TAXACOM Digest - 3 Jan 2006 to 4 Jan 2006 (#2006-3)

Thu Jan 5 09:57:48 CST 2006

Dear Wang,

You write in your message that Pimpinella clarkeana Watt ex Banerji is
an illegitimate name according to the Code.  It's not clear to me that
this is true, based on the information in your message.  Were you
considering the name to be nomenclaturally superfluous under Art. 52.1?
This would only be true if Pimpinella clarkeana, "as circumscribed by
its author, definitely included the type of" Cryptotaeniopsis vulgare
Dunn.  Since Dunn did not designate a type amongst the 10 collections he
cited, and Banerji apparently did not list Dunn's name as a synonym at
the time of publication, it seems that Banerji did not definitely
include the type of Cryptotaeniopsis vulgare.  

Henry 10675 should serve as the lectotype since it was published in
1978, earlier than Umbelliferae of India (1993); (Art. 9.17:  the author
who first designates a lectotype or neotype must be followed unless it
is in conflict with the protologue etc...).  

It becomes a taxonomic question whether or not Pimpinella clarkeana is a
synonym of Pternopetalum vulgare; if you accept the two as synonyms,
it's clear that Pternopetalum vulgare has priority, as Paul van
Rijckevorsel stated.

Erica Cline

Postdoctoral Research Associate
Systematic Botany and Mycology Lab
10300 Baltimore Avenue
Beltsville MD 20705-2350

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On
Behalf Of Automatic digest processor
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:00 AM
To: Recipients of TAXACOM digests
Subject: TAXACOM Digest - 3 Jan 2006 to 4 Jan 2006 (#2006-3)

There are 9 messages totalling 524 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Nomenclature: name rejection? (3)
  2. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Linnaeus/Linn=E9?= (4)
  3. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20Linnaeus/Linn=E9?=
  4.
=?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A______=5BTAXACOM=5D_Re=3A_Linnaeus/Linn=E9_=5B_Scan?
=
     =?iso-8859-1?Q?ned_=5D?=

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 4 Jan 2006 00:22:36 -0600
From:    "Lisong, Wang" <lswang at IBCAS.AC.CN>
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

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:04:04 +0100
From:    Paul van Rijckevorsel <dipteryx at FREELER.NL>
Subject: Re: Nomenclature: name rejection?

I am not sure I understand the problem.

* /Pternopetalum vulgare/ is the name that has priority
* /Pternopetalum vulgare/ is the name that is in use
* /Pimpinella clarkeana/ is a synonym, whether or not it is illegitimate

Looks to me that (nomenclaturally) everything is fine?
Paul

------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 4 Jan 2006 16:50:31 -0600
From:    "Ginzbarg, Steve" <sginzbar at BIOLOGY.AS.UA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nomenclature: name rejection?

Wang,

You wrote:

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

and=20

> 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
=20
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/