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