usage (D. sect. Daphne has apparently never been used
explicitly). D. gnidium L. was the next choice (Britton & Brown, 1913) but it is
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
1992
generally
573
place
mezereum
L.,
(Mathew,
in
t
l
nomenclatural
"typ.
cons'.
7635
Melampy
T.:
M.
praten
naeus
No.
760
Melampyrum
within
M.
sect.
choice
(Green,
with
cause
current
disruption
pratense
is
ado
5057
Melochia
T.:
M.
corcho
Hort.
Eltham.
prop.
Melochia corchorifolia is the earlier choice (Britton & Millspaugh, 1920) and has
been adopted by Goldberg (1967; in Howard, 1989a). M. pyramidata L. is a later
choice (Green, 1929) but belongs not to the typical section but to M. sect. Pyramis in
Goldberg's treatment (McNeill & al., 1987: 378, Goldberg, in lit.). There seems little
doubt that M. corchorifolia is the preferable choice.
3353 Rubus Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 492. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (3 : 1 : 1)
T.: R. fruticosus Linnaeus (T. [designated by Weber (1986): Herb. Linnaeus No.
653.9, LINN; inflorescence only), typ. cons. prop.
Rubusfruticosus is the earliest choice (Britton & Brown, 1913) and falls within R.
subg. and sect. Rubus. The species name has been typified by Beek (1974), later
restricted to the inflorescence on sheet Herb. Linnaeus No. 653.9 (LINN) by Weber
(1986). See comments by McNeill & al. (1987: 382). Since 1846, the name has been
treated as a "nomen ambiguum" and not applied to a single species, but it has been
used in a broad sense for all members of R. subg. (or sect.) Rubus. Adoption would
maintain usage, though the species name should, strictly speaking, be applied to R.
plicatus Weihe & Nees. R. idaeus is the next choice (Rydberg, 1913), but it falls within
R. sect. Idaeobatus Focke and would disrupt the sectional nomenclature badly (Weber,
in lit.). R. caesius was chosen as a replacement for R. fruticosus by Green (1929), but it
belongs to R. sect. Caesii Lindley. Its adoption would also cause disruption at sectional level.
1873 Salix Linnaeus, Sp. P1. 1015. 1753, nom. cons. prop. (3 : 1 : 1)
T.: S. alba Linnaeus (T. [designated by Groendijk-Wilders & al. (1988)]: Herb.
Burser XXIV: 104, UPS), typ. cons. prop.
Salix alba is the earlier choice (Britton & Shafer, 1908), which has been adopted by
most specialists (McNeill & al., 1987: 382). It falls within S. sect. Salix of most recent
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
574
TAXON
VOLUME
41
treatments
and,
h
(Green,
1929)
and
treatments
(Skvor
disruption
2548
T.:
at
section
Thalictrum
T
foetidum
Thalictrum
Thalictrum
followed
by
5,
Lin
Lin
BM),
foetid
Boivin
recent
floristic
tre
this
species
as
plac
treatments.
Adopt
(Green,
1929)
is
a
l
Adoption
would
the
evidently
the
prefer
uncertainty
over
the
cons..
Literature cited
Al-Shehbaz, I. A. 1988. The genera of Sisymbrieae (Cruciferae; Brassicaceae) in the
southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. 69: 213-237.
Archer, R. H. 1990. The taxonomic status of Cassine L. s.l. (Celastraceae) in Southern Africa.
Thesis, University of Pretoria.
Argus, G. 1986. The genus Salix (Salicaceae) in the southeastern United States. Syst. Bot.
Monogr. 9: 1-170.
Arthur, J. C. & al. 1907. American code of botanical nomenclature. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 34:
167-178.
Ascherson, P. & Graebner, P. 1900. Synopsis der mitteleuropdischen Flora, 2(1,4). Engelmann,
Leipzig.
Babcock, E. 1947. The genus Crepis. Univ. Calif. Publ. Bot. 21-22.
Baldini, R. M. 1992. The genus Phalaris L. (Gramineae) in Italy. Webbia (in press).
- & Jarvis, C. E. 1991. Typification of some Linnaean names in Phalaris (Gramineae). Taxon
40: 475-485.
Ball, P. W. 1972. Stachys. Pp. 151-157 in: Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A., Valentine,
D. H., Walters, S. M. & Webb, D. A. (ed.), Flora europaea, 3. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Baumann, H., Kuinkele, S. & Lorenz, R. 1989. Die nomenklatorischen Typen der von Linnaeus
veriffentlichten Namen europaischer Orchideen. Mitteilungsbl. Arbeitskreis Heimische
Orchideen Baden-Wiirttemberg 21(3): 355-700.
Bean, W. J. 1980. Trees and shrubs hardy in the British Isles, ed. 8, 4. Murray, London.
Beek, A. van de, 1974. Die Brombeeren des Geldrischen Distriktes innerhalb der Flora der
Niederlande. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht.
Berger, A. 1930. Crassulaceae. Pp. 352-482 in: Engler, A. & Prantl, K. (ed.), Die natirlichen
Pflanzenfamilien, ed. 2, 18a. Engelmann, Leipzig.
Bhattacharjee, R. 1980. Taxonomic studies in Stachys: II. A new infrageneric classification of
Stachys L. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 38: 65-96.
- 1982. Stachys. Pp. 199-262 in: Davis, P. H. (ed.), Flora of Turkey, 7. Edinburgh University
Press, Edinburgh.
Boiteau, P. 1981. Apocynac6es. Pp. 1-302 in: Aubr6ville, A. & Leroy, J.-F. (ed.), Flore de la
Nouvelle Calidonie, 10. Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
1992
Boivin,
B.
575
1944.
453-487.
Bond, P. & Goldblatt, P. 1984. Plants of the Cape flora. J. S. African Bot., Suppl. 13: 1-455.
Bowden, W. M. 1959. The taxonomy and nomenclature of the wheats, barleys and ryes and
their wild relatives. Canad. J. Bot. 37: 657-684.
- 1964. Cytotaxonomy of the species and interspecific hybrids of the genus Elymus in Canada
and neighboring areas. Canad. J. Bot. 42: 547-601.
Bremekamp, C. E. B. 1952. The African species of Oldenlandia L. sensu Hiern et K. Schumann.
Verh. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch., Afd. Natuurk., Tweede Sect., ser. 2, 48(2): 1-297.
Bremer, K. & Humphries, C. J. 1992. A generic monograph of the Asteraceae: Anthemideae.
Natural History Museum, London (in press).
Britton, N. L. 1907. The sedges of Jamaica. Bull. Dept. Agric. Jamaica, 5, Suppl. 1. [not seen].
- 1918. Flora of Bermuda. Scribner, New York.
- & Brown, A. 1913. An illustrated flora of the northern United States, ed. 2, 1-3. Scribner,
New York.
- & Millspaugh, C. F. 1920. The Bahama Flora. Privately published, New York.
- & Rose, J. N. 1905. Crassulaceae. Pp. 7-74 in: Britton, N. L. & Underwood, L. M. (ed.),
North American Flora, 22. New York Botanical Garden, New York.
- & Shafer, J. A. 1908. North American trees. Constable, London.
- & Wilson, P. 1923-1926. Botany of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. New York Academy of
Sciences, New York.
Brongniart, A. T. 1826. P. 490 in: Bory de Saint-Vincent, J. B. G. M. (ed.), Dictionnaire classique d'histoire naturelle, 9 [not seen].
Brown, N. E. 1909. Stapelia. Pp. 924-1015 in: Harvey, W. H. & Sonder, O. W. (ed.), Flora
capensis 4(1). Reeve, London.
Brummitt, R. K. 1986. Report of the Committee for Spermatophyta: 30. Taxon 35: 556-563.
Bullock, A. A. 1958. Nomenclatural notes: VI. Kew Bull. 13: 97-100.
Cannon, J. F. M., Jarvis, C. E. & Robson, N. K. B. 1983. The typification of Linnaean plant
names: a project of the Linnean Society of London. Taxon 32: 76-78.
Carlstrdm, A. 1984. A revision of Cleome series Ornithopodioides Tsvelev (Capparaceae).
Willdenowia 14: 119-130.
Cauwet, A.-M. 1976. Biosystimatique des especes vivaces de Bupleurum L. (Umbelliferae) du
bassin mdditerranden occidental, 1-3. These, Centre Universitaire, Perpignan.
Chamisso, A. & Schlechtendal, D. 1829. De plantis in expeditione speculatoria Romanzoffiana
observatis. Rubiaceae. Linnaea 4: 129-202.
Chater, A. 0. 1980. Carex. Pp. 290-323 in: Tutin, T. G. Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A., V
tine, D. H., Walters, S. M. & Webb, D. A. (ed.), Flora europaea, 5. Cambridge Univer
Press, Cambridge.
Cefranova, Z. V. 1971. Konspekt sistemy roda Lathyrus L. Novosti Sist. Vys'ih Rast. 8: 191
Cerepanov, 1964. Skerda - Crepis L. Pp. 594-704 in: Komarov, V. L. (ed.), Flora SSSR
Nauka, Moskva & Leningrad.
Chowdhuri, P. K., Davis, P. H. & Hossain, M. 1958. Materials for a Flora of Turkey: III. Ra
culaceae: I. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 22: 403-425.
Chrtek, J. & Slavikova, Z. 1978. Gliederung der Gattung Adonis in drei Gattungen. Presli
22-25.
Clausen, R. T. 1975. Sedum of North America north of the Mexican Plateau. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Clayton, W. D. 1969. A revision of the genus Hyparrhenia. Kew Bull., Add. Ser., 2: 1-196.
- & Renvoize, S. A. 1982. Gramineae (Part 3). Pp. 451-898 in: Milne-Redhead, E. & Polhill, R.
M. (ed.), Flora of Tropical East Africa. Gramineae. Balkema, Rotterdam.
- & - 1986. Genera graminum. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
Codd, L. E. 1966. The Cassine complex. Bothalia 9: 123-124.
Copeland, E. B. 1947. Genera filicum. Ann. Cryptog. Phytopathol. 5.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
576
TAXON
VOLUME
Cronquist,
A.
41
1947.
Re
tonia 6: 121-302.
Cvelev, N. N. 1976. Zlaki SSSR. Nauka, Leningrad.
Den Hartog, C. & Plas, F. van der, 1970. A synopsis of the Lemnaceae. Blumea 18: 355-368.
Devesa, J. A. 1984. Revisi6n del genero Scabiosa en la Peninsula Ib6rica e Islas Baleares.
Lagascalia 12: 143-212.
Don, D. 1834. An attempt at a new arrangement of the Ericaceae. Edinburgh New Philos. J. 17:
150-160.
Donoghue, M. J. 1985. Pollen diversity and exine evolution in Viburnum and the Caprifoliaceae
sensu lato. J Arnold Arbor. 66: 421-469.
Dorn, R. B. 1976. A synopsis of American Salix. Canad. J. Bot. 54: 2769-2787.
Egorova, T. V. 1966. Osoki SSSR, vidy podroda Vignea. Nauka, Moskva & Leningrad.
Ehrendorfer, F. & Krendl, F. 1976. Galium. Pp. 14-36 in: Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges,
N. A., Valentine, D. H., Walters, S. M. & Webb, D. A. (ed.), Flora europaea, 4. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Engler, A. 1889. Lemnaceen. Pp. 154-164 in: Engler, A. & Prantl, K. (ed.), Die natiirlichen
Pflanzenfamilien, 11.3. Engelmann, Leipzig.
Farr, E. R., Leussink, J. A. & Stafleu, F. A. (ed.), 1979. Index nominum genericorum (plantarum). Regnum Veg. 100-102.
- , - & Zijlstra, G. (ed.), 1986. Index nominum genericorum (plantarum). Supplementum I.
Regnum Veg. 113.
Fawcett, W. & Rendle, A. B. 1920. Flora of Jamaica, 4(2). British Museum (Natural History),
London.
Fosberg, F. R. 1943. The Polynesian species of Hedyotis (Rubiaceae). Bishop Mus. Bull. 174
1-102.
Goldberg, A. 1967. The genus Melochia L. (Sterculiaceae). Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 34: 191-363.
Goldblatt, P. 1990a. Status of the southern African Anapalina and Antholyza (Iridaceae)
genera, based solely on characters for bird pollination, and a new species of Tritoniopsis. S.
African J. Bot. 56: 577-582.
- 1990b. Phylogeny and classification of Iridaceae. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 77: 607-627.
- & Vos, M. P. de, 1989. The reduction of Oenostachys, Homoglossum and Anomalesia,
putative sunbird pollinated genera, in Gladiolus L. (Iridaceae - Ixioideae). Bull. Mus. Natl.
Hist. Nat. (Paris), Sect. B, Adansonia 11: 417-428.
Gould, F. W. 1947. Nomenclatorial changes in Elymus with a key to the Californian species.
Madrohio 9: 120-128.
Graham, V. A. W. 1988. Delimitation and infra-generic classification of Justicia (Acanthaceae). Kew Bull. 43: 551-624.
Green, M. L. 1925a. Standard-species of the Linnaean genera of Tetradynamia. Bull. Misc.
Inform. 1925: 49-58.
- 1925b. Standard-species of Lepidium and Biscutella. Bull. Misc. Inform. 1925: 315-317.
- 1929. Genera 501-end. [In: Hitchcock, A. S. & Green, M. L., Standard species of Linnean
genera of phanerogamae (1753-54)]. Pp. 155-195. in: Anonymous, International Botanical
Congress Cambridge (England), 1930. Nomenclature. Proposals by British botanists. His
Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
Greuter, W., Burdet, H. M., Chaloner, W. G., Demoulin, V., Grolle, R., Hawksworth, D. L.,
Nicolson, D. H., Silva, P. C., Stafleu, F. A., Voss, E. G. & McNeill, J. (ed.), 1988. International code of botanical nomenclature, adopted by the Fourteenth International Botanical
Congress, Berlin, July-August 1987. Regnum Veg. 118.
- , McNeill, J. & Nicolson, D. H. 1989. Report on botanical nomenclature - Berlin 1987.
Englera 9.
- & Rechinger, K. H. 1967. Chloris Kythereia. Boissiera 13.
Grimes, J. W. 1990. A revision of the New World Psoraleeae (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae).
Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 61: 1-114.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
1992
577
Groendijk-Wild
alba
L.
(Salicace
Grolle,
R.
1976
Repert.
87:
1711983.
Hepatics
from
the
Grulich,
recent
V.
1984
29-46.
Guinea, E. & Heywood, V. H. 1964. Biscutella. Pp. 325-330 in: Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H.,
Burges, N. A., Valentine, D. H., Walters, S. M. & Webb, D. A. (ed.), Flora europaea, 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gutierrez Bustillo, A. M. 1981. Revision del genero Angelica L. en la Peninsula Iberica. Lazaroa
3: 137-161.
Hassel de Menendez, G. G. 1963. Estudio de las Anthocerotales y Marchantiales de la Argentina. Opera Lilloana 7: 1-197.
Hall, A. V., De Winter, M., De Winter, B. & Oosterhout, S. A. M. 1980. Threatened plants of
southern Africa. S. African Natl. Sci. Progr. Rep. 45.
Hammer, K. 1980. Zur Taxonomie und Nomenklatur der Gattung Aegilops L. Feddes Repert.
91: 225-258.
Haworth, A. H. 1812. Synopsis plantarum succulentarum. Taylor, London.
Heath, P. V. 1985. Thirty-three proposals to clarify the Code. Taxon 34: 540-546.
- 1990. Five proposals to clarify the Code. Taxon 39: 138-140.
Hedge, I. C. 1965. Sisymbrium. Pp. 481-485 in: Davis, P. H. (ed.), Flora of Turkey, 1. Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh.
Hegelmaier, F. 1868. Die Lemnaceen. Eine monographische Untersuchung. Engelmann,
Leipzig.
Hempel, W. 1970. Taxonomische und chorologische Untersuchungen an Arten von Melica L.
subgen. Melica. Feddes Repert. 81: 131-145.
Heywood, V. H. (ed.), 1964. Flora europaea. Notulae systematicae ad floram europaeam spectantes, no. 4. Feddes Repert. 69: 142-154.
Hilliard, O. M. 1977. Compositae in Natal. University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg.
- & Burtt, B. L. 1981. Names in Gnaphalium, Xeranthemum and Helichrysum published between 1753 and 1800. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 82: 233-265.
Hitchcock, A. S. 1905. North American species of Agrostis. US.D.A. Bur. PI. Industr. Bull. 68:
1-68.
- 1920. The genera of grasses of the United States, with special reference to the economic
species. US.D.A. Bull. (1915-1923) 772: 1-307.
- 1923. Type species of the first 100 genera of Linnaeus' Species plantarum. Amer. J Bot. 10:
510-516.
- 1929. Genera 1-500. [In: Hitchcock, A. S. & Green, M. L., Standard species of Linnean
genera of Phanerogamae (1753-54)], Pp. 114-155 in: Anonymous, International Botanical
Congress Cambridge (England), 1930. Nomenclature. Proposals by British botanists. His
Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
Holub, J. 1973. New names in Phanerogamae 2. Folia Geobot. Phytotax. Bohem. 8: 155-179.
- 1976a. Gnaphalium. Pp. 128 in: Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A., Valentine, D.
H., Walters, S. M. & Webb, D. A. (ed.), Flora europaea, 4. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
- 1976b. New names in Phanerogamae. 4. Folia Geobot. Phytotax. Bohem. 11: 75-85.
- 1977. New names in Phanerogamae. 6. Folia Geobot. Phytotax. Bohem. 12: 417-432
- 1983. Reclasssification and new anmes for some European Phanerogams. Folia Geobot.
Phytotax. Bohem. 18: 203-206.
Howard, R. A. 1979. Flora of the Lesser Antilles, 3. Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University,
Jamaica Plain.
- 1988. Flora of the Lesser Antilles, 4. Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University, Jamaica Plain.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
578
-
TAXON
1989a.
VOLUME
Flora
41
of
the
Plain.
-
1989b.
Flora
of
the
Plain.
Howe, M. A. 1923. Ricciaceae. Pp. 11-27 in: Britton, N. L. & Underwood, L. M. (ed.), North
American Flora, 14(1). New York Botanical Garden, New York.
Hubbard, C. E. 1970. Briza. Pp. 51-53 in: Milne-Redhead, E. & Polhill, R. M. (ed.), Flora of
tropical East Africa, Gramineae. Crown Agents, London.
Hutchinson, J. 1964. The genera offlowering plants (Angiospermae). Dicotyledones, 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Isely, D. 1981. Leguminosae of the United States. III. Subfamily Papilionoidae: Tribes
Sophoreae, Podalyrieae, Loteae. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 25(3): 1-264.
Isoviita, P. 1970. Dillenius's 'Historia Muscorum' as the basis of hepatic nomenclature, and S.
O. Lindberg's collection of Dillenian bryophytes. Acta Bot. Fenn. 89: 1-28.
Jakovlev, G. P. 1968. Rod Camoensia Benth. i poloienie ego v sisteme Fabales. Bot. Zurn. 53:
749-759.
Jarvis, C. E. 1986. The Linnaean plant name typification project and cultivated plants. Acta
Hort. 182: 79-87.
- & McClintock, D. 1990. Notes on the typification of fourteen Linnaean names for European
species of Erica, Calluna and Andromeda (Ericaceae). Taxon 39: 517-520.
Jasiewicz, A. 1976. Scabiosa. Pp. 68-74 in: Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A., Valen-
tine, D. H., Walters, S. M. & Webb, D. A. (ed.), Flora europaea, 4. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Jeffrey, C. 1979. Note on the lectotypification of the names Cacalia L., Matricaria L. and
Gnaphalium L. Taxon 28: 349-351.
- 1992. R.H.S. dictionary of gardening. McMillan, London (in press).
- & Chen Yi-Ling, 1984. Taxonomic studies on the tribe Senecioneae (Compositae) of eastern
Asia. Kew Bull. 39: 205-446.
Johnston, I. M. 1930. Studies in the Boraginaceae, VIII. Contr. Gray Herb. 92: 3-89.
- 1949. Studies in the Boraginaceae, XVIII. Boraginaceae of the southern West Indies. J.
ArnoldArbor. 30: 111-138.
- 1951. Studies in the Boraginaceae, XX. Representatives of three subfamilies in eastern Asia
J. Arnold Arbor. 32: 1-26, 99-122.
Jovet-Ast, S. 1965. Riccia crystallina L. emend. Raddi et Riccia cavernosa Hoffm. emend
Raddi (note pr61iminaire). Rev. Bryol. Lichenol. 33: 459-483.
Juzeptuk, S. W. 1937. Anemone L. Pp. 236-282 in: Komarov, V. L. (ed.), Flora SSSR, 7. Nauk
Moskva & Leningrad.
Kay, Q. O. N. 1976. Matricaria. Pp. 165-167 in: Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A
Valentine, D. H., Walters, S. M. & Webb, D. A. (ed.), Flora europaea, 4. Cambridge Univer
sity Press, Cambridge.
Kazmi,
S. 52:
M. 110-136,
A. 1971. A
revision
of the 666-690.
Boraginaceae of West Pakistan and Kashmir. J. Ar
Arbor.
334-363,
486-522,
Kerguelen, M. 1975. Les Gramineae (Poaceae) de la flore frangaise. Essai de mise au point taxo
nomique et nomenclaturale. Lejeunia, ser. 2, 75: 1-343.
Killip, E. P. 1938. The American species of Passifloraceae. Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Bot
Ser., 19.
Kitamura, S. 1938. Les Cacalia du Japon. Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 7: 236-251.
Knorring, O. E. 1954. Stachys. Pp. 194-237 in: Komarov, V. L. (ed.), Flora SSSR, 21. Nauka,
Moskva & Leningrad.
Krendl, F. 1967. Cytotaxonomie der Galium mollugo-Gruppe in Mitteleuropa. (Zur Phylogenie
der Gattung Galium, VIII). Osterr. Bot. Z. 114: 508-549.
Kupicha, F. K. 1983. The infrageneric structure of Lathyrus. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh
41: 209-244.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
Lack,
1992
H.
579
W.
197
113-116.
&
Rechinger,
Akademische
D
Lambinon,
J.
1
hordeaceus
L.,
Dipsacus fullonum L., Euphorbia verrucosa L., Medicago polymorpha L., Phleum
exaratum Hochst. ex Griseb., Potamogeton pusillus L., Salix xsmithiana Willd.,
Spergularia media (L.) C. Presl ( - Arenaria media L.) et Vulpia membranacea (L.) Dum.
( - Stipa membranacea L.). Taxon 30: 361-366.
Landolt, E. 1986. Biosystematic investigations in the family of duckweeds (Lemnaceae) (vol. 2).
The family of Lemnaceae - a monographic study. Volume 1. Veroff Geobot. Inst. ETH
Stiftung Riibel Ziirich 71.
Lassen, P. 1989a. Om kroniller, slaktet Coronilla, i Norden. Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 83: 83-86.
- 1989b. A new delimitation of the genera Coronilla, Hippocrepis, and Securigera (Fabaceae).
Willdenowia 19: 49-62.
Leach, L. C. 1975. The lectotype species of Stapelia L. and the reinstatement of Orbea Haw.
(Asclepiadaceae). Kirkia 10: 287-291.
- 1978. A contribution towards a new classification of Stapelieae (Asclepiadaceae) with a
preliminary review of Orbea Haw. Excelsa, Taxon. Ser., 1: 1-61.
- 1985. A revision of Stapelia L. (Asclepiadaceae). Excelsa, Taxon. Ser., 3: 1-157.
Lellinger, D. B. 1977. The identity of Lonchitis aurita and the generic names Anisosorus an
Lonchitis. Taxon 26: 578-580.
Lippold, H. 1980. Die Gattungen Thevetia L., Cerbera L. und Cascabela Rafin.
(Apocynaceae). Feddes Repert. 91: 45-55.
Lock, J. M. 1989. Legumes of Africa: a check-list. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Mabberley, D. J. 1987. Theplant-book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mackenzie, K. K. 1929. Type of the genus Jatropha. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 56: 213-215.
- 1931. Cyperaceae: Cariceae [part]. Pp. 1-60 in: Britton, N. L. & Underwood, L. M. (ed.),
North American Flora, 18(1). New York Botanical Garden, New York.
Markgraf, F. 1976. Apocynac6es. Pp. 1-318 in: Humbert, H. (ed.), Flore de Madagascar et des
Comores, 169. Museum national d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
Matthei, O. R. 1975. Der Briza-Komplex in Stidamerika: Briza, Calotheca, Chascolytrum,
Poidium (Gramineae). Eine Revision. Willdenowia, Beih. 8.
Matthews, V. A. 1972. Scabiosa. Pp. 602-621 in: Davis, P. H. (ed.), Flora of Turkey, 4. Edin-
burgh University Press, Edinburgh.
McClintock, D. 1980. The typification of Erica ciliaris L., of E. tetralix L. and of their hybrid,
E. x watsonii Benth. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 80: 207-209.
McNeill, J. 1986. (291)-(312) Proposals on lectotypification and the report of the Committee on
Lectotypification. Taxon 35: 867-880.
- 1987. XIV International Botanical Congress: mail vote and final Congress action on
nomenclatural proposals. Taxon 36: 858-868.
- , Bassett, I. J., Crompton, C. W. & Taschereau, P. M. 1983. Taxonomic and nomenclatural
notes on Atriplex. Taxon 32: 549-556.
- , Odell, E. A., Consaul, L. L. & Katz, D. S. 1987. American code and later lectotypifications
of Linnaean generic names dating from 1753: a case study of discrepancies. Taxon 36:
350-401.
McVaugh, R. 1944. The genus Cnidoscolus: Generic limits and infrageneric groups. Bull. Torrey
Bot. Club 71: 457-474.
Meeuse, A. D. J. 1958. The South African Convolvulaceae. Bothalia 6: 641-792.
Meyer, C. A. 1843. Bemerkungen iber die Gattungen der Daphnaceen ohne perigynische
Schuppen, nebst einer Charakteristik derselben. Bull. Cl. Phys.-Math. Acad. Imp. Sc
St.-Pitersbourg 1: 353-359.
Miller, P. 1754. The gardeners dictionary, abridged, ed. 4. Rivington, London.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
580
TAXON
VOLUME
41
Moldenke,
H.
N.
&
M
revised
handbook
to
Molero,
J.
&
Blanche,
Gray
en
la
peninsula
Monserrat,
P.
1986.
T
Montserrat,
P.,
Muf
Superior
de
Investiga
Munz,
P.
A.
1945.
The
Napper,
D.
M.
1968.
Africa.
Dipsacaceae.
Nash,
G.
V.
1912.
Poac
American
Flora
17.
N
Nazimuddin,
S.
&
Qai
Pakistan,
190.
Privat
Nicolson,
D.
H.
1988.
Nicora,
E.
G.
&
Rugo
(Gramineae).
Darwin
Nieuwland,
J.
A.
191
Naturalist 3: 170-197.
Norlindh, T. 1943. Studies in the Calenduleae 1. Monograph of the genera Dimorphotheca,
Castalis, Osteospermum, Gibbaria and Chrysanthemoides. Gleerup, Lund.
Nowicke, J. W. & Skvarla, J. J. 1974. A palynological investigation of the genus Tournefortia
(Boraginaceae).
Amer.
J. infrageneric
Bot. 61: 1021-1036.
Ohba,
H. 1978. Generic
and
classification of the Old World Sedoideae
(Crassulaceae). J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, Sect. 3, Bot. 12: 139-198.
Olowokudejo, J. D. 1987. Taxonomic value of petiole anatomy in the genus Biscutella L.
(Cruciferae). Bull. Jard. Bot. Natl. Belgique 57: 307-320.
- & Heywood, V. H. 1984. Cytotaxonomy and breeding system of the genus Biscutella L.
(Cruciferae). PI. Syst. Evol. 145: 291-309.
Papp, C. 1932. Monographie der europaischen Arten der Gattung Melica L. Bot. Jahrb. Syst.
65: 275-348.
- 1937. Monographie der asiatischen Arten der Gattung Melica L. Acad. Romdna, Mem. Sec(.
Stiint., ser. 3, 12: 187-267.
Paton, A. 1990a. The phytogeography of Scutellaria L. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 46:
345-359.
- 1990b. A global taxonomic investigation of Scutellaria (Labiatae). Kew Bull. 45: 399-450.
Philipson, W. R. 1937. A revision of the British species of the genus Agrostis Linn. J Linn. Soc.
London, Bot. 51: 73-151.
Phillips, E. P. 1951. The genera of South African flowering plants, ed. 2. Government Printer,
Pretoria.
Pichi Sermolli, R. E. G. 1973. Fragmenta pteridologiae - 4. Webbia 28: 445-447.
- 1981. The controversial typification of the Linnaean genus Trichomanes
(Hymenophyllaceae). Taxon 30: 809-815.
Pichon, M. 1948. Classification des Apocynacees V, Cerberoidees. Notul. Syst. (Paris) 13
212-229.
Pimenov, M. G. 1968. Sistematieskaja gruppirovka vidov roda Angelica L. SSSR po
koefficientam shodstva. Bjull. Moskovsk. Ob'. Isp. Prir., Otd. Biol., 73(1): 124-139.
Plowes, D. C. H. 1977. Stapeliad Checklist. Excelsa 7: 67-86.
Pobedimova, E. G. 1961. Matricaria. Pp. 147-152 in: Komarov, V. L. (ed.), Flora SSSR, 26.
Nauka, Moskva & Leningrad.
Polhill, R. M. 1981. Sophoreae. Pp. 213-230 in: Polhill, R. M. & Raven, P. H. (ed.), Advances in
legume systematics. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
- 1982. Crotalaria in Africa and Madagascar. Balkema, Rotterdam.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
1992
Proctor,
G.
581
R.
19
Antilles,
2.
Arnol
1985.
Ferns
of
J
Qaiser,
108.
Al
M.
1984.
Faateh
Raffaelli,
M.
R
Un
1991
sulla sua esclusione dalla flora italiana. Webbia 44: 97-105.
Rechinger, K. H. 1941. Scutellaria sect. Vulgares subsect. Peregrinae im Mittelmeergebiet und
Orient. Bot. Archiv 43: 1-70.
- 1982. Stachys. Pp. 354-396 in: Rechinger, K. H. (ed.), Flora iranica, 150. Akademische
Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, Graz.
- & Snogerup, S. 1987. Bupleurum. Pp. 269-297 in: Rechinger, K. H. (ed.), Flora Iranica, 162.
Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, Graz.
Rehder, A. 1949. Bibliography of cultivated trees and shrubs. Harvard University, Jamaica
Plain.
Riedl, H. 1963. Revision der einjahrigen Arten von Adonis L. Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien 66:
51-90.
Robson, N. K. B. 1965. New and little known species from the Flora zambesiaca area XVI. Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on Celastraceae. Bol. Soc. Brot., ser. 2, 39: 5-55.
Rogers, G. K. 1987. The genera of Cinchonoideae (Rubiaceae) in the southeastern United
States. J Arnold Arbor. 68: 137-183.
Romero Garcia, A. T., Blanca L6pez, G. & Morales Torres, C. 1988. Revisi6n del genero
Agrostis L. (Poaceae) en la peninsula iberica. Ruizia 7.
Rowley, G. D. 1976. Typification of the genus Rosa L. Taxon 25: 181.
Rudd, V. E. 1968. Leguminosae of Mexico - Faboideae. I. Sophoreae and Podalyrieae.
Rhodora 70: 492-532.
- 1972. Leguminosae-Faboideae-Sophoreae. Pp. 1-53 in: Britton, N. L. & Underwood, L.
M. (ed.), North American Flora, Series II, 7. New York Botanical Garden, New York.
- 1980. Sophora. Pp. 439-442 in: Dassanayake, M. D. & Fosberg, F. R. (ed.), A revised handbook to the flora of Ceylon, 1. Amerind, New Delhi.
Rydberg, P. A. 1913. Rosaceae [part]. Pp. 389-480 in: Britton, N. L. & Underwood, L. M. (ed.),
North American Flora, 22(5). New York Botanical Garden, New York.
- 1918. Rosaceae [conclusion]. Pp. 481-533 in: Britton, N. L. & Underwood, L. M. (ed.), North
American Flora, 22(6). New York Botanical Garden, New York.
- 1924. Some senecioid genera - 1. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 51: 369-378.
Schultze-Motel, W. 1968. Cyperaceae [part]. Pp. 81-160 in: Hegi, G. (ed.), Illustrierte Flora von
Mitteleuropa, ed. 3, 2(1). Hanser, Mtinchen.
Sell, P. D. 1976. Crepis. Pp. 344-357 in: Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A., Valentine,
D. H., Walters, S. M. & Webb, D. A. (ed.), Flora europaea, 4. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Shear, C. L. 1900. A revision of the North American species of Bromus occurring north of Mex-
ico. U.S.D.A. Div. Agrostol. Bull. 23: 1-66.
Skalicky, V. 1985. Taxonomic and nomenclatoric comments on the Anemone L. (s.l.) genus.
Novit. Bot. Univ. Carol. 2: 101-110.
Skvorcov, A. K. 1968. Ivy SSSR. Sistematibeskij i geografibeskij obzar. Nauka, Moskva.
Smith, A. C. 1988. Cerbera. Pp. 89-92 in: Smith, A. C. (ed.), Flora vitiensis nova, 4. Pacific
Tropical Botanic Garden, Hawaii.
- & Darwin, S. P. 1988. Hedyotis. Pp. 352-359 in: Smith, A. C. (ed.), Flora vitiensis nova, 4
Pacific Tropical Botanic Garden, Hawaii.
Smith, A. J. E. 1963. Variation in Melampyrum pratense L. Watsonia 5: 336-367.
Smith, A. R. 1981. Pteridophytes. Pp. 1-370 in: Breedlove, D. E. (ed.), Flora of Chiapas, 2.
California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco.
Smith, J. 1875. Historiafilicum. Macmillan, London.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
582
TAXON
VOLUME
41
Smith,
P.
M.
1985.
Ob
tions
and
notes
on
ty
So6,
R.
de
&
Webb,
D
Burges,
N.
A.,
Valent
bridge
University
Pre
Standley,
72-76.
P.
C.
1915.
T
Stearn, W. T. 1983. The Linnaean species of Ornithogalum (Liliaceae). Ann. Mus. Goulandris
6: 139-170.
Steinberg, C. 1971. Revisione sistematica e distributiva delle Adonis annuali in Italia. Webbia
25: 299-351.
Stirton, C. H. 1981a. Studies in the Leguminosae-Papilionoideae of southern Africa. Bothalia
13: 317-325.
- 1981b. Psoraleeae. Pp. 337-343 in: Polhill, R. M. & Raven, P. H. (ed.), Advances in legume
systematics. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Tamura, M. 1967. Morphology, ecology and phylogeny of the Ranunculaceae VII. Sci. Rep.
Coll. Gen. Educ. Osaka Univ. 16: 21-43.
- & Lauener, L. A. 1979. A synopsis of Aconitum subgenus Lycoctonum II. Notes Roy.
Gard. Edinburgh 37: 431-466.
Tardieu-Blot, M.-L. 1964a. Pteridophytes. Pp. 1-372 in: Aubr6ville, A. (ed.), Flor
Cameroun, 3. Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
- 1964b. Pt6ridophytes. Pp. 1-228 in: Aubr6ville, A. (ed.), Flore du Gabon, 8. Museu
National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
Terrell, E. E. 1991. Overview and annotated list of North American species of Hedyot
Houstonia, Oldenlandia (Rubiaceae), and related genera. Phytologia 71: 212-243.
Toelken, H. R. 1979. A re-evaluation of the Cotyledon orbiculata Complex. Bothalia
615-620.
Townsend, C. C. 1974. Amaranthaceae. Pp. 1-49 in: Nasir, E. & Ali, S. I. (ed.), Flora of West
Pakistan, 71. Privately published, Islamabad & Karachi.
Trist, P. J. 0. & Sell, P. D. 1988. Two subspecies of Molinia caerulea (L.) Moench in the British
Isles. Watsonia 17: 153-157.
Tryon, R. M. 1962. Taxonomic fern notes. III. Contr. Gray Herb. 191: 91-107.
Tutin, T. G. 1964a. Aconitum. Pp. 211-213 in: Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A
Valentine, D. H., Walters, S. M. & Webb, D. A. & al. (ed.), Flora europaea, 1. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
- 1964b. Anemone. Pp. 217-219 in: Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A., Valentine,
H., Walters, S. M. & Webb, D. A., Flora europaea, 1. Cambridge University Press, Cam
bridge.
Underwood, L. M. 1899. A revision of the genera of ferns proposed prior to 1832. Mem. Torrey
Bot. Club 6: 247-283.
Vander Kloet, S. P. 1981. On the typification of Vaccinium L. Taxon 30: 647.
Verdcourt, B. 1991. Pp. 1-124 in: Milne-Redhead, E. & Polhill, R. M. (ed.), Flora of tropical East
Africa. Boraginaceae. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Vierhapper, F. 1906. Monographie der alpinen Erigeron-Arten Europas und Vorder-Asiens.
Beih. Bot. Centralbl. 19(2): 385-560.
Voss, E. G. 1972. Additional nomenclatural and other notes on Michigan monocots and gymnosperms. Michigan Bot. 11: 26-37.
Wagnon, H. K. 1952. A revision of the genus Bromus, sect. Bromopsis of N. America. Brittonia
7: 415-480.
Wang, W. T. 1980. Anemone. Pp. 1-56 in: Chien, S.-S. & Chun, W.-Y. (ed.), Flora Republicae
Popularis Sinicae, 28. Academia Scientiarum Sinica, Beijing.
Weber, H. E. 1986. Zur Nomenklatur und Verbreitung der von K. E. A. Weihe aufgestellten
Taxa der Gattung Rubus L. (Rosaceae). Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 106: 289-335.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AUGUST
1992
Webster,
Arbor. 48: 303-430.
G.
583
L.
19
Widen, K.-G. 1971. The genus Agrostis in eastern Fennoscandia. Taxonomy and distribution.
Fl. Fenn. 5: 1-209.
Wijnands, D. 0. 1983. The botany of the Commelins. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Wilbur, R. B. 1981. The unnecessary conservation of generic lectotypes. Taxon 30: 39-42.
Yakovka, G. P. 1972. The choice of lectotype for the genus Sophora L. Taxon 21: 716.
Yeo, P. F. 1986. Proposals to amend the Code for names of hybrids. Taxon 35: 887-888.
Proposed by: C. E. Jarvis, Department of Botany, The Natural History Museum, London
SW7 5BD, U.K., on behalf of the Special Committee on Lectotypification, Subcommittee on
Lectotypification of Linnaean Generic Names.
This content downloaded from 168.195.247.25 on Fri, 01 Feb 2019 04:11:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms