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. This would provide a accept the proposal. name for the largest of the genera resulting from the division of the inclusive Dolichos. It would be a wholly arbitrary typification, '* as the proposed type (D. uni/loms Lamarck) 3864. Glycine Willdenow (1802) vs, Gly­ was not known to Linnaeus, and it would cine Linnaeus (1753) (8-2, I abstention). prevent the further use of the name Dolichos (Taxon 15: 35. 1966). Linnaeus even when the genus was broadly The name Glycine is in general use for a circumscribed. It would mean that the illegit­ small genus which, as interpreted in the most imate name Lablab would have to be con­ recent revision of the genus (1962) includes served, or another name provided for that one very important cultivated plant, the soy­ group, and it would mean the creation of bean. As originally circumscribed by Lin­ new names for additional segregate genera. naeus, Glycine included 7 species, none of 2) Continue to recognize Dolichos lablab which constitutes an acceptable lectotype. All L. as the type of the generic name Dolichos. but one have for more than a century been This would mean the creation of pew generic regarded as belonging to other genera. The names if it were thought desirable to recog­ seventh species, G. iooanica L., proves upon nize the several genera that have been sepa­ examination of the Linnaean type to repre­ rated from Dolichos sens. str, sent a species of another genus, Pueraria. 3) Typify Dolichos Linnaeus in some other It is proposed to conserve the name Gly­ way. It has recently been suggested to the cine from the date of its publication by Will­ committee that if Dolichos trilobus L. be denow because this treatment includes the accepted as type, the number of necessary oldest valid name of a species that is now name-changes would be greatly reduced, generally accepted as a Glycine (G. clandes­ there would be no further necessity to con­ tina Wendl.), and the generic name is at the serve Lablab Adans., and it would be pos­ same time validly published. The Committee sible for those not wishing to divide Dolichos recommends the acceptance of the proposal. to use the name for the genus in this in­ clusive sense. '* The Committee, recognizing the practical JUNE 1968 327 necessity of finding an acceptable solution, type M. wrightii vs. Malvastrum A. Gray, at the same time feels that the present pro­ with type M. coccineum (11-0). (Taxon 15: posal does not provide such a solution. Any 311. 1966). acceptable solution should provide the great­ The name Malvll8trum has been conserved est possible degree of stability in nomen­ since 1905. In 1890 M. wrightii was formally clature, whether or not the genus Dolichos proposed as lectotype, but this was over­ be taxonomically divided. The Committee looked. In 1913 M. coccineum was proposed: unanimously expresses its dissatisfaction with this species, however, is not a member of the the present proposal, and expresses its hope genus Malvastrum as currently interpreted, that a better solution may be found. The but a species of Sphaeralcea. The Committee Committee is somewhat divided in its opinion unanimously recommends that reference to as to what may be the best way out of the M. coccineum as the type of the name Mal­ dilemma. There is strong feeling that in this vastrum be removed from the list of Nomina instance it may be best to continue to recog­ Conservanda, and that it be replaced by M. nize D. lablab L. as type, simply as a matter wrightii [M. aurantiacum (Scheele) Walp.J. of adherence to the principle of priority, even though this may mean the creation of some new generic names. There is also some strong '* feeling that since the name Dolichos has been 5256. Warburgia Engler (1895) vs. Chibaca used widely for certain large generic groups Bertoloni (1853). (8-2), 1 abstention). (Regn. that do not include the historic type of Doli­ Veg. 40: 27. 1965). chos, practicality may dictate the conserva­ The name Warburgia is well known in tion of the name for one such group. East Africa for a genus of 4 species; one species is a very common constituent of up­ '* land forest. Chibaca was proposed as a mono­ typic genus of doubtful affinity, based on 4244. Thryallis Martius (1829) vs. Thryallis fruiting material, and only in 1937 recognized Linnaeus (1762). (10-1). (Taxon 16: 76. as identical with Warburgia. There seems to 1967). be no question that Warburgia and Chibaca It is proposed to conserve the name Thry­ are in fact identical, so that Warburgia can­ allis for a Brazilian genus of about 3 species. not be used without conservation. As Chibaca This action would make it possible to use the has never been taken up in any flora or other name Galphimia Cav. (1799), without con­ work since its first description, the change servation, even though Galphimia is a syn­ from Warburgia to Chibaca would merely onym of Thryallis Linnaeus. The use of contribute to synonymy without any com­ Thryallis Mart. in this sense is in accordance pensating benefits. The acceptance of the with current practice. If Thryallis Mart. is proposal is recommended. not conserved, the name Hemsleyna O. Kunt­ ze is available to replace it, but- has been little used. '* The names Thryallis L. and Galphimia 5384. Eucnide Zuccarini (1845) vs. Mic­ Cav. have both been used, perhaps to about rosperrna Hooker (1839). (11-0). (Taxon 16: the same extent, for a second tropical Amer­ 77.1967). ican genus, this one of about 10 species. Eucnide is a genus of about 11 species, all The Committee feels that it would con­ American. The name has been well known tribute to a stable nomenclature to fix the since the monograph of Loasaceae by Urban name Thryallis (in the sense of Martius) for & Gilg (1900). In this work the earlier name the smaller genus (to which it is now gener­ Microsperma was rejected because it was held ally applied), rather than for the larger genus to be a homonym of Microspermum Lag. to which the names Galphimia and Thryallis (1816) (Compositae). The Committee holds have both been applied to a somewhat con­ that in view of some of the examples given fusing extent. The acceptance of this proposal in the present Code, and because Microsper­ is therefore recommended. ma and Microspermum are in different fam­ ilies, they may not (at least in the opinion of some botanists) be homonyms. Under these '* circumstances Microsperma would supplant 4995. Malvastrum A. Gray (1849), with Eucnide. In order to avoid possible future

328 TAXON VOLUME 17 embarrassment and confusion, the Committee since been universally used. It may be argued unanimously recommends the conservation of 1) That Cassini had no right to change the Eucnide. spelling of a validly published name, or 2) That he never accepted the earlier spelling -(.- and in 1818 merely corrected his own error. There is no strong support for the proposal, 6505. Crawfurdia Wallich (post Aug 1826) and the divided vote apparently reflects the vs. Tripterospermum Blume (Jul-Dec 1826). opinion that as no new combinations are in­ (1-10). (Taxon 16: 78. 1967). volved when the spelling of the generic name The Committee declines to recommend the is corrected, conservation of one spelling so conservation of Crawfurdia, feeling that the much like another does not seem desirable case is less compelling than the proposal or necessary. would indicate. There is some evidence that the use of the name Tripterospermum is more Summary general than suggested in the proposal. Recent specialists in the Gentianaceae have tended The Committee recommends the conser­ to reinstate Tripterospermum as a valid genus vation of the following names as proposed: distinct from Crawfurdia, and to reduce some 612. Prestoea, 631. Euterpe, 2551. Decaisnea, or all species of Crawfurdia sens, str. to Gen­ 3201. Vahlia, 3864. Glycine, 4244. Thryallis, tiana. The conservation of Crawfurdia as 5256. Warburgia, 5384. Eucnide, 7421. Goet­ proposed is unnecessary if Tripterospermum zea. It recommends the proposed changes in is considered to be a genus distinct from the citations of the conserved names 3718. Crawfurdia, and also if Crawfurdia is in­ Tephrosia and 4995. Malvastrum. It does not cluded in Gentiana sens. str. It may be desir­ support the proposals for conservation of 280. able only if Crawfurdia is maintained in the Danthonia, 1540. Josephia, 3113. Thyw­ classical sense for all gentians for twining chium, 3812. Lourea, 3910. Dolichos, 6505. stems; this view is not supported by recent Crawfurdia, 8874. Lagenophora. taxonomic opinion. GENERAL COMMITTEE ON BOTANICAL '* NOMENCLATURE 7421. Goetzea Wydler (1830) vs. Goetzea The attention of all botanists is drawn to Reichenbach (1828). (8-2, 1 abstention). the publication of the IXth report of the (Taxon 15: 167. 1966). Committee on Spermatophyta in this issue of The name Goetzea Wydler has been in Taxon (pp. 325-329). The general Com­ uninterrupted use since 1830 for a small but mittee will study this report and take a de­ anomalous group of species; the genus was cision on 1 December 1968. Comments and recently (1965) made the type of the family proposals concerning the report should reach name Goetzeaceae. As the name Goetzea the secretary of the General Committee (Mr. Reichenbach was somewhat ambiguously pro­ R. Ross, Botany Department, British Museum posed, as it has never been used except by (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London the original proposer and is generally re­ S.W. 7, England) before 1 November 1968. garded as a synonym on taxonomic grounds, the Committee feels that it would be un­ Nomina conservanda fortunate if the name Goetzea Wydler were The General Committee has approved the to be displaced by it. The acceptance of this proposal by the Committee for Spermato­ proposal is therefore recommended. phyta to conserve the following names (for details see the Committee's seventh report, Taxon 16: 226-229. 1967): 668. Astrocaryum, * 730 Montrichardia, 752 Alocasia, sub 2542 8874. Lagenophora Cassini (1818) vs, La­ Naravelia, sub 3197 Lithophragma, 4074 genifera Cassini (1815). (4-6, 1 abstention). Sargentia, 4302 Glochidion, 4868 Berchemia, (Taxon 15: 75. 1966). 8969 Eilago, 9009 Podotheca and a change in the citation of the name 597 Pigafetta (Blume) Cassini originally published the name of a Martius ex Beccari, corr. J. D. Hooker. genus as Lagenifera, then 3 years later changed it to Lagenophora, a form that has F. A. STAFLEU

JUNE 1968 329