[Taxacom] typification knot [ Scanned for viruses ]

Paul Kirk p.kirk at cabi.org
Thu May 11 02:34:34 CDT 2006

It's not invalid just because it's superflous - just illegitimate ...


Dr Paul M. Kirk
CABI UK Centre (Egham)
Bakeham Lane
TW20 9TY
United Kingdom

Telephone: +44 (0) 1491 829023
Fax: +44 (0) 1491 829100
Email: p.kirk at cabi.org
Visit us at www.cabi.org; www.indexfungorum.org
CABI improves people's lives worldwide by providing
information and applying scientific expertise to solve 
problems in agriculture and the environment

The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited. 

Whilst CABI, the trading name of CAB International, takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions.

If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at cabi at cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 829199 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it.


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]On Behalf Of Maarten
Sent: 11 May 2006 08:29
To: Mark Egger
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] typification knot [ Scanned for viruses ]

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


Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

More information about the Taxacom mailing list