please help me locate a mess

Steve Manning sdmanning at ASUB.EDU
Mon Nov 15 13:45:39 CST 2004


Nico,

Here is one that doesn't exactly fit what you requested but probably
includes some of what you are looking for as well as other twists and
turns: The plant genus Amphitecna Miers (Bignoniaceae).  As I remember, it
was originally straightforwardly described in 1868 with one type specimen,
then after other species were described, some of them were separated into
Enallagma (Miers) Baillon, then the two genera were combined, then at least
one species was split from the genus by L. O.  Williams.  Further, some of
the species of Amphitecna were first described within the genus Crescentia
L. but then separated out by Williams into Amphitecna.  At least one
species of Crescentia was excluded from the genus Amphitecna, however, by
Williams because none of the specimens matched the original description
within Crescentia!  Later,  Gentry reinstalled the species as a member of
Amphitecna because he grew some specimens from seed which differed enough
from older members of the species that he thought this could account for
differences from the original description.

The review of this with which I am familiar is :  Manning, S.D.  The Genera
of Bignoniaceae in the Southeastern United States.  Harvard Papers in
Botany 5(1): 1-77.  2000.  Amphitecna occupies pages 74-77 including
references to earlier works and there is an extensive bibliography to
related genera, including Crescentia, on pages 15-31.  Some of the
references to this are in a different location.  Let me know if you are
interested further and I will be glad to track down and  photocopy them if
desired.

At 01:38 PM 11/12/2004 -0500, Nico Mario Franz wrote:
>Dear Taxacomers:
>
>    I am looking for a (retrospectively) well-documented case where an
>original publication made reference (e.g. when describing a species) to
>a longer SERIES of type specimens (holo-/para-...). Then subsequently
>that series got "split up" by someone such that one part of the
>original series (holotype and perceived conspecifics) retained the same
>name, whereas other parts now carry different species- or even generic
>names. In botany I suppose this is quite common, with series of
>herbarium sheets circulating among various collections and specialists.
>
>    A "popular example" would be a bonus, but I am really interested in a
>published and transparent summary of the different
>nomenclatural/taxonomic fates of type specimen series that once were
>thought to belong together. The longer and more complex the lineage of
>name changes, the better (no, this example won't be used to promote the
>"gentle nomenclatural revolution").
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Nico Franz
>(nmf2 at cornell.edu)

Dr. Steve Manning
Arkansas State University--Beebe
Mathematics and Science
Professor of Biology
P.O. Box 1000
Beebe, AR  72012
Phone: 501-882-8203
Fax: 501-882-4437




More information about the Taxacom mailing list