Propositions Pour Le Congrès De Paris Source: Taxon, Vol. 2, No. 6 (Sep., 1953), Pp

Home , Microcachrys, Microstrobos

Propositions pour le Congrès de Paris Source: Taxon, Vol. 2, No. 6 (Sep., 1953), pp. 138-141 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1216453 . Accessed: 18/09/2011 13:48

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 "When on transference to another genus, the the genus. In both cases such a selection is specific epithet has been applied erroneously not advisable and I think that it is better in its new position to a different plant, the for the sake of clarity to select another lecto- new combination must be retained for the type of that genus, if another species is plant on which the epithet was originally equally qualified to be its type. based, and must be attributed to the author The guide for the determination of types who first published it." Consequently if we (Appendix I of the Code of Nomenclature) select as the lectotype of a genus a species does not take into account these two cases which was misinterpreted and erroneously of doubtful and misinterpreted species and named by the author of that genus we find therefore I think it advisable to add to it the ourselves in the strange situation of selecting following two new rules: as lectotype of a genus a species which was Appendix I not studied by the author of the genus itself; which is not compatible with the rule 4.b of Determination of types the I. If, on the we select Appendix contrary, 8. A species of uncertain identity cannot as the lectotype of that genus the species be selected as the of a or which described the author lectotype genus was actually by any taxon. of the the does not infrageneric genus lectotype species 9. A species which was inter- to that which was selected as the incorrectly correspond preted and named the author of the and erroneously by type genus by previous authors, of a genus cannot be selected as lectotype on the other hand this has lectotype species of a different author from the one who described that genus. 7th June, 1953.

Propositions pour le Congres de Paris Proposition n. 28 noms grammaticalement incorrects, Hydro- charidaceae Melastomaceae tit. Proposition pour les modifications suivan- et (loc. 98), tes aux articles 28 et 29: et leurs propositions conduiraient a en former bien d'autres, tels Article 28 que Saccharomycaceae (pour Saccharomycetaceae),Fissidaceae (pour Transformer ainsi le premier paragraphe: Fissidentaceae), Phytelephadaceae(pour Phyt- Un nom de famille est un adjectif au pluriel, elephantaceae) ou Vitidaceae (pourVitaceae). utilis, comme substantif, forme par ad- En fait, le radical d'un nom latin de la jonction du suffixe -aceae au radical du nom 3e d'clinaison peut etre tronqu6 ou altere du genre-type ou d'un synonyme au g6nitif. au nominatif, alors qu'il ne l'est jamais au rad. Article 29 genitif (exemple: vis, viris, vir-; flumen, fluminis, rad. flumin-; dux, ducis, rad. duc-). Transformer ainsi le premier paragraphe: C'est sur le radical du g6nitif que doivent Un nom de sous-famille est un adjectif plu- Stre formes les noms de familles, comme du riel, utilise comme substantif, forme par ad- reste les noms de sous-familles, tribus et jonction du suffixe -oideae au radical du nom sous-tribus. Aucune exception n'est alors a du genre-type ou d'un synonyme au g6nitif; prevoir. Rappelons que le g6nitif latin des les noms de tribus.... etc. (comme pr&c0- noms grecs latinises est calque sur le g9nitif demment). grec, la terminaison -os etant simplement Commentairds: La redaction ac- remplacee par la terminaison -is. tuelle de ces articles est d'une imprecision tires de no. 6 flagrante. Une proposition a dejA 6te publibe Exemples la proposition pour y remedier (Proposition no. 6, par An- Papaver, Papaveris, rad. Papaver-: Papavera- tonio Ponce de Le6n y Aymb et Maria Te- ceae. resa Taxon 2 (4): 96-98. 1953). Mais Cycas, Cycadis, rad. Cycad-: Cycadaceae. le remade.Alvarez; est pire que le mal, car les auteurs Iris, Iridis, rad. Irid-: Iridaceae. supposent que le suffixe -aceae doit tre Juglans, Juglandis, rad. Jugland-: Juglanda- accol' au radical du nom du genre-type au aceae. nominatif. D'oui une complication extreme: Salix, Salicis, rad. Salic-: Salicaceae. 5 cas d'exceptions son't pr6vus (noms en -r, Borago, Boraginis, rad. Boragin-: rnomsen -as, -is ou -ans, noms en -x, noms Boraginaceae. en -ago, noms &radical en -i), malgre les- Nyctago (et non Nyctaginia), Nyctaginis, rad. quels les auteurs sont conduits a former des Nyctagin-: Nyctaginaceae. 188 Exemples contredisant la proposition no. 6 toneae, Glechoneae, Pogostemoneae. Autre a. Noms grecs latinises en -as. La plupart type: Leucodon, Leucodontis (dbovg, dbovro;), rad. Leucodont-: ont un genitif en -adis (-aboc), comme Dryas, Leucodontaceae; de meme Si- Dryadis (6ova;, bovabo;). Cependant: Phyte- Lepryrodontaceae, Rhegmatodontaceae, Tremato- lephas, Phytelephantis , rad. phonodontaceae, Stereodonteae, (.wpaE lepavzoO), donteae, Phytelephant-: Phytelephantaceae. Noms for- Diplusodontinae. mns arbitrairementpar adjonction d'un suf- j. Noms grecs latinis6s en -ma (neutres). fixe -as qui n'existe pas en grec, pouvant Melastoma, Melastomnatis o olyaro), ktre consid6r6s comme ind6clinables: Helo- rad. Melastomat-: Melastomataceae(c•rola, (et non nias, rad. Heloni-: Helonieae; de meme Melastomaceae); de meme Alisnmataceae(et Spondieae. non Alismaceae), Crocossosomataceae, Geis- b. Noms grecs latinises en -es. Saccharo- solomataceae, Pentaphragmataceae,Dictyolo- matoideae, non myces, Saccharomycetis (LvxiS, uvxjtro;),rad. Aglaonemateae (et Aglaone- Saccharomycet-: Saccharomycetaceae. meae), Staurostigmateae, Polyosmateae, Pi- crasmateae,Arisaematinae, c. en -is. La Aspidospermatinae, Noms grecs latinis's plupart Metastelmatinae (et non Metastelmatineae: ont un g6nitif en -idis (-t5o;), comme Iris, Code Int. Nom. Bot., trad. fr. 170. 1952), Iridis (I';, i-o6o;s). Quelques-uns l'ont ce- Glossonematinae. pendant en -itis: Hydrocharis, Hydrocharitis k. Noms en rad. Hydrocharit-: Hydro- grecs latinis6s -ops, form6s ar- (XaoLt, xaOtro;), bitrairement contraction du charitaceae (et non Hydrocharidaceae); de par grec dYtS, meme Anachariteae, Eucharitinae (et non Iyecrt, et pouvant etre declines sur le mo- Eucharidinae). dble du latin ops, opis: Balanops, Balanopis, rad. (et non Balan- d. Noms grecs latinises en -os. La plupart Balanop-: Balanopaceae opsaceae, ni Balanopsidaceae); de meme repondent i la proposition no. 6; exemple: Dryobalanopeae (et non Cissampelos, Cissampeli ( Dryobalanopseae), rad. &•-•).o•, d•u-tnov), Mimusopeae, Echinopinae (et non Echinop- Cissampel-: Cissampelinae. Cependant: sinae). Anthoceros, Anthocerotis (xega,, xeatos ), rad. Anthocerot-: Anthocerotaceae. 1. Noms purement latins en -is. Fontinalis, rad. Fontinal-: e. Noms latinises en -us. Fontinalis, Fontinalaceae; de grecs Trichopus. meme Cannabaceae (et non Cannabinaceae), nobo,), rad. Trichopodis (,rov;, Trichopod-: Vitaceae, Mirabileae, Sinapeae, Turritinae, Trichopodaceae; de meme Trachypodeae. Mercurialinae. Rhus, Rhois ( rad. Cependant: ove, oo;), m. Noms latins en -ens. Rho-: Rhoiae (et non Rhoideae). purement Fissi- dens, Fissidentis, rad. Fissident-: Fissidenia- f.* Noms grecs latinis6s en -ys. Ophrys, ceae; de meme rad. Spiridentaceae. Ophryos (dCev;,d~qevo;), Ophry-: Ophry- n. latins en -ex. eae (et non de meme Noms purement Rumex, Ophrydeae); Hydro- Rumicis, rad. Rumic-: Rumicoideae;de meme stachyaceae, Stachyoideae. Cependant: Aspi- Caricoideae, Viticoideae, Atripliceae. dopterys, Aspidopterygis (xreqvy, xreevvyo), Noms latins en -o. rad. Aspidopteryg-: Aspidopterygeae. Nom o. purement Restio, rad. Restion-: ,,barbare"en -ys assimil6 aux ngms en Restionis, Restionaceae;. de grecs meme Senecioneae. Noms assimi- -is: Mays, Maydis, rad. Mayd-: Maydeae. ,,barbares" ls: Nelumbonoideae, Durioneae. g. Noms grecs latinises en -en. Cyclamen, Propos6 par: M. Pichon (Paris). Cyclaminis (xvxlatvov, xvxlaytvov), rad. Cy- clamin-: Cyclamineae. Proposition n. 29 h. Noms grecs latinises en -in. Triglochin, Proposition pour la modification suivante Triglochinis, rad. Triglochin-: Triglochineae. de l'article 34: i. Noms grecs latinises en -on. Beaucoup Article 34 repondent a la proposition no. 6; exemple: Transformerainsi la fin du second alinea: Myzodendron, Myzodendri (&6vEoov,6evEb ov) ,,.... et dont le type nominal est alors, sauf rad. Myzodendr-: Myzodendraceae. Cepen- inconvenient ou celui du dant: grave impossibilitY, Andropogon, Andropogonis (onywcov, taxon superieur (cf. Art. 35)". rad. roywcovo;), Andropogon-: Andropogoneae; Commentaires: Ii y a simplement de m6me Potamogetonaceae, Aponogetona- ad'dition des mots ,,sauf inconvenient grave ceae, Gyrostemonaceae, Podostemnonaceae, ou impossibilitY".La rbgle actuelle n'a pas Pterostemonoideae, Crotonoideae, Stylochi- prtvu les cas tels que les suivants:

139 10 Supposons une espece formbe de deux 2) Adanson's description does not give either varietes, I'une a feuilles larges, I'autre A the idea of the genus or record of any feuilles 6troites. Par definition, les vari6tes ne genotype. Moreover, it has been proposed sont pas aussi nettement tranch6es que les that Adanson's work "be rejected to pre- especes. A c6t6 des nombreux &chantillonsa vent the invalidation of well-established feuilles larges et des nombreux 'chantillons names" (Cfr. Willmott, A. J. Kew Bull. a feuilles 6troites peuvent exister quelques 1935. 91-92). termes de Si le de est passage. type l'espece 3) The description of Miiller Arg. is complete l'un de ces il aurait bchantillons ambigus, y and it fulfils the requirements of the inconvenient A le comme grave d6signer type Code. Twenty-seven species are described d'une des varietes. under it. 20 de deux varietes Supposons une 4) Before 1866 only 3 species had been ne esplce la couleur du qui se distinguent que par described (by Grisebach, 1861 and 1864) fruit. Si l'6chantillon type de 1'espece est en under Bernardia. fleurs, il a. de le y impossibilite designer 5) Since 1866, 34 species have been added comme type d'une des vari6t&s(sinon A pile to this ou face, bien genus. proc6d6 peu scientifique). On the no has been Dans des cas semblables, nous proposons 6) contrary, species les deux vari6t6s aient chacune un described under the generic synonyms. que type The name has been since 1866 diff6rent du type de 1'esptce et une 6pith6te adopted diff6rente de by Miill. Arg. in Martius, Fl. Brawil., 1'6pith6te sp6cifique. Bentham & Gen. Pax and M. Pichcn Hooker, Plant., Propos6 par: (Paris). Pax & Hoffmann in the two editions of Proposal no. 30 Pflanzenfamilien and in the Pflanzenreich, and O'Donell, Lilloa 8, 1942 et to conserve the name Bernardia Lourteig Proposal Gen. Sp. Pl. Arg. 1, 1943 and Lourteig, Miill. Arg. Arkiv f. Botanik, 1952. The American Bernardia was des- genus Proposed by: A. Lourteig, Dept. of cribed Browne in Nat. Hist. Jam. 361, in by Botany, Smithsonian Institution, Washington 1756. However, this publication is to be D.C.). eliminated from botanical literature since it does not follow the binomial nomenclature. Proposal no. 31 Adanson was the next author to describe to conserve the Kniphofia the with the same in Proposal genus genus name Fam. (Liliaceae); Plantes 2: 356. 1763. the has Although genus 1024. Kniphofia Moench, Meth. 631 (1794), been attributed to him some his by authors, non Kniphofia Scop., Introd. 327 (1777), ver- is so brief and so that is description vague sus Tritoma Ker, in Bot. Mag. t. 744 (1805). not to know which he refers to. possible plant Kniphofia Moench, Liliaceae. described a number of Miiller Arg. species More or less universally adopted by bota- in this in Linnaea 34. but he genus 1865-66, nists with the exception of some American did not is give any generical description. It authors & horticulturists. Used by A. Berger in 1866 that he the only describes genus in the latest revision of the genus in Engl. very accurately in DC. Prodromus15 (2): 915. Pflanzenreich 4, 38, 3 (2): 31. 1908). Over He 27 to it described assigns species by 100 published names excluding a number of himself and the he in- amongst synonyms hybrids & garden forms. cludes in the first Houst. place "Bernardia Type species: K. uvaria (L.) Hook. P. Browne Hist. Jam. 361. ap. plant. p. pr. p." Kniphofia Scop. Combretaceae. The Adelia Bernardia L. in- genotype is Only occurrence of the name is in the cluded in the sense of Bernardia Miill. Arg. original publication. The native name of In Bernardia there taking up Mill. Arg. Adamaram cited after the description is the are several earlier synonyms, namely: Bivonia same as that listed for Terminalia catappa in Spr., Tyria, Phaedra, Polyboea and Tragan- Burman's Index Hort. Malab. 3 (1769). The thus Passaea and K1. Alevia Baill. name Kniphofia Scop. has never been used This proposal is based upon the facts: in combination with any specific epithet. 1) The name Bernardia Houst. ex Browne Type not designated. is not to be considered valid since the Tritoma Ker, Liliaceae. publication does not follow the binomial Genus described by Ker who was ap- nomenclature. parently unaware of Kniphofia Moench. 140 Three species of Tritoma mentioned in this was considerable confusion over their iden- work. Only 27 combinations published to tity. The genus Microcachrys was created date. by J. D. Hooker in 1845 for the species Type species: T. media Ker. which W. Hooker called "Athrotaxis" tetra- Discussicn: The adoption of Tritoma would gona, based on male plants only, since what necessitate the creation of about 80 new he thought were its female cones were very combinations. The name Kniphofia Moench. different from those of Athrotaxis. The name is well known & established & is used not Pherosphaera hookeriana was given by only in the most rec6nt horticultural works, Archer in 1850 to the true female cones of viz. Bailey Man. Cnlt. Plants 205 (1949) & the species Hooker had described as Micro- R.H.S. Dict. Gard. 1106 (1951) but also in cachrys tetragona. Archer took to be Micro- all the African literature. cachrys the species subsequently described Recommendation: to conserve Kniphofia by Hooker as Diselma archeri. What Hooker Moench. (1794) over Kniphofia Scop. (1777). at first believed to be female Microcachrys is the plant we now know as Pherosphaera Proposed by: E. A. Bruce (Kew). hookeriana, but this is not the original Phero- of Archer. Archer is Proposal no. 32 sphaera Pherosphaerd thus strictly a synonym of Microcachrys, and Proposal to conserve the genus Phero- Garden and Johnson (Contr. N.S.W. Herb. sphaera sensu Hooker. 1 (6): 315-6. 1950) have proposed the name Our present usage of the names of Tas- Microstrobosfor Pherosphaerasensu Hooker; manian conifers follows Hooker's "Flora P. hookeriana becomes Microstrobos nipho- Tasmaniae" (1860). When the first collections philus, and P. fitzgeraldi, M. fitzgeraldi. of conifers were made in Tasmania there (cf. fig. 1).

Fig. 1. The situation around Phaerosphaerasensu Hooker

Species A B C

W. Hooker 1843 "Athrotaxis" - tetragona 9-

J. D. Hooker 1845 Microcachrys tetragona Microcachrys 9 - tetragona

Archer 1850 Pherosphaera - Microcachrys hookeriana tetragona

J. D. Hooker 1860 Microcachrys Pherosphaera Diselma tetragona hookeriana archeri

Garden and Microcachrys Microstrobos Diselma Johnson 1950 tetragona niphophilus archeri

The mistake was Hooker's in the first place morphological interest, and it would be in not recognising the true female plants of regrettable to change the generic name for Microcachrys, and in Flora Tasmaniae he that reason. I consider. that Pherosphaera corrected all the previous errors and applied sensu Hooker should be a nomen conser- the names in what appeared to be a most vandum. reasonable way. The plants now called Proposed by: Charles G. Elliott Pherosphaera are well known for their great (Cambridge, G.B.).

141