[Taxacom] typification knot

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Thu May 11 03:10:16 CDT 2006


This is not so bad.

By Art 52.1 and 52.2,  /Orthocarpus australis/ is illegitimate.
However, it has been both effectively (Art 29) and validly (Art 32)
published, so it is not 'invalid'. It is superfluous, but this does not
particularly help, as the Code uses this term both in Art 52.1 and 52.3,
with different consequences.

Thus /Orthocarpus australis/ is not to be considered (Art 11.4) in forming
the name of a species: it cannot affect the status of /Castilleja profunda/.

Best, Paul

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Egger" <m.egger at comcast.net>
To
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:32 AM
Subject: [Taxacom] typification knot


> Alright all your I.C.B.N. fans, here's a nomenclatural mess (at least
> in my mind) about which I would greatly appreciate your comments.
>
> This regards both the validity and the typification of the name
> Orthocarpus australis Benth. (DC. Prodr. 10: 537), which in recent
> years has been regarded as a superfluous synonym of the
> earlier-published Castilleja laciniata Hook. & Arn. (Bot. Beechey
> Voy.: 40). The typification of C. laciniata is straightforward, as
> only one collection is cited, from Concepcion, Chile. However,
> Bentham confused matters by citing three specific collections as
> syntypes, in addition to citing C. laciniata as described by H.& A.
> It is on the basis of the latter citation that Keck and later Chuang
> & Heckard regarded the name O. australis as superfluous.
>
> Now, here comes a possibly complicating factor I'm not sure how to
> handle. After closely examining the relevant type sheets at K, GH,
> and NY, as well as a significant number of non-type collections from
> Peru and Chile, I have come to the conclusion that the syntypes of O.
> australis are not all of the same species, a fact that appears to
> have been overlooked in Chuang and Heckard's paper on annual
> Castillejas in the central Andes (Syst. Bot. 17: 417-431, 1992). Two
> of Bentham's cited syntypes are from Chile and DO appear to be of the
> same species as the type of H. & A.'s Castilleja laciniata. However,
> the first syntype cited by Bentham in describing O. australis is
> Mathews 460, collected at Huamantanga, a locality in the Andes to the
> east of Lima, Peru. This particular collection appears to be of the
> species described in Chuang & Heckard's paper as Castilleja profunda
> T.I. Chuang & Heckard, which is a "good" species, separable from the
> related C. laciniata by several apparently consistent characters.
> Also, the ranges of the two species appear to be no more than
> parapatric, with the region above Lima being the center of
> distribution for C. profunda, while true C. laciniata is limited to
> coastal Chile between Santiago & Concepcion and a disjunct population
> cluster in the southern Andes of Peru, limited to Dept. Cusco. This
> is confirmed by Chuang & Heckard's range maps & specimen data and by
> my own examination of herbarium specimens.
>
> So here are my 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks much for any comments you might provide, and please pardon me
> if my lack of experience in such matters is glaring!
>
> Mark
>
> -- 
> Mark Egger
> Seattle, WA
> USA
> mailto:m.egger at comcast.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>





More information about the Taxacom mailing list