[Taxacom] Tetrastigma tuberculatum: nom. illeg.?
Veldkamp, J.F. (Jan Frits)
Veldkamp at nhn.leidenuniv.nl
Tue Aug 21 09:08:08 CDT 2007
Art. 58.1. The epithet in an illegitimate name if available may be used
in a different combination, at the same or a different rank, if no other
epithet is available from a name that has priority at that rank.
Latiff cited 4 synonyms, indicating their types, incl. that of Cissus
tuberculata Blume (see also the National Herbarium of the Netherlands
site: http://188.8.131.52:81/c8 ). I some years ago made some
preliminary notes on this which I can send directly to those interested.
BTW: the description (p. 14) and the beautiful plate (t. 32) of Cissus
tuberculata Jacq. can be admired in
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Curtis Clark
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 3:50 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Tetrastigma tuberculatum: nom. illeg.?
On 2007-08-21 06:01, Boggan, John wrote:
> I thought I knew the Code pretty well but overlooked Art. 58.1.
> Despite being published as an avowed combination, Tetrastigma
> tuberculatum Latiff 2001 is apparently to be considered a nom. nov.
> for Cissus tuberculata Blume (non Jacq.), with the same type.
I guess I know I'm getting old when I can no longer rely on, uh, what's
> Unfortunately there's more: at the same time he made the
> "combination", Latiff synonymized several species under T.
> tuberculatum: Cissus mutabilis Bl. (1825), Tetrastigma mutabile (Bl.)
> Planch. (1887), Tetrastigma encephalospermum Ridl. (1926), Vitis
> kunstleri King (1896), Tetrastigma kunstleri (King) Craib (1926),
Vitis rafflesiae Miq.
> (1863-64) & Tetrastigma rafflesiae (Miq.) Planch. (1887). If I'm
> looking at these names and dates right, he should have taken up T.
> (Bl.) Planch. as the correct name for this taxon, as Cissus mutabilis
> Bl. (1825) is the next oldest name after Cissus tuberculata Bl.
> (actually published at the same time) and therefore has priority over
> tuberculatum Latiff (2001) IF all these taxa are combined under one
Based on Article 58.1, that would seem to be the case, since the nom.
nov. only dates to 2001.
Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Director, I&IT Web Development +1 909 979 6371
University Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
More information about the Taxacom