Botanical Code question

[Thomas G. Lammers]

At 01:57 AM 2/26/04, Torbjörn Tyler wrote:
>I would suspect that the latin word 'Typus' here, as commonly way back in 
>1919, did not nesesserely mean what we today mean with a type specimen. In 
>classical Latin 'Typus' rather means a picture of something and in 
>medeaveal Latin it was used in the meaning of 'a kind' or 'a form' of 
>something. Thus, I would interpret the diagnoses here concerned as if the 
>Cusick collection is the true original material and the Sucksdorf 
>collection is only mentioned here since the author has realized that it 
>differs (as described) from the main form of his new taxon. ("Typus 
>(Suksdorf n. 6047! e monte Padds [=Mt. Adams], Washington) minor est, 
>foliis trifidis floribusque majoribus condensatis." may then be translated 
>as ''A form represented by Suksdorf n. 6047 from Mt. Adams is smaller 
>[than the taxon described above] with crowded trifid leaves and major 
>flowers'').

Yes, I think this is the best interpretation.  Recall that Europeans were 
none too keen on the Type Concept back then.  It was largely an American 
invention, not incorporated into the International Code until 1935.  I 
think we might loosely translate the Latin as "The type [i.e., kind or 
sort] found on Mt. Adams ..."