Nomenclature: name rejection?
lswang at IBCAS.AC.CN
Wed Jan 4 00:22:36 CST 2006
Recently, I found a nomenclature problem dealing with the name
Pternopetalum vulgare (Dunn) Hand.-Mazz.
Its basionym is Cryptotaeniopsis vulgare Dunn. which was described on 1902
by S. T. Dunn. In the original description, the author cited 10
collections (Faber 60, 627, 632, Henry 10675, 5384, 5406, 5444, 5444A,
Pratt, 831, Watt 6556) for this name, but without definite typification.
In 1951, Banerji, M. L. published another new name Pimpinella clarkeana
Watt ex Banerji which was based on Watt 6556. From the original
description of P.clarkeana, Banerji did not mentioned the name published
by Dunn in 1902. According to Code, Pimpinella clarkeana Watt ex Banerji
is illegitimate name,but this name has been generally consider as the
accepted synonym of P. vulgare, and recorded in the online flora list of
Nepal as accepted species (??). In 1978, the lectotype of P. vulgare has
been designated from the ten collections (Henry 10675), but in
Umbelliferae of India, its lectotype has been indicated as Watt 6556. I
don't know how dose this difference has happened?
Dose this name should be rejected through a nomenclatural proposal?
The following is the name and their original publications.
1933 Pternopetalum vulgare (Dunn)Hand.-Mazz., Umbelliferae. Symbolae
Sinicae, VII. 719
1902 = Cryptotaeniopsis vulgaris Dunn, Hook. Ic. Pl. t. 2737
1951 = Pimpinella clarkeana Watt ex Banerji, Journ. Bombay Nat. Hist.
Soc. 1. 88
1916 = Deringa vulgaris (Dunn) Koso-Pol., Monit. Jard. Bot. Tiflis, Ann.
xi. 139, (1916); et Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. 1915, n. s. xxix.
1978 = Pternopetalum vulgare (Dunn) Hand.-Mazz. var. foliosum Shan & Pu,
Acta Phytotax. Sin., 16(3): 69
More information about the Taxacom