[Taxacom] Tetrastigma tuberculatum: nom. illeg.?

[Curtis Clark]

On 2007-08-20 14:09, Boggan, John wrote:
> In 2001, A. Latiff made the combination Tetrastigma tuberculatum (Blume)
> Latiff, based on Cissus tuberculata Blume, in separating out a taxon
> (including numerous synonyms) that had previously been included in
> Tetrastigma leucostaphylum (Dennst.) Alston ex Mabberley.  So far so
> good, but my concern is with nomenclature rather than circumscription.
> As far as I can figure out, Cissus tuberculata Blume (1825) is a later
> homonym of Cissus tuberculata Jacquin (1797).  The latter name, with a
> type from Cuba, is synonymized under Cissus obovata Vahl by Lombardi in
> a recent Flora Neotropica treatment of Vitaceae (with no indication that
> it is a nom. nud.).  It seems that this name should block Cissus
> tuberculata Blume, and therefore Tetrastigma tuberculatum (Blume) Latiff
> is an illegitimate name, having as its basionym a later homonym.

 From the data you supply, I come to the same conclusion, that 
Tetrastigma tuberculatum is illegitimate. The name could have been 
legitimized by selecting a type and making it a nom. nov. (assuming it's 
not also a homonym under Tetrastigma), but choosing a nom. illeg. as a 
basionym is the kiss of death, if I interpret the Code correctly.

-- 
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Director, I&IT Web Development                   +1 909 979 6371
University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona