Botanical Code question
m.egger at COMCAST.NET
Thu Feb 26 02:13:24 CST 2004
Thank you very much for this clear and logical
explanation -- now I understand the apparent
paradox.-- stemming from my poor abilities in
>I would suspect that the latin word 'Typus'
>here, as commonly way back in 1919, did not
>nesesserely mean what we today mean with a type
>specimen. In classical Latin 'Typus' rather
>means a picture of something and in medeaveal
>Latin it was used in the meaning of 'a kind' or
>'a form' of something. Thus, I would interpret
>the diagnoses here concerned as if the Cusick
>collection is the true original material and the
>Sucksdorf collection is only mentioned here
>since the author has realized that it differs
>(as described) from the main form of his new
>taxon. ("Typus (Suksdorf n. 6047! e monte Padds
>[=Mt. Adams], Washington) minor est, foliis
>trifidis floribusque majoribus condensatis." may
>then be translated as ''A form represented by
>Suksdorf n. 6047 from Mt. Adams is smaller [than
>the taxon described above] with crowded trifid
>leaves and major flowers'').
>/ Torbjörn Tyler
>At 06.39 +0100 on 2004-02-26, Mark Egger wrote:
>> In my research on types within the genus Castilleja, I've come across
>> a puzzling situation that I hope someone out there with more
>> experience in the fine points of the I.C.B.N. may be able to clarify
>> for me.
>> The question involves the typification of Castilleja oregonensis
>> Gand., traditionally treated as a synonym of C. rhexifolia Rydb. The
>> protologue reference is Bull. Soc. Bot. France 66:119, 1919. The mode
>> Gandoger employes to describe this taxon is very odd. It starts with
>> the species name, followed immediately by a Latin diagnosis,
>> distinguishing it ("Differet a"...) from C. oreopola Greenm.,
>> presently treated as C. parviflora Bong. var. oreopola (Greenm.)
>> Ownbey. The text of the diagnosis describes well the characters one
>> might now use to distinguish C. rhexifolia from C. parviflora var.
>> Next comes the "Hab." description, which consists of a somewhat
>> mangled Latinization of the collection label for a Cusick specimen
>> from the Wallowa Mts. of NE Oregon, which is cited in parentheses at
>> the end of the paragraph (Cusick 2443). This fairly well distributed
>> collection (F, LY-GAN, NY, OSC-ORE, WS) appears in catalogs of
>> several herbaria as the type collection for C. oregonensis, and it is
>> listed as such, in synonymy under C. rhexifolia, in the Vascular
>> Plants of the Pacific Northwest and in the Intermountain Flora.
>> But now comes the complication. The final paragraph of the protologue
>> reads in its entirety, "Typus (Suksdorf n. 6047! e monte Padds [=Mt.
>> Adams], Washington) minor est, foliis trifidis floribusque majoribus
>> condensatis." There are THREE peculiar aspects to this, as I read it.
>> 1. Gandoger seems to be distinguishing the "Typus" for this name from
>> the Latin diagnosis he just wrote in the first paragraph of the
>> 2. He uses a collection from Washington state to apparently typify
>> the name "C. oregonensis", immediately after citing an apparent
>> paratype that was collected in Oregon (of course, this fact, alone,
>> is of no nomenclatural significance...it's just odd!).
>> 3. The Suksdorf collection (LY-GAN, WS, WTU and probably other
>> herbaria), apparently cited as the type, is of typical C. parviflora
>> var. oreopola, the same species from which the first part of the
>> Latin diagnosis attempts to separate the new taxon! In effect,
>> Gandoger first distinguishes his new species from C. parviflora var.
>> oreopola with a good description of and specimen citation for C.
>> rhexifolia, then immediately indicates as type a collection of C.
>> parviflora var. oreopola!
>> After puzzling over this for some time, I wonder if the word "Typus"
>> starting the final paragraph of the protologue, was SUPPOSED to
>> follow the citation of the Cusick collection, which ends the
> > immediately preceding paragraph? Of course, this is totally
>> conjectural, but it would explain several odd features of the
>> protologue, especially by accounting for the strange manner in which
>> the Suksdorf collection is distinguished from what came before (in
>> other words, listing it as an atypical paratype of the new species.
>> So, my question has two parts:
>> 1. From the wording of the protologue, must one interpret it
>> literally and treat the Suksdorf collection as the type? Or can one
>> use the fact that the first and main part of the diagnosis much
>> better describes the Cusick collection to justify a
>> lectotypification(?), using that specimen? The St. Louis Code (9.17)
>> says that a lectotype or neotype choice can be "superseded...if one
>> can show that...it is in serious conflict with the protologue....",
>> but this option does not appear to be available in the case of an
>> original holotype citation, at least I could not find such a
>> statement for holotypes.
>> 2. The answer for the first question should basically answer the
>> second: should C. oregonensis be treated as a synonym of C.
>> rhexifolia (based on the Cusick collection and listed in several
>> regional floras as the type), or must it instead become a synonym of
>> C. parviflora var. oreopola (the Suksdorf collection)?
>> Whew, a lot of writing to explicate what is, in the end, a fairly
>> trivial matter, but I love this stuff, and I would greatly
>> appreciate any clarifying comments from the nomenclatural gurus of
>> the TAXACOM community!
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Mark Egger
>> Research Associate, WTU
>Torbjörn Tyler / Projekt Skånes Flora
>Department of Ecology
>Plant Ecology and Systematics
>SE-223 62 Lund
>tel. +(0)46-222 09 10
>fax + (0)46-222 44 23
>e-mail: torbjorn.tyler at ekol.lu.se
>Private address: Bredgatan 12B, SE-243 32 Höör (=Hoeoer), tel. +(0)413-23123.
More information about the Taxacom