Report of the Committee for Spermatophyta: 53 Author(s): Richard K. Brummitt Reviewed work(s): Source: Taxon, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Nov., 2002), pp. 795-799 Published by: International Association for (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1555041 . Accessed: 18/05/2012 14:41

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 TAXON 51 ? November 2002: 795-799 Brummitt* Reportfor Spermatophyta:53

Report of the Committee for Spermatophyta: 53

Richard K. Brummitt

The Herbarium,Royal Botanic Gardens,Kew, Richmond,Surrey TW93AE, UK. E-mail: r.brummittrbg- kew.org. uk

The previousreport of this committeeappeared in which is now seen to be antedatedby threenames all Taxon50: 1179-1182(2001 publ.2002). Thosevoting publishedon the same page by Steudel.The nameP on proposalsin this reportwere R. K. Brummitt(Kew, dasypleurumhas been appliedconsistently to a species Secretary),G Davidse(St. Louis), T. V. Egorova(St. widespreadin Chileand Argentina, sometimes used as a Petersburg),T. S. Filgueiras(Brasilia), I. Friis (Copen- forageor pasturegrass. It would seem unfortunateto hagen,Chairman), K. Gandhi(Cambridge, Mass.), C. E. have to replacea well establishedname by something Jarvis(London), H.-W. Lack (Berlin),D. H. Nicolson elsejust becauseof an adjustmentof the dateof publica- (Washington);H. Ohashi (Sendai), A. E. Orchard tion, and the committeerecommends conservation as (Canberra),G. Perry (Perth, W.A.), M. Thulin(Uppsala), proposed. P. Vorster(Stellenbosch) and R. L. Wilbur(Durham, N.C.). A minimumof 10 votes is requiredfor recom- (1465). To conserveBrasilicactus Backeb. against mendationby this committeethat a proposalfor conser- AcanthocephalaBackeb. (Cactaceae). Proposed by A. B. vationor rejectionof a namebe acceptedor rejected. Doweldin Taxon49: 564-565 (2000).Votes: 7-7, 1 abst. (notrecommended). (1442).To conserveVeronica agrestis L. witha con- Nomenclaturalproblems with these two namesseem served type (Scrophulariaceae). Proposed by M. M. to have been glossed over hithertobecause they are Martinez-Ortega,J. A. Sanchez,S. Cafferty& E. Rico in regardedby many as synonymsof the largergenera Taxon49: 99-100 (2000). Notocactusor Parodia.The segregategenus was first Afterlengthy discussion in this committee,this pro- given the nameBrasilocactus by Fric in 1935, but this posalwas withdrawnby theproposers in favourof a new was withouta Latindescription and therefore invalid. It typificationby themselvesand M. Thulinto be published was validly namedAcanthocephala by Backebergin in this issueof Taxon(51: 763-764). 1938,but in 1942Backeberg himself concluded that this was a laterhomonym of AcanthocephalusKar. & Kir. (1447). To conserve Diphyes Cookson (fossil 1842 in Compositaeand he publisheda new name Dinophyceae) against Diphyes Blume (Orchidaceae). Brasilicactus(one letterdifferent from Fric's name) for Proposedby W.K. Harris& R. A. Fensomein Taxon49: the .This committeeagrees with the presentpro- 281-282 (2000). Votes to permitconservation if the poser that Acanthocephalaand Acanthocephalusare not Committeefor Fossil recommends it: 14-0, 1 abst. to be treatedas homonyms.They do notfeel thatthe cita- (no objectionby this committee). tion of only seven authorswho have usedBrasilicactus The nameDiphyes Blume would apply to a segre- demonstratescommon usage of the name.Some mem- gate of the largegenus Bulbophyllum if thatwere split bersof thecommittee also note the existence of thename up. Althoughit is not impossiblethat somebodymay BrasilicereusBackeb., in use for a differentgenus of wish to do this some day,there seems to be no immedi- cacti fromBrasil, and wonderwhether there might be ate threatthat it will happen,and this committeewould more confusionbetween these similarnames for two notwish sucha futurepossibility to prejudicethe current generaof cacti in Brasilthan there would be between usageof the samename for the dinoflagellategenus. Acanthocephala in Cactaceae and in Compositaeof CentralAsia. Conservationis not recom- (1464). To conserve Paspalum dasypleurumKunze mended,and if the segregategenus of Cactaceaeis ex E. Desv. againstP cumingiiNees ex Steudel,P recognised,it shouldbe calledAcanthocephala. pachyrrhizum Steud. and P paradisicum Steud. (Poaceae).Proposed by F. O. Zuloaga& O. Morronein (1446). To conserve EriocactusBackeb. against Taxon49: 561-563 (2000).Votes: 14-0, 1 abst. EriocephalusBackeb. (Cactaceae). Proposed by A. B. The proposalwas necessitatedby the establishment Doweld in Taxon49: 566-568 (2000). Votes:2-13, 1 of the correctdate of publicationof the nameconcerned, abst.(not recommended).

795 Brummitt? Report for Spermatophyta: 53 TAXON 51 ?November 2002: XX-XY

Thiscase has strikingsimilarities with the previous Nat. in 1759, the latterhaving been almostuniversally one. In 1938Backeberg named a new genusof cacti as followed since. The three elements in the Species Eriocephala.In 1942 he consideredthat to be a later Plantarumin 1753 are referableto other species of homonym of Eriocephalus L. in Compositae and pub- Rumexor to a speciesof Persicaria.This was realisedby lisheda substitutename Eriocactus. The latterhas been L6pez Gonzalezin 1988, who took up the name R. used by seven authorscited in the proposal,but most pseudoalpinusHofft for the species long knownas R. people include the genus in either Notocactus or alpinus,this being followedin Med Checklistin 1989 Parodia.In 1999the present proposer, Doweld, conclud- and an atlas of Spanishplants in 1996. However,the ed that Eriocactuswas an illegitimatesubstitute for speciesis a large,conspicuous and well knownplant of Notocactus and publisheda nom. nov. Peronocactus,but the EuropeanAlps, it is still knownunder the nameR. he now considersthat his argumentwas unfounded.The alpinusin manycurrent Floras of centralEurope, and it committeefeels that Eriocephala should not be treatedas hasbeen illustrated as suchin manypopular works. The a homonymof Eriocephalus,and is the correctname if committeerecommends conservation of R. alpinuswith the segregategenus is recognised.Again, in comparable a new typeas proposed. circumstancesto the previousproposal, there is a ques- tion of whetherEriocactus might be more confusable (1471). To reject Galanthus reflexus Herb. with a differentname Eriocereus (A. Berger)Riccob. (Amaryllidaceae).Proposed by A. P. Davisin Taxon49: (bothbeing applied to Brasiliancacti) than Eriocephala 813-814 (2000).Votes: 14-0, 1 abst.(recommended). wouldbe withEriocephalus, which is usedfor a genusof Thisname has virtuallynever been taken up at spe- SouthAfrican Compositae. The committeedeclines to cific ranksince it was publishedin 1845,but the epithet recommendconservation. The correctname for the seg- has beenapplied at infraspecificrank to a rangeof taxa regate genus is Eriocephala. undervarious species. No originalmaterial is known. Whenthe epithethas beentaken up it has usuallybeen (1467). To conserveWulffia Neck. ex Cass. over appliedunder G nivalisL., butclose examinationof the Tilesia G. Mey. (). Proposed by H. Robinson protologueshows that this cannotbe right.The descrip- & V.A. Funkin Taxon49: 569-570 (2000).Votes: 8-6, 1 tion andthe originallocality in westernTurkey indicate abst.(not recommended). thatG reflexusmust have been eitherwhat is currently The name Wulffiawas originallyregarded as vali- called G gracilis Celak. 1891 or G elwesii Hook. f. datedby Neckerin his ElementaBotanica 1790, but this 1875,most probably the former,and would be the earli- workhas long been rejected as a sourceof genericnames er namefor either.Both of thesenames are important in and is now proscribedunder Appendix 5 of the Code. horticultureand are adopted in recentmonographs by the Validationis nowattributed to Cassiniin 1823,but this is proposer.The committeerecommends rejection of the laterthan the competingsynonym Tilesia G. Mey. 1818. nameas proposed. The latterwas thereforetaken up by Pruskiin Novon6: 414 (1996)and Fl. Venez.Guyana (1997), by Zuloaga& (1472). To conserveDicrastylis Drumm. ex Harv. Morronein Cat.P1. Vasc. Argent. (1999), by a molecular over Mallophora Endl. and Lachnocephalus Turcz. paperin 1999,and by Webster& Rhodein Univ.Calif. (Lamiaceae, or previously Verbenaceae,Dicrastylida- Publ. Bot. 82: 64 (2001). The genus has only three ceae or Chloanthaceae).Proposed by B. L. Ryein Taxon species,but one of theseis widespreadas a weed in the 49: 815-816(2000). Votes: 10-4, 1 abst.(recommended). New World.Some members of the committeehave been In 1978Munir recognised two generaof Australian influencedby the usually identicalpronunciation of herbsand subshrubs,Dicrastylis with 26 specieswide- Wulffiawith WolffiaHorkel ex Schleid.,the latterbeing spread in Western Australia, Northern Territory, a well knowngenus of Lemnaceae.Although a small Queensland,New SouthWales and South Australia, and majorityof the committeehave favoured conservation as Mallophorawith two speciesconfined to a smallarea of proposed,the necessarytwo thirdsmajority has not been SWWestern Australia, with Lachnocephalus a synonym obtained.Conservation is not recommended,leaving of the latter.The present proposer wishes to unitethe two Tilesiaas the correctname. genera.The earliest name for the combinedgenus would be Mallophora,previously applied to a smalland very (1468). To conserveRumex alpinus L. with con- local genus, whereasDicrastylis would fall into syn- servedtype (Polygonaceae).Proposed by S. Cafferty& onymy. The latter name is much the better known and S. Snogerupin Taxon49: 571-572 (2000).Votes: 13-1, 1 morewidely applied, and is thebasis for the family name abst.(recommended). Dicrastylidaceaewhich has been widely used (though Linnaeusdescribed the speciesin 1753but seems to replacedrecently by Chloanthaceaewhich has priority). haveadopted a completelynew conceptof it in his Syst. On this basis,the committeerecommends conservation

796 TAXON 51 ? November 2002: 795-799 Brummitt* Reportfor Spermatophyta:53

of Dicrastylis over both Mallophora and Lachno- an endto all argumentsover the spelling. cephalus, both being earlierthan Dicrastylis.Munir (pers.comm.) would still preferto recognisetwo genera, (1479). To conserve Boutelouagracilis (Kunth) and his nomenclaturewould be unaffectedby the com- Griffithsagainst B. gracilis Vasey(Poaceae). Proposed mittee'srecommendation. by K. N. Gandhi,J. H. Wiersema& R. J. Sorengin Taxon 50: 573-575 (2001). Votes: 14-0, 1 abst.(recommend- (1476). To conserveViscaria Bemh. againstSteris ed). Adans.(Caryophyllaceae). Proposed by B. Oxelmann, Publicationof the name B. gracilis based on M. Liden & B. Jonsellin Taxon50: 281-282 (2001). Chondrosumgracile Kunth has been variously attributed Votes:12-2, 1 abst.(recommended). to Lagasca1816 or Steudel1840, butthese authorsdid The name Viscariahas been commonlyused for a not makethe combination.The earliestauthor to make smallnorth-temperate genus for more than a century.The the combinationwas Griffithsin 1912,but by this time competingsynonym Steris is earlierand has beentaken B. gracilisVasey 1879 had been published for a different up by two or threeauthors in the lastquarter of a centu- plant. Nonetheless,B. gracilis has been very widely ry,but is verylittle known. The committeerecommends adoptedin thesense of Griffithsfor a well knownspecies conservationof the well knownname. on the GreatPlains of NorthAmerica. The committee recommendsconservation as proposed. (1477). To reject Ocimum vaalae Forssk. (Lamiaceae).Proposed by A. J. Paton,O. Ryding& S. (1480). To rejectHolcus saccharatus L. (Poaceae). Suddeein Taxon50: 283 (2001). Votes: 13-1, 1 abst. Proposedby G. Davidse& N. J. Turlandin Taxon50: (recommended). 577-580 (2001).Votes: 14-0, 1 abst.(recommended). Thiscontinues the tidying up of thenames published The name Sorghumbicolor (L.) Moench is very posthumouslyby Forsskalin 1775.The workof J. R. I. widely used for the fifth most importantcereal crop of Woodin Yemenin the 1970s and 1980s,and the cata- the world.Although no lectotypehas ever been chosen logue of Forsskal'snames published by Hepper& Friis forH. saccharatus(Sorghum saccharatum (L.) Moench), in 1994, have establishedconvincing evidence that O. thereseems to be generalagreement that it appliesto the vaalae must be an earlier name for Plectranthus samespecies and is the earliername. A few authorshave amboinicus(Lour.) Spreng., although no originalmateri- takenup S. saccharatumin recentdecades, but S. bicol- al has been discovered.The species is widespreadand or is by farthe mostwidely usedname for the species. commonlycultivated in the Old Worldtropics, having Rejectionas proposedis recommended. well knownculinary, medicinal and anti-bacterialprop- erties.It is still cultivatedin Yemen,and is still giventhe (1483). To conserve Eryngiumbourgatii Gouan Arabicvernacular name "walah" that Forsskal recorded againstE. pallescensMill. (Apiaceae).Proposed by G. for it. The committeeis sympatheticto the proposalto Nieto Felinerin Taxon50: 585-586 (2001).Votes: 14-0, reject0. vaalaeand keep P amboinicusin use. 1 abst.(recommended). A well knownand attractive species occurring from (1478). To conservethe spellingBoophone Herb. the Pyreneesto Morocco,with a subspeciesin Turkey (Amaryllidaceae).Proposed by R. H. Archer,D. A. and Syria,has been knownfor morethan two centuries Snijman& R. K. Brummittin Taxon 50: 569-571 as Eryngiumbourgatii Gouan 1773. The speciesis also (2001).Votes: 14-0, 1 abst.(recommended). commonlycultivated as a gardenplant for its conspicu- Herbertoriginally spelled the nameas Boophanein ous glaucousblue appearance.Examination of the type 1821,but did not explainthe derivationof the name.In of . pallescensMill. 1768shows that this is referableto laterpublications he used Buphaneand Buphone,and the samespecies. Conservation of E. bourgatiiis recom- argumentabout the correctspelling persisted for nearly mended. two centuries.In 1939 it was notedthat it was probably derivedfrom its well knowntoxicity to cattle,and that (1490). To reject Silene polyphylla L. (Caryo- -phanewas a mistakefor -phonemeaning death. The phyllaceae).Proposed by S. Cafferty,B. Oxelman& F. spellingBoophone has been more or less universally Eggensin Taxon50: 923-924 (2001).Votes: 14-0, 1 abst. used in tropicalAfrica since then, but in SouthAfrica (recommended). some have queriedthis derivation.However, an appar- Thename was publishedin 1753,when its distribu- ently conclusivestatement by Herberthimself has been tion was indicated-apparentlyerroneously-as Central foundin a publicationof 1837, wherehe said thatthe Europe.The only reasonabletypification would make it genericname was derivedfrom the bulbsbeing fatal to conspecific with S. portensis L. from the western cattle.Conservation of Boophoneis recommendedto put Mediterranean.This name has been thought to datefrom

797 Brummitt* Reportfor Spermatophyta:53 TAXON 51 ? November 2002: XX-XY

1753,with Silene polyphylla falling into synonymy,but (1828):Cavanillea mabolo Poir. in Lam.,Illustr. 2: it was theninvalid (in synonymyof S. inapertaL.) and t.454 (1823) ("D. mabolo"Roxb., Hort. Bengal.: 40 was not validateduntil 1762.Silene polyphylla has been (1814),nom. nud.). givenas a synonymof S. portensison severaloccasions, Nativeof Philippinesand widely cultivated in New but has never been taken up as the correct name. World. Rejectionas proposedis recommended. Thelatter species is mostcommonly known current- (1491). To reject Euphorbia pilulifera L. ly by the name D. discolor, but this is illegitimate. (Euphorbiaceae).Proposed by H.-J.Esser & S. Cafferty Authorswho haveused this nameinclude Vidal y Soler, in Taxon50: 925-927 (2001).Votes: 14-0, 1 abst.(rec- Rev. PI. Vasc. Filip. (1886), Merrill,Dict. PI. Names ommended). Philipp.Is. (1905),Whitford, For. Fl. Philipp.2 (1911), The name was publishedin 1753 and was later Brown,Veg. Philipp.Mts. (1919), Webster,Food P1. appliedto variousspecies of the Chamaesycegroup of Philipp.(1924) and Molina, Enum. PI. Honduras (1975). Euphorbia.A lectotypewas designatedin 1911 that is Diospyros philippensis has been used in Fl. China 15: referableto E. parvifloraL. 1759,a speciesto whichit 232 (1996) and Fl. Taiwan,ed. 2, 4: 93, t. 93 (1998). Asis has neverbeen appliedin practice.The nameis not in & al., PI.Philipp. (1971), have confused the two species, currentuse, andthe committeerecommends rejection as the nameD. philippinensisin the indexbeing referenced proposed. to D. philippensis in the text. Committeevotes: 13-1, 1 abst., that the names (1492). To conserveHibiscus sabdariffa L. with a shouldbe treatedas homonyms.The committeeunder- conservedtype (Malvaceae).Proposed by P. A. Fryxell standsthat a proposalto conservethe nameD. discolor in Taxon50: 929-931 (2001).Votes: 14-0, 1 abst. will now be made. Thisis a well knownname, and a lectotypewas cho- sen apparentlyuncritically in the Floraof Pakistanin 2. Vantieghemiaand Van-Tieghemia. 1979.A Commelinplate was nominatedas the type,and Request submittedindependently by R. R. Mill thiswas the firstlectotypification of the name.However, (Royal BotanicGarden, Edinburgh) and J. L. Reveal this plate is referableto anotherLinnaean species, H. (Universityof Maryland). cannabinus.Both species concernedare widespread, well knownand economically important. The committee (a) VantieghemiaKuntze, Revis. Gen. P1. 2: 874 (1891), recommendsacceptance of the proposalto re-typifyH. nom.superfl. illegit. (Fungi, Mucorales). Type as for sabdariffa. SyncephalisTiegh. & G.Le Monn.(1873).

(b) Van-TieghemiaA. V. Bobrov & Melikyan in Bot. Unpublished requests for decisions on Zhurn. 85(7): 58 (2000), Gymnospermae, homonymy Podocarpaceae/Prumnopityaceae.

1. Diospyrosphilippinensis and D. philippensis Both names apparentlycommemorate the botanistP. Submittedby S. Knapp& M. G. Gilbert(Natural E. L. vanTieghem (1839-1914). Van-Tieghemia is a seg- HistoryMuseum, London). regategenus in the Podocarpaceaesensu lato relatedto PrumnopitysPhil. and confined to South America. (a) Diospyros philippinensis A. DC., Prodr. 8: 231 Discussionof the case has raisedseveral different view- (1844). Type:Philippines, Cuming 1142 (G-Boiss., points. On one hand it has been arguedthat the two holotype). nameswill be pronouncedthe samewhich suggests that Name in use for an endemicspecies of the Philippines, they mustbe treatedas homonyms.It has been argued withno knownsynonyms. thatthe hyphenis notpart of the spellingand so the two namesare actual homonyms. It hasbeen noted that since (b) Diospyros philippensis (Desr.) Giirke, Nat. Vantieghemiais an illegitimatename in Fungi,the name Pflanzenfam.4(1): 164 (1891). _ Cavanillesia in Gymnospermaewill neverbe confusedwith it. It has philippensisDesr. in Lam.,Encycl. 3(2): 663-664 also been notedthat our recommendationon this could (1792).-=D. discolor Willd., Syst. P1. 4: 1108(April affectfuture practice, and that it is undesirableto encour- 1806),nom. superfl. illegit. - D. embryopterisPers., age authorsto publishsuch near homonyms. Syn. PI. 2: 624 (Sept. 1807), nom. superfl.illegit. The committeevote is 11-2,2 abst.,that the names Type:cultivated, herb. Lamarck? (P?). shouldbe treatedas homonymseven if theyare not actu- = D. mabolo (Poir.) Lindl., Bot. Reg. 1828: t.1139 al homonyms.

798 TAXON 51 ?November 2002: 795-799 Brummitt* Reportfor Spermatophyta:53

3. CorneraFurtado and CorneriaA. V. Bobrov& Melikyan. Request submittedindependently by R. R. Mill (Royal Botanic Garden,Edinburgh) and J. L. Reveal (Universityof Maryland).

(a) CorneraFurtado in Gard.Bull. StraitsSettlem., ser. 3, 14: 518 (1955). Palmae.

(b) Corneria A. V. Bobrov & Melikyan in Bot. Zhum. 85(7): 58 (2000). Gymnospermae,Podocarpaceae/ Prumnopityaceae.

Thetwo namesalmost certainly both commemorate E. J. H. Comer(1906-1996), though this was notexplic- itly statedby Furtado.Cornera is now widely regarded by palmspecialists to be a synonymof CalamusL. Very similararguments to those put forwardin the case of Vantieghemiaand Van-Tieghemiaabove have also been expressedin this case. The committeehas voted 11-3, 1 abst., that the namesshould be treatedas homonyms.

4. PterogoniumSw. and PterogonumH. Gross. Requestsubmitted by J. L. Reveal (Universityof Maryland).

(a) Pterogonium Sw., Monthly Rev. 34: 537 (1 June 1801), nom. superfl. illegit. Type as for PterigynandrumHedw. (1 Jan. 1801).

(b) PterogonumH. Gross, Bot. Jahrb.Syst. 49: 239 (1913). Polygonaceae.

Despite the fact that it is illegitimate,the name Pterogoniumhas been often used in NorthAmerica for a genusof mosseswith threespecies in Northand South America, Europe, Africa and Asia. The name Pterogonum has been reduced to Eriogonum subgen. Pterogonum(H. Gross) Reveal in Sida 3: 82 (1967), but has occasionallybeen maintainedat generic rank in recentliterature. The genus has 11 species in western UnitedStates and northern Mexico. The chancesof the name in mosses and the name in Polygonaceaebeing confusedseem slenderto mostof the committee. The Committeevote on treatingthem as homonyms is 4-10, 1 abst.,i.e., the namesshould not be treatedas homonyms.

799