Amphitecna-Enallagma-Dendrosicus Revisited Author(S): Alwyn H
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Amphitecna-Enallagma-Dendrosicus Revisited Author(s): Alwyn H. Gentry Source: Taxon, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Feb., 1976), p. 108 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1220415 . Accessed: 13/04/2014 09:49 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:49:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TAXON 25(I): Io8. FEBRUARY 1976 AMPHITECNA-ENALLAGMA-DENDROSICUSREVISITED Alwyn H. Gentry" Summary Changes in the Code adopted by the Leningrad Congress necessitate six new combi- nations in Amphitecna. Acceptance by the Leningrad Congress (Voss, personal communication) of several modifications of the Code suggested by Greuter (1974; proposals 46, 47, 48) and amplified by Gentry (I975) makes advisable another look at the now much-discussed case of Amphitecna, Dendrosicus and Enallagma (Williams, 1973; Gentry 1973, 1975; Greuter 1974). The net effect of the changes in Article 14 and Article 57 is to modify the status of generic nomina rejicienda. Such names must now be rejected not only in favor of listed nomina conservanda but also against any non-conserved generic name of inter- mediate age with which a conserved genus is united. Thus (new Article 14, Note 3): "Enallagma Baillon (1888) is conserved against Dendrosicus Raf. (1838), but not against Amphitecna Miers (1868); if Enallagma and Amphitecna are united, the combined genus must bear the name of Amphitecna, although the latter is not explicitly conserved against Dendrosicus." Amphitecna becomes the correct name for the disputed genus of Big- noniaceae and the following combinations are necessary: Amphitecna isthmica (A. Gentry) A. Gentry, comb. nov. Dendrosicus isthmicus A. Gentry, Phytologia 26: 442. 1973- Amphitecna kennedyi (A. Gentry) A. Gentry, comb. nov. Dendrosicus kennedyi A. Gentry, Phytologia 26: 441. 1973. Amphitecna spathicalyx (A. Gentry) A. Gentry, comb. nov. Dendrosicus spathicalyx A. Gentry, Phytologia 26: 439. 1973. Amphitecna steyermarkii (A. Gentry) A. Gentry, comb. nov. Dendrosicus steyermarkii A. Gentry, Phytologia 26: 445. 1973. Amphitecna latifolia (Mill.) A. Gentry, comb. nov. Crescentia latifolia Mill., Gard. Dict., ed. 8: 306. 1768. Dendrosicus latifolius (Mill.) A. Gentry, Taxon 22: 644. 1973. (complete synonymy included). *Missouri Botanical Garden, 2315 Tower Grove Ave., St. Louis, Mo. 63110. USA. io8 TAXON VOLUME 25 This content downloaded from 212.238.43.46 on Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:49:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions.