[Taxacom] typification knot -- thanks!

Mark Egger m.egger at comcast.net
Thu May 11 05:12:07 CDT 2006


Thanks to all who replied to my request for assistance. I now feel 
that I understand the status of the names. The code all makes great 
sense when it is properly explained.

Mark

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


-- 
Mark Egger
Seattle, WA
USA
mailto:m.egger at comcast.net





More information about the Taxacom mailing list