Susan Farmer{s nomenclatural questions

[Joseph E. Laferriere]

> From:    Susan Farmer <sfarmer at SABRE.GOLDSWORD.COM>
> Subject: nomenclatural questions
>
>    Farwell publishes T.grandiflorum forma orbiculare in 1918.  Louis-Marie
>    *reports* T.grandiflorum VAR orbiculare in 1940 (with the Farwell
>    citation).
>
>    Is this considered an orthographic variant or a Comb. Nov.?
>    If a comb. nov., how is it then cited?
>    Is the case any different if the reported variety is listed as a synonym?

Until reading your third question, I thought it clear that this was
certainly a recombination statement, standards having been laxer in 1940
than in 1997. This would make it Trillium grandiflorum var. orbiculare
(Farwell) Louis-Marie. However, if it was listed as a synonym and not
accepted by Louis-Marie, the variety is not a validly published name. If
you list it at all in your monograph, it should have "nom.  inval., pro
syn." after it.

>    Does the ruling change depending on *when* the "incorrect" type
>         was published.

No. Names published before 1958 are valid even if no type has been
published at all. You can correct problems in typification as you see fit.

>    Is platipetala for platypetala considered an orthographic variant?

Yes.