[Taxacom] typification knot

Maarten Christenhusz maachr at utu.fi
Thu May 11 02:28:37 CDT 2006


Dear Mark,

Here are the answers to your questions:

> 1. Were Keck & Chuang & Heckard correct in assuming that the name 
> "O. 
> australis" was invalid because of Bentham's citation of H. & A.'s 
> C. 
> laciniata, along with the three syntype collections? I assume this 
> is 
> so, but I'd like to hear it from other sources.

Yes, the name is invalidly published, since Bentham cited an older name as synonym, which automatically makes the name superfluous. Accourding to the code this makes O. australis a superfluous synonym of C. laciniata.

> 2. Does the fact that the syntypes of O. australis are not all of 
> the 
> same species have any impact on the interpretation of this 
> situation? 
> In other words, would there be any justification for establishing 
> the 
> Mathews collection as a lectotype, separate from C. laciniata, 
> especially as it is the first-cited collection in Bentham's 
> protologue?

It does not influence the synonymization, since Bentham clearly thought they were the same. In my opinion a lectotypification is not necessary for an illegal name. You can simpli cite the three syntypes, and if you want to be correct, you can add a note on the identity of the first syntype. In Benthams time C. profunda was not described yet. If you really must lectotypify, I would choose the second collection, not the type of C. laciniata and not the syntype that is C. profunda. When you have several syntypes you can choose whichever as a lectotype (unless another author has already lectotypified it before, then that is the valid one, so check all floras and publications where this species could be lectotypified).

> 3. If O. australis were to be lectotypified with the Mathews 
> collection, would this have any impact on the validity of the much 
> later name C. profunda, to which the Mathews collection belongs?

No, C. profunda is valid and Benthams syntypes have nothing to do with the validity of that species. If there is no older name available for this taxon then C. profunda is its correct name.

Hope this helps a little,

Maarten Christenhusz
Dept. of Biology
University of Turku
20014 Turku, Finland

www.botanyphotos.net




More information about the Taxacom mailing list