REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE FOR SPERMATOPHYTA Conservation of Generic Names, IX Rogers McVaugh, Secretary • The previous report in this series was in the last half-century. The Committee de­ published in Taxon 17: 85-87. 1968. The clines to accept this proposal. Any subsequent present report was prepared by the Com­ proposal for the conservation of the name mittee whose members are listed below, ex­ Danthonia should include D. spicata as lecto­ cept that Prof. J. Leonard was compelled by type, or show good reason why another spe­ pressure of other duties to resign from the cies should be designated. Committee at the end of 1967, and took no part in the balloting on these proposals. A. R. Pinto da Silva, Chairman (Portugal) * R. C. Bakhuizen van den Brink (Netherlands) 612. Prestoea J. D. Hooker (1883) vs. Mar­ G. Buchheim (United States) tinezia Ruiz & Pavon (1794) and Oreodoxa A. A. Bullock (England) Willdenow (1807). (8-2, 1 abstention) (Regn. F. R. Fosberg (United States) Veg. 34: 54-55. 1964). Hiroshi Hara (Japan) Both Martinezia and Oreodoxa have been Nils Hylander (Sweden) wrongly applied to such an extent that they J. Leonard (Belgium) have the status of nomina confusa and it I. A. Linczevski (U.S.S.R.) would be unfortunate to take up either one Rogers McVaugh, Secretary (United States) for the genus that has been called Prestoea R. D. Meikle (England) in recent palm literature. The conservation C. G. G. J. van Steenis (Netherlands) of Prestoea stabilizes the nomenclature of a group of about 35 species of palms, held to Reports on proposals for conservation be generically distinct from Euterpe. See the following proposal. As in previous reports, the votes for and The Committee recommends the conserva­ against each proposal are shown in paren­ tion of Prestoea, noting however that it is thesis immediately after the names involved; unnecessary to add Euterpe J. Gaertn. to the the affirmative votes precede the negative. list of names rejected in favor of Prestoea. Eight affirmative votes were required for a Differences in embryo-structure indicate with recommendation by the Committee to accept reasonable certainty that Prestoea Hook. and a proposal. Euterpe Gaertn. are different genera, even 280. Danthonia Lamarck & De Candolle though neither of Gaertner's original species (1805) vs, Sieglingia Bernhardt (1800). (2-9) can be positively identified with any known (Regn, Veg. 40: 20. 1965). palm. The Committee agrees that the name Dan­ thonia should be conserved, but the present proposal is inacceptable. The proposed lecto­ * 631. Euterpe Martius (1837) vs, Euterpe type, D. provincialis, might be acceptable as J. Gaertner (1788), Martinezia Ruiz & Pavon a species, but the name is illegitimate and (1794) and Oreodoxa Willdenow (1807). (9-1, the type of the name provincialis (that is, the 1 abstention) (Regn. Veg. 34: 54. 1964). type of Avena calycina Vill.) is a specimen presumably of hybrid origin. Furthermore The name Euterpe in the sense of Martius another species, Danthonia spicata, was des­ has been in general use for more than a cen­ ignated as lectotype as early as 1914, and tury, both in the restricted sense for a genus has been treated as the type of the name of about 30 species, and with the broader Danthonia in many publications on grasses circumscription that includes Prestoea as well (see the preceding proposal). The pre­ sent proposal aims to protect Euterpe Mart. • The Herbarium, North University Building, against Euterpe Gaertn., of which it is a later University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., homonym (Martius having excluded Euterpe U.S.A. Gaertn. from the genus as he circumscribed JUNE 1968 325 it). Euterpe Mart. is also to be conserved Spreng. (1790). (2-8, 1 abstention) (Taxon against Martinezia R. & P., and Oreodoxa 15: 76. 1966). Willd., the types of which are both species This is a proposal to fix the spelling of a of Prestoea, in the event that the genus generic name in one form that became Euterpe is so broadly construed as to include familiar in the 19th Century, in preference to Prestoea. two differently latinized forms used by the The Committee agrees that the conserva­ original proposer of the name, and in prefer­ tion of Euterpe Mart. would contribute to­ ence to another competing form established ward nomenclatural stability. It wishes to in 1818. It is argued that one or the other of point out, however, that the lectotype of the "corrections" (Thylachium, Thylacium) is Euterpe Gaertn. is properly E. pisifera etymologically more "correct" than either of Gaertn., not E. globosa Gaertn. as stated in the spellings used by Loureiro (Thilachium, the original proposal. E. pisiiera was indi­ Thilakium). There is no strong support for cated (if not explicitly designated) as lecto­ the proposal. The Committee is informed type by Blume (1843), and Martius (1845), that Loureiro's latinizations were in accord­ and more explicitly designated by J. D. ance with Portuguese practice of his time, Hooker (1883). which aimed at preserving the sounds of Latin letters for Portuguese speakers. The name of * the genus was originally spelled Thilachium 1540. losephia Wight (1851) vs. [osephia (Lour. Fl. Cochinch. 342, and index. 1790), R. Brown (1809), [osephia Velloso (1825), but the name of the one species was written losephia Steudel (1840), Sirhookera Kuntze Thilakium africanum. In the 1793 editior (1891). (1-10) (Taxon 16: 72. 1967). edited by Willdenow the name was consist The name Sirhookera Kuntze was validly ently spelled Thilachium, and the Committee proposed to replace Josephia Wight, the supports the continued use of this form. latter being a later homonym. The genus is a small one (2 species), not widely known outside its native country. The name Sir­ '* hookera is available and is already at least in 3201. Vahlia Thunberg (1782) vs. Bistella limited use by Indian botanists. The Com­ Adanson (1763). (9-2). (Taxon 15: 333. mittee feels that the case for conservation of 1966). losephia is not a strong one. The name Vahlia, for a small genus recent­ ly (1959) designated as the type of the family Vahliaceae, has been used by all authors * since Thunberg until 1966, when Bistella 2551. Decaisnea J. D. Hooker & Thomson Adans. was revived as the older name for the (1854) vs. Decaisnea Brongniart (1829). (10- genus. Vahlia is relatively well-known be­ I) (Taxon 15: 334. 1966). cause the genus is anomalous in the Saxifra­ The name Decaisnea Hook. & Thoms. has gaceae where it was often placed, and the become relatively widely known because the name is mentioned in various general works. genus, although small, belongs to the small The Committee feels that to restore Bistella and morphologically interesting family Lardi­ at this time would generate confusion without zabalaceae, and the name has been frequently any compensating benefit, and recommends cited in general botanical works. No other conservation of Vahlia. name has been used for the genus and no other name seems to be available. The Com­ mittee recommends conservation, noting that * although "Slackia Griffith" (1848) was pro­ 3718. Tephrosia Persoon (1807) (10-0, 1 posed as a nomen reiiciendum it was not abstention) (Taxon 16: 73. 1967). validly published and does not need to be The name Tephrosia is already conserved. considered. This proposal is to add Reineria Moench (Suppl. Meth. PI. 44. 1802) to list of nomina reilcienda under Tephrosia. The name Rei­ * neria has apparently never been adopted since 3113. Thylachium Lour. corr. A. P. de its original publication. The identity of the Candolle (1790) vs, Thilachium (Thilakium) type and only species can probably never be Lour. (1790) and Thylacium Lour. corr, certainly established, but since the time of 326 TAXON VOLUME 17 Moench there has been general agreement 3910. Dolichos Lamarck (1786) vs. Doli­ that it represented a species of Tephrosia, T. chos Linnaeus (1753). (O-ll). (Regn. Veg. reflexa (Moench) DC. The Committee re­ 40: 26-27. 1965). commends acceptance of this proposal. The Linnaean Dolichos originally included 12 species, of which only 2 remain in Doli­ chos even when the genus is accepted in a '* broad sense. Of these Dolichos lablab L. is 3812. Lourea Desvaux (1813) vs. Lourea generally admitted to be the only acceptable J. St.-Hilaire (1812) and Christia Moench lectotype, and it was formally designated as (1802). (2-8, I abstention) (Regn. Veg. 40: such at least as early as 1924. 25.1965). Since the original publication of Dolichos, The long-accepted name for an Australasian 100 or more species have been ascribed to genus of about 15 species was Lourea Necker the genus. If this inclusive genus be taxon­ (1790). Because of the decision at the Mon­ omically divided, as is now often advocated, treal Congress to reject the names published the majority of the species fall outside the in Necker's Elementa Botanica, Lourea is taxon that includes the type, D. lablab. A treated as not having been validly published group of about 30 species (chiefly African) until 1813 (by Desvaux). It is then a later has become widely known under the name homonym of Lourea J. St-Hilaire (1812). The of Dolichos, at the same time the group in­ oldest available name for the group that has cluding D. lablab has been referred to the been called Lourea Necker (and Lourea Des­ genus Lablab Adans., which name is illegit­ vaux) is Christia Moench (1802). This has imate. Another group of about 70 species recently been accepted by several authors, (chiefly African and Indian) may represent and some of the necessary new combinations still another distinct genus when Dolichos is have been made. The Committee feels that construed in the narrow sense. the conservation of Lourea Desv, at this time would contribute to nomenclatural confusion The alternatives are: I) Conserve Dolichos rather than to stability, and does not wish to Lamarck as proposed.