DOCSLIB.ORG

Plants, Animals, Algae and Fungi, Four Non-Taxonomic Group Designations Author(S): Tyge Christensen Reviewed Work(S): Source: Taxon, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Plants, Animals, Algae and Fungi, Four Non-Taxonomic Group Designations Author(S): Tyge Christensen Reviewed Work(S): Source: Taxon, Vol Plants, Animals, Algae and Fungi, Four Non-Taxonomic Group Designations Author(s): Tyge Christensen Reviewed work(s): Source: Taxon, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Feb., 1990), pp. 93-94 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1223193 . Accessed: 27/07/2012 07:44 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 39(1): 93-128. FEBRUARY1990 NOMENCLATURE PLANTS, ANIMALS, ALGAE AND FUNGI, FOUR NON-TAXONOMIC GROUP DESIGNATIONS Tyge Christensen' When the Linnaeankingdoms Plantae and Animalia were regardedas taxonomic groups it made good sense to discuss whetherthe euglenoidsbelonged in one group or the other. Today the authors who operatewith kingdomsas taxonomicentities do not acceptthe kingdomsof Linnaeus.In science the Linnaeanconcepts mainly survive as the somewhat overlappingworking fields of diverse insti- tutions and of two nomenclaturalcodes, while the plant and the animal kingdomsare commonplace expressionsoutside scientificcircles. Use of the designations"algae" and "fungi"is equallyindependent of taxonomy.Both are defined biologicallyby most authors. Thus the water moulds are mainly studied by mycologistsusing my- cologicalmethods and are usuallyreferred to as oomycetes;phylogenetically, however, they are very distantfrom the majorityof fungiand belongtogether with variousgroups of algaein the Chrysophytina Rothmaler,the HeterokontaCavalier-Smith, or whateverthis taxonomicgroup is called. In the same way the desmids and the blue-greensare mainly studiedby phycologistsusing phycologicalmethods, and are commonly referredto as green and blue-greenalgae, respectively;phylogenetically, they are very far from the majorityof seaweeds, the desmids belongingwith the land plants and the blue- greensamong the bacteria.The usualtreatment is reasonablebecause both groupsbiologically resemble the seaweeds;ecologists group them togetheras algae, and physiologistsapply the same methods to them all. Attempts have been made in recent times to keep the designations"plants", "animals", "algae" and "fungi"as names of taxonomic groupsby giving them new definitionsvery differentfrom those hithertoaccepted. Margulis and Schwartz(1982) divide the living worldup into the kingdomsPlantae, Animalia, Protoctista,Fungi, and Monera. Corliss (1984) also has four kingdoms of eucaryoticor- ganisms. Cavalier-Smith(1987) has six, two of which are referredto by the names of the classical kingdomswhile the rest are regardedas being neither plants nor animals. Such tentative groupings are necessarysteps on the way to a more phylogeneticallybased classification,but it is bad policy to redefinelong establisheddesignations merely because new ideas on phylogenyare advanced. New groups should rather be referredto by new names; the classical designations,which retain their ecologicalimportance irrespective of taxonomic shufflings,should be left unaffected. The codes of nomenclatureallow for transferof organismsfrom one code to the other accordingto the preferenceof individual authors. Thereforethe giving up of "plants","animals", "algae", and "fungi"as taxonomic groupsdoes not affectnomenclature very much. Euglena is nomenclaturallya plant when treatedunder the botanicalcode and an animal when treatedunder the zoological code. Nostoc belongs taxonomicallyamong the bacteriaif one acceptsthe recent redefinitionof this group, a definitionwhich encompassesthe blue-greens.Biologically it is an alga, and nomenclaturallyit is the same when treatedunder the botanicalcode. In such cases it is up to the individual scientist to choose the code that fits best with the kind of researchhe is undertaking. Wherethe choice is between the botanical and the zoological code for what Patterson(1986) has termedambiregnal organisms, the existence of alternativeterminations for groupnames, such as the botanicalfamily ending -aceae versus the zoologicalfamily ending -idae, causes some inconvenience but hardly gives rise to serious misunderstandings.More troublesomecomplications are caused by the differencesbetween the three codes as to typificationand requirementsfor valid publication. The greatestdisadvantage of the overlap between the codes is that some organismshave different correctnames under different codes: The genericname PeranemaDujardin 1841 is the valid zoological ' Instituteof ThallophyticBotany, University of Copenhagen,0ster Farimagsgade2 D, DK-1353 CopenhagenK, Denmark. 93 94 TAXON VOLUME 39 name for a colourless euglenoid. In botany Peranema Don 1825 is the legitimate name of a fern, and the correct name of the euglenoid is probably Pseudoperanema Christen 1962. In 1844 0rsted intro- duced the name Leucothrix for a filamentous organism which he considered a colourless blue-green alga, and this is the correct name of the organism under the bacteriological code (Skerman et al., 1980). According to the botanical code the nomenclatural starting point for this group of algae is 1892, and under this code the correct generic name of the organism is probably Pontothrix given to it in 1932 by Nadson and Krassilnikov, who considered it a bacterium. The problems of double naming were partly covered by the proposals by Taylor et al. (1986) to modify the botanical and the zoological codes in several places. These proposals were intended to apply to a variety of cases, including a hypothetical case for which no examples were known. They were considered by many as much ado about relatively little, and also involved the introduction into the code of an additional non-taxonomic group designation "phytoflagellates", which could not be indisputably defined. For these and other reasons they were all rejected. One of them might have got more support if it had stood alone. One similar to it may later be accepted in another context, or the limited number of such problems may be solved individually by conservation. In any case, discussion of the overlap between the three codes is not going to stop, and controversy over the later starting point in the blue-greens, which has never been fully accepted, is also likely to continue. In further dealing with these matters it would be advisable to maintain the traditional meaning of the four group designations rather than argue that Fucus is no plant, Paramecium no animal, Nostoc no alga, and Saprolegnia no fungus. Literature Cited Cavalier-Smith, T. 1987. Eukaryote cell evolution. In: W. Greuter, B. Zimmer and H.-D. Behnke (eds.), Abstracts of the general lectures, symposium papers and posters presented at the XIV International Botanical Congress Berlin, July 24 to August 1, 1987, p. 6. Berlin. Corliss, J. 0. 1984. The kingdom Protista and its 45 phyla. BioSystems 17: 87-126. Margulis, L. and K. V. Schwartz. 1982. Five kingdoms. San Francisco. Patterson, D. J. 1986. Some problems of ambiregnal taxonomy and a possible solution. Symp. Biol. Hung. 33: 87-91. Skerman, V. B. D., V. McGowan and P. H. A. Sneath. 1980. Approved lists of bacterial names. Int. J. Syst. Bact. 30: 225-420. Taylor, F. J. R., W. A. S. Sarjeant, R. A. Fensome and G. L. Williams. 1986. Proposals to standardize the nomenclature in flagellate groups currently treated by both the Botanical and Zoological Codes of Nomenclature. Taxon 35: 890-896. TYPIFICATION OF SARGASSUM FILIPENDULA C. AGARDH (PHAEOPHYCEAE, FUCALES, SARGASSACEAE) AND THE NAMES OF TWO VARIETIES M. Dennis Hanisak' and John A. Kilar12 Summary Lectotype specimens are designated for the brown alga, Sargassum filipendula C. Agardh var. filipendula, and two of its varieties, S. filipendula var. laxum J. Agardh and S. filipendula var. con- tractum J. Agardh. Introduction Sargassum C. Agardh (1820: 1) is one of the largest, most morphologically complex genera in the Phaeophyta and occurs in temperate to tropical areas throughout the world (Nizamuddin, 1970). The Marine Botany Department, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, 5600 Old Dixie Highway, Fort Pierce, FL 34946, U.S.A. 2 Mote Marine Laboratory, 1600 City Island Park, Sarasota, FL 33577, U.S.A. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alyssum) and the Correct Name of the Goldentuft Alyssum
    ARNOLDIA VE 1 A continuation of the BULLETIN OF POPULAR INFORMATION of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University VOLUME 26 JUNE 17, 1966 NUMBERS 6-7 ORNAMENTAL MADWORTS (ALYSSUM) AND THE CORRECT NAME OF THE GOLDENTUFT ALYSSUM of the standard horticultural reference works list the "Madworts" as MANYa group of annuals, biennials, perennials or subshrubs in the family Cru- ciferae, which with the exception of a few species, including the goldentuft mad- wort, are not widely cultivated. The purposes of this article are twofold. First, to inform interested gardeners, horticulturists and plantsmen that this exception, with a number of cultivars, does not belong to the genus Alyssum, but because of certain critical and technical characters, should be placed in the genus Aurinia of the same family. The second goal is to emphasize that many species of the "true" .~lyssum are notable ornamentals and merit greater popularity and cul- tivation. The genus Alyssum (now containing approximately one hundred and ninety species) was described by Linnaeus in 1753 and based on A. montanum, a wide- spread European species which is cultivated to a limited extent only. However, as medicinal and ornamental garden plants the genus was known in cultivation as early as 1650. The name Alyssum is of Greek derivation : a meaning not, and lyssa alluding to madness, rage or hydrophobia. Accordingly, the names Mad- wort and Alyssum both refer to the plant’s reputation as an officinal herb. An infu- sion concocted from the leaves and flowers was reputed to have been administered as a specific antidote against madness or the bite of a rabid dog.
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical Nomenclature: Concept, History of Botanical Nomenclature
    Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee Module 15: Botanical Nomenclature: Concept, history of botanical nomenclature (local and scientific) and its advantages, formation of code. Content writer: Dr.AvishekBhattacharjee, Central National Herbarium, Botanical Survey of India, P.O. – B. Garden, Howrah – 711 103. Module – 15; Content writer: AvishekBhattacharjee Botanical Nomenclature:Concept – A name is a handle by which a mental image is passed. Names are just labels we use to ensure we are understood when we communicate. Nomenclature is a mechanism for unambiguous communication about the elements of taxonomy. Botanical Nomenclature, i.e. naming of plants is that part of plant systematics dealing with application of scientific names to plants according to some set rules. It is related to, but distinct from taxonomy. A botanical name is a unique identifier to which information of a taxon can be attached, thus enabling the movement of data across languages, scientific disciplines, and electronic retrieval systems. A plant’s name permits ready summarization of information content of the taxon in a nested framework. A systemofnamingplantsforscientificcommunicationmustbe international inscope,andmustprovideconsistencyintheapplicationof names.Itmustalsobeacceptedbymost,ifnotall,membersofthe scientific community. These criteria led, almost inevitably, to International Botanical Congresses (IBCs) being the venue at which agreement on a system of scientific nomenclature for plants was sought. The IBCs led to publication of different ‘Codes’ which embodied the rules and regulations of botanical nomenclature and the decisions taken during these Congresses. Advantages ofBotanical Nomenclature: Though a common name may be much easier to remember, there are several good reasons to use botanical names for plant identification. Common names are not unique to a specific plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Plant Collection and Identification
    GUIDE TO PLANT COLLECTION AND IDENTIFICATION by Jane M. Bowles PhD Originally prepared for a workshop in Plant Identification for the Ministry of Natural Resources in 1982. Edited and revised for the UWO Herbarium Workshop in Plant Collection and Identification, 2004 © Jane M. Bowles, 2004 -0- CHAPTER 1 THE NAMES OF PLANTS The history of plant nomenclature: Humans have always had a need to classify objects in the world about them. It is the only means they have of acquiring and passing on knowledge. The need to recognize and describe plants has always been especially important because of their use for food and medicinal purposes. The commonest, showiest or most useful plants were given common names, but usually these names varied from country to country and often from district to district. Scholars and herbalists knew the plants by a long, descriptive, Latin sentence. For example Cladonia rangiferina, the common "Reindeer Moss", was described as Muscus coralloides perforatum (The perforated, coral-like moss). Not only was this system unwieldy, but it too varied from user to user and with the use of the plant. In the late 16th century, Casper Bauhin devised a system of using just two names for each plant, but it was not universally adopted until the Swedish naturalist, Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) set about methodically classifying and naming the whole of the natural world. The names of plants: In 1753, Linnaeus published his "Species Plantarum". The modern names of nearly all plants date from this work or obey the conventions laid down in it. The scientific name for an organism consists of two words: i) the genus or generic name, ii) the specific epithet.
    [Show full text]
  • An Illustrated Key to the Ferns of Oregon
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Helen Patricia O'Donahue Pembrook for the Master of Arts (Name) (Degree) Systematic Botany (Major) Date thesis is presented March 8, 1963 Title AN ILLUSTRATED KEY TO THE FERNS OF OREGON Abstract approved IIIII (Major professor) The purpose of the work is to enable students of botany to identify accurately Oregon ferns, both as living plants and as dried speci- mens. Therefore, it provides vegetative keys to the families, genera and species of the ferns (Class FILICINAE) found in Oregon. Correct names have been determined using the latest available information and in accordance with 1961 edition of the International Code of Botan- ical Nomenclature. The synonomy, a description, and original draw- ings of each species and subspecific taxon are included. An illustrated glossary and a technical glossary have been prepared to explain and clarify the descriptive terms used. There is also a bibliography of the literature used in the preparation of the paper. The class FILICINAE is represented in Oregon by 4 families, 20 genera, 45 or 46 species, 4 of which are represented by more than one subspecies or variety. One species, Botrychium pumicola Coville, is endemic. The taxa are distributed as follows: OPHIO- GLOSSACEAE, 2 genera: Botrychium, 7 species, 1 represented by 2 subspecies, 1 by 2 varieties; Ophioglossum, 1 species. POLYPODI- ACEAE, 15 genera: Woodsia., 2 species; Cystopteris, 1 species; Dryopteris, 6 species; Polystichum, 5 species, 1 represented by 2 distinct varieties; Athyrium, 2 species; Asplenium, 2 species; Stru- thiopteris, 1 species; Woodwardia, 1 species; Pitrogramma, 1 spe- cies; Pellaea, 4 species; Cheilanthes, 3 or 4 species; Cryptogramma, 1 species; Adiantum, 2 species; Pteridium, 1 species; Polypodium, 2 species, 1 represented by 2 varieties.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Do Plant Names Change?
    Plant names in chaos, as everyone could then Making decisions choose names as they wish. If taxonomic changes are simply Taxonomic decisions are more recommendations, who chooses contentious. The role of taxonomy is what to follow? For the RHS, the to classify organisms into different task falls to the Nomenclature and groups. These groups (correctly ‘taxa’ Taxonomy Advisory Group (NATAG), or singular ‘taxon’) include family, comprised of plantspeople interested genus, species, subspecies, variety in horticultural plants, all under­ and cultivar. Botanists constantly stand ing how the Codes work in update their views on how to classify both botanical and horticultural plants. In the past this was mostly worlds, as well as a broad familiarity Despite the inconvenience, based upon visible characteristics, with garden plants. By bringing but genetic work has added new people together there is usually there are important scientific evidence. As a result botanists have someone familiar with the plants reasons behind plant name been reclassifying plants to reflect discussed. The advisory group also changes and some of these will recently revealed evolutionary has a network of outside experts relationships: that is, those plants on which it can call, and welcomes Why do plant eventually benefit gardeners more closely related to each other contributions from anyone who has Author: Christopher Whitehouse, G than originally thought are now an opinion on what name should be AP Keeper of the RHS Herbarium at Wisley JO / placed in the same group. This should used. Decisions made by the advisory and secretary to the RHS Nomenclature H N GLOVE N lead to future stability, but at present group are reflected in the latest and Taxonomy Advisory Group names change? we are in a period of change.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of the Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants
    The Future of the Taxonomy of Cultivated Plants K. van Ettekoven Naktuinbouw P.O. Box 40 Sotaweg 22 2370 AA Roelofarendsveen The Netherlands Keywords: cultivars, cultonomy, national listing, nomenclature, statutory registration, UPOV Abstract In agriculture and horticulture, at least 80% of taxonomic problems are related to the cultivar. In particular, questions such as (a) “Am I really dealing with a new cultivar?” (b) “To which species does a cultivar belong?” (c) “How can I recognize a cultivar phenotypically, especially if it is a hybrid?” and (d) “Does the cultivar-group system always work?” continually impact on the work of those dealing with the classification and naming of cultivated plant material. Further questions dealing with the very nature of cultivars and whether wild forms or other categories named under the provisions of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) should be eligible for cultivar status form an ongoing debate, as do a range of other issues such as the nomenclatural treatment of mixtures as cultivars in the agricultural industry. Statutory registration systems are based on DUS (Distinction, Uniformity, and Stability). The denominations provided through these systems have historically been made with minimal reference to the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). Stability in naming is the first priority for those trading in, and legislating for, cultivars in the market place. Clearly there is a need to provide an international forum for discussion and resolution of these and other related problems so that the interests of plant breeders, collection mangers, plant traders, taxonomists, and legislators may be discussed and resolved in a decisive way through a platform that carries international recognition.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Botanical Nomenclature
    Taxonomy Prof.(Dr.) Punam Jeswal Head M.Sc semester II Botany Department Rules of Botanical Nomenclature Definition - Nomenclature is the art of naming of objects, which deals with the determination of a correct name to a known plant or to a known taxon. The names indeed correspond to the sentence, as both constitute meaningful collection of words. A name indicates a noun that helps in the quick identification, easy communication and economy of memory about the object to which it is concerned. Types of Names - The names according to their range of audience, language, territorial coverage and governance are of two types :- 1. Common or vernacular names. 2. International or scientific names. Common or Vernacular Names - These names are of the locals, by the locals, for the locals, in the local dialect. That is when a local plant is named by native people for the identification and communication to the other people of the same territory in their won local dialect, it is referred to as local or common or vernacular name. The fundamental demerits of this name are that they have limited audience, small territorial coverage and not governed under any set of principles or rules and even the same plant may have more than one name in the same locality. Another demerit of concern regarding these names is presence of synonyms in the languages therefore; the same plant may have a variety of names at different places in different languages. As for instance, mango(Mangifera indica) posses more than fifty names in Sanskrit only and lotus is known by more than two dozen names in Sanskrit and Hindi languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Nomenclature and Taxonomy an Horticultural and Agronomic Perspective
    3913 P-01 7/22/02 4:25 PM Page 1 1 Plant Nomenclature and Taxonomy An Horticultural and Agronomic Perspective David M. Spooner* Ronald G. van den Berg U.S. Department of Agriculture Biosystematics Group Agricultural Research Service Department of Plant Sciences Vegetable Crops Research Unit Wageningen University Department of Horticulture PO Box 8010 University of Wisconsin 6700 ED Wageningen 1575 Linden Drive The Netherlands Madison Wisconsin 53706-1590 Willem A. Brandenburg Plant Research International Wilbert L. A. Hetterscheid PO Box 16 VKC/NDS 6700 AA, Wageningen Linnaeuslaan 2a The Netherlands 1431 JV Aalsmeer The Netherlands I. INTRODUCTION A. Taxonomy and Systematics B. Wild and Cultivated Plants II. SPECIES CONCEPTS IN WILD PLANTS A. Morphological Species Concepts B. Interbreeding Species Concepts C. Ecological Species Concepts D. Cladistic Species Concepts E. Eclectic Species Concepts F. Nominalistic Species Concepts *The authors thank Paul Berry, Philip Cantino, Vicki Funk, Charles Heiser, Jules Janick, Thomas Lammers, and Jeffrey Strachan for review of parts or all of our paper. Horticultural Reviews, Volume 28, Edited by Jules Janick ISBN 0-471-21542-2 © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1 3913 P-01 7/22/02 4:25 PM Page 2 2 D. SPOONER, W. HETTERSCHEID, R. VAN DEN BERG, AND W. BRANDENBURG III. CLASSIFICATION PHILOSOPHIES IN WILD AND CULTIVATED PLANTS A. Wild Plants B. Cultivated Plants IV. BRIEF HISTORY OF NOMENCLATURE AND CODES V. FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES IN THE CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE OF CULTIVATED AND WILD PLANTS A. Ambiguity of the Term Variety B. Culton Versus Taxon C. Open Versus Closed Classifications VI. A COMPARISON OF THE ICBN AND ICNCP A.
    [Show full text]
  • International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
    INTERNATIONAL CODE OF NOMENCLATURE FOR CULTIVATED PLANTS (ICNCP or Cultivated Plant Code) incorporating the Rules and Recommendations for naming plants in cultivation Ninth Edition Adopted by the International Union of Biological Sciences International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants Prepared and edited by C.D. Brickell (Commission Chairman), C. Alexander, J.J. Cubey, J.C. David, M.H.A. Hoffman, A.C. Leslie, V. Malécot, Xiaobai Jin, members of the Editorial Committee June, 2016 ISSN 1813-9205 ISBN 978-94-6261-116-0, Scripta Horticulturae Number 18 Published by ISHS, June 2016 Executive Director of ISHS: Ir. J. Van Assche ISHS Secretariat, PO Box 500, 3001 Leuven 1, Belgium Printed by Drukkerij Station Drukwerk, PO Box 3099, 2220 CB Katwijk aan Zee, The Netherlands © 2016 by the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS). All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced and/or published in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilm and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers. Photograph on the front cover: Lettuce trial 2003. Credit: RHS / Jacquie Gray. Contents CONTENTS Foreword v Membership of the IUBS International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated vii Plants Preface ix Comparison between the 2009 Code and this edition xii New provisions xv Important dates in this Code xvi Previous editions of this Code xvii PREAMBLE 1 DIVISION I: PRINCIPLES 3 DIVISION II: RULES AND
    [Show full text]
  • No. 155 (18 August 2020) ISSN 2009-8987 A
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`4*!3,3(C0+0A!+,/(42+,-!,&#',/(354*3(!5'*#+,&(&-CA!+0!930'2!&,!56'!/4**',5!W?@!.B4*(3,2!Y!3($!
    [Show full text]
  • The NATIONAL HORTICULTURAL MAGAZINE
    The NATIONAL HORTICULTURAL MAGAZINE J1\ JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY OCTOBER 1953 THE AMERICAN HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY, INC. 1600 Bladensburg Road, Northeast Washington 2, D. C. OFFICERS President: Dr. John L. Creech, Glenn Dale, Maryland First Vice-President: Mr. Arnold M. Davis, Cleveland, Ohio Second Vice-President: Mrs. Robert Woods Bliss, Washington, D. C. Secretary: Dr. Francis de Vos, Washington, D. C. Treasurer: Miss Olive E. Weatherell, Olean, New York Editor: Mr. B. Y. Morrison, Pass Christian, Mississippi Managing Editor: Mr. James R. Harlow, Takoma Park, Maryland DIRECTORS Terms Expiring 1954 Terms Expiring 1955 Mr. Stuart Armstrong, Silver Spring, Mary- Mrs. Mortimer J. Fox, Mount Kisco, New land York Dr. Fred O. Coe, Bethesda, Maryland Mr. Frederic P. Lee, Bethesda, Maryland Mrs. Walter Douglas, Chauncey, New York Mrs. J. Norman Henry, Gladwyne, Penn- Dr. Brian O. Mulligan, Seattle, Washington sylvania Dr. Freeman A. Weiss, Washington, D. C. Mrs. Arthur Hoyt Scott, Media, Pennsyl­ Dr. Donald Wyman, Jamaica Plain, Massa- vania chusetts HONORARY VICE-PRESIDENTS Mrs. Edna Korts, President Mrs. Otto Zach, President American Begonia Society, Inc. American Primrose Society 3628 Revere A venue 1172 Southeast 55th Avenue Los Angeles 39, California Portland 15, Oreg. Mr. Calder W. Seibels, President Mr. Harold Epstein, President American Camellia Society American Rock Garden Society 800 Sweetbrier Road 5 Forest Court Columbia, South Carolina Larchmont, New York Mr. C. E. Little, President Dr. C. Eugene Pfister, President American Delphinium Society American Rose Society Box 660, Richmond Hills Route 2, Box 60 Ontario, Canada Mundelein, Illinois Dr. Ralph C. Benedict, President Mr. W. Taylor Marshall, President Emeritus American Fern Society, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Delesseriaceae, Rhodophyta)
    TAXON 33(1): 85-106. FEBRUARY 1984 NOMENCLATURE SALPINGOECA AMPULLOIDES, NOM. NOV. (CHRYSOPHYCEAE) Denise de C. Bicudo and Carlos E. de M. Bicudo' The present note is a correction to the article "Three new species of Salpingoeca (Chrysophyceae) from Southern Brazil," by Denise de C. Bicudo and Carlos E. de M. Bicudo, published in The Japanese Journal of Phycology, vol. 31, part I, 1983. Since it has come to our knowledge that the name Salpingoeca ampullacea published by us is a later homonym of Salpingoeca ampullacea Stein ("Der Organismus der Flagellaten nach eigenen Forschungen in systematischer Reihenfolge bearbeitet," vol. 3, part I, p. 154, pl. II, figs. 6-7. 1878), it is illegitimate and must be rejected (International Code ofBotanical Nomenclature, Art. 64.1). Thus, we hereby propose the name Salpingoeca ampulloides D. Bic. & C. Bic., nom. nov. to replace Salpingoeca ampullacea D. Bic. & C. Bic. The diagnosis remains unchanged. THE CORRECT NAME FOR THE TYPE OF HYPOGLOSSUM KUTZING (DELESSERIACEAE, RHODOPHYTA) Michael J. Wynne2 The recent use ofthe binomial Hypoglossum hypoglossoides (Harv.) Womersley et Shepley (1982) caused me to notice an earlier use ofthis combination by Collins and Hervey (1917). In checking the current status ofthe earlier name it became apparent that the correct name for the type ofHypoglossum (Delesseriaceae, Ceramiales) is H. hypoglossoides (Stackh.) Coli. et Herv., including the currently accepted H. woodwardii Klitz. Hypoglossum was established by Kiitzing (1843: 444, pI. 65, I) and was based on Fucus hypoglossum Woodward (1794). Kiitzing substituted the epithet woodwardii to avoid a tautonym, and this com­ bination has been used over the ensuing years as the name of the type (Kylin, 1923, 1924, 1956; Womersley and Shepley, 1982).
    [Show full text]