Lithocarpus glabra/ Lithocarpus glaber

[Jacques Melot]

=A0Le 17/11/97, =E0 4:55 +0000, nous recevions de Rob Cross :

>Dear colleagues,
>
>Both Lithocarpus glabra and Lithocarpus glaber appear in the literature,
>and I have not been able to confirm which specific epithet is correct.
>
>According to Index Kewensis on Compact Disc, Lithocarpus glabra was
>published by Takenoshin Nakai in 1916.  This epithet has been used by
>A.Camus in her treatment of Lithocarpus (Camus, A (1952-54)
>Monographie du genre Lithocarpus), and more recently by Cullen, J &
>Maxwell, HS (1989)  Lithocarpus in Walters et al. (eds.) The European
>Garden Flora, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
>
>The following publications use the epithet L.glaber however:
>Krussman, G  (1977)  Manual of Cultivated Broad-leaved Trees and
>Shrubs  Volume II, E-Pro  Timber Press, Portland, Oregon;
>Bean, WJ  (1973)  Trees and Shrubs Hardy in the British Isles  Volume II
>D-M  8th Edition  John Murray (Publishers) Ltd, London; and
>Bailey, LH & Bailey, EZ  (1976)  Hortus Third - A Concise Dictionary of
>the Plants Cultivated in the United States and Canada   Macmillan
>Publishing Company, Inc., New York.
>
>Other members of staff and I can only deduce that the botanists
>preferring Lithocarpos glaber are correcting the gender of the epithet
>under Article 62.2 of the Tokyo Code (where the gender of the epithet
>should agree with the gender of the last word in nominative case in the
>compound).



   Cher Rob,

   si, selon la tradition botanique, Lithocarpus est feminin, on doit
ecrire Lithocarpus glabra (Art. 62.1). Sinon Lithocarpus etant maculin,
donc on emploie glaber (glabra est feminin, glabrum neutre), donc:

   Lithocarpus glaber,

ce qui est probablement correct, car dans le Code (Art. 46, Ex. 14)
Lithocarpus est traite comme masculin (Lithocarpus polystachyus [...] was
based on Quercus polystachya).

   Si Lithocarpus est l'orthographe originale, rien n'autorise le
changement Lithocarpus -> Lithocarpos, d'autant plus que Lithocarpos exis=
te
aussi.

   Dans IGN on trouve en effet :

Lithocarpus Blume, Bijdr. 526. 7 Dec 1825-24 Jan 1826.
T.: L. javensis Blume
PHAN.-FAGACEAE (10) - 18 Sep 1996

et

Lithocarpos Targioni-Tozzetti, Mem. Soc. Ital. Sci. 20(2): 312. Jul-Dec
1833 (non Lithocarpus Blume 1825-1826).
T.: L. cocciformis Targioni-Tozzetti, nom. illeg. (Cocos lapidea J. Gaert=
ner)
PHAN.-ARECACEAE (51) - 9 Feb 1996


   Salutations amicales,

Jacques Melot, Reykjav=EDk
melot at itn.is




>
>If anyone has clear arguments for accepting one form of the epithet over
>the other I would be grateful if you would let me know what they are.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Rob Cross
>Horticultural Research Officer
>Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne