[Taxacom] typification knot

Maarten Christenhusz maachr at utu.fi
Thu May 11 04:20:04 CDT 2006


Paul Kirk, you are correct, I meant illegitimate, not invalid, my mistake. Paul van Rijckevorsel has summarised it nicely. It is indeed not a very difficult problem. Good luck with your Castilleja studies Mark. They are pretty plants!

Best wishes to all
Maarten Christenhusz
www.botanyphotos.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at freeler.nl>
Date: Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:10 am
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] typification knot

> 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 
> formingthe 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
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 




More information about the Taxacom mailing list