[Taxacom] Tetrastigma tuberculatum: nom. illeg.?

Paul van Rijckevorsel dipteryx at freeler.nl
Tue Aug 21 02:53:28 CDT 2007

> 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: "Curtis Clark" <jcclark-lists at earthlink.net>
> 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.

I agree, except that "nom.nov." and "legitimizing" don't come into it. What
should have been done is to find "the earliest legitimate name of the taxon
in the same rank" and use that as the basionym (Art 11.4). If there is no
such name available and the taxon has not previously been recognized in
another rank (in which case it is logical to raise that to the rank of
species: "stat. nov."), a new name ("spec. nov.") is to be published, with a 
suitable type. At the time, this new name could have been Tetrastigma 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list