Nomenclature: name rejection?

[Ginzbarg, Steve]

Wang,

You wrote:

> In 1951, Banerji, M. L. published another new name Pimpinella
clarkeana Watt ex Banerji which was based on Watt 6556.

and 

> In 1978, the lectotype of P. vulgare has been designated from the ten
collections (Henry 10675)

I'm no expert on the code but I think the synonymy would depend on
whether you believe that Watt 6556 and Henry 10675 belong to the same
taxon or two different taxa.

-Steve Ginzbarg
 
Steve Ginzbarg, Collections Manager
Herbarium (UNA)
Department of Biological Sciences
Box 870345
The University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345
(205) 348-1829, FAX: (205) 348-6460
sginzbar at biology.as.ua.edu
http://bama.ua.edu/~bsc/herbarium/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List 
> [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On Behalf Of Lisong, Wang
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 12:23 AM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Nomenclature: name rejection?
> 
> Dear All:
> Recently, I found a nomenclature problem dealing with the 
> name Pternopetalum vulgare (Dunn) Hand.-Mazz.
> Its basionym is Cryptotaeniopsis vulgare Dunn. which was 
> described on 1902 by S. T. Dunn. In the original description, 
> the author cited 10 collections (Faber 60, 627, 632, Henry 
> 10675, 5384, 5406, 5444, 5444A, Pratt, 831, Watt 6556) for 
> this name, but without definite typification.
> In 1951, Banerji, M. L. published another new name Pimpinella 
> clarkeana Watt ex Banerji which was based on Watt 6556. From 
> the original description of P.clarkeana, Banerji did not 
> mentioned the name published by Dunn in 1902. According to 
> Code, Pimpinella clarkeana Watt ex Banerji is illegitimate 
> name,but this name has been generally consider as the 
> accepted synonym of P. vulgare, and recorded in the online 
> flora list of Nepal as accepted species (??). In 1978, the 
> lectotype of P. vulgare has been designated from the ten 
> collections (Henry 10675), but in Umbelliferae of India, its 
> lectotype has been indicated as Watt 6556. I don't know how 
> dose this difference has happened?
> Dose this name should be rejected through a nomenclatural proposal?
> The following is the name and their original publications.
> 1933  Pternopetalum vulgare (Dunn)Hand.-Mazz., Umbelliferae. 
> Symbolae Sinicae,  VII. 719
> 1902   = Cryptotaeniopsis vulgaris Dunn, Hook. Ic. Pl. t. 2737
> 1951   = Pimpinella clarkeana Watt ex Banerji, Journ. Bombay 
> Nat. Hist.
> Soc. 1. 88
> 1916   = Deringa vulgaris (Dunn) Koso-Pol., Monit. Jard. Bot. 
> Tiflis, Ann.
> xi. 139, (1916); et Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc. 1915, n. s. xxix.
> 1978   = Pternopetalum vulgare (Dunn) Hand.-Mazz. var. 
> foliosum Shan & Pu,
> Acta Phytotax. Sin., 16(3): 69
>