Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 75
Wendy L. Applequist
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13134
2024-01-27
Taxon
Abstract:Summary Rejection of the subfamily name Crassulaceae subfam. Cotyledonoideae is not recommended. Conservation of the following 10 generic names is recommended: Ampelopsis with conserved type, Aria vs. Chamaemespilus and Torminalis, Bituminaria with conserved type, Dennstaedtia with conserved type, Klukia Racib. vs. Klukia Andrz. ex Besser, Osmelia vs. Stachycrater, Pycnarrhena vs. Antitaxis, Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke vs. Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck, Triraphis with conserved type, and Vella with conserved type. The following two generic names are not recommended for conservation: Lycaste vs. Anguloa and Xylobium and Mitrella vs. Pyramidanthe. The generic name Pacoseroca is recommended for rejection. The following 33 species names are recommended for conservation: Acalypha multicaulis vs. A. pruriens and A. ruderalis, Anethum segetum with conserved type, Bromus retusus vs. B. plukenetii, Cacao sylvestris with conserved type, Citrus reticulata with conserved type, Clerodendrum umbellatum with conserved type, Cycas riedlei Fisch. ex Gaudich. vs. C. riedlei Dum. Cours., Dendrobium officinale vs. D. catenatum, Dicksonia bipinnata with conserved type, Engelhardia roxburghiana with conserved type, Iris latifolia (Mill.) Voss vs. I. latifolia Heer, Isoetes sahyadrii with conserved type, Juncus acuminatus Michx. vs. J. acuminatus Balb., Kalanchoe rosei vs. K. bouvieri, Larrea nitida vs. Mimosa balsamica, Lilium humboldtii vs. L. puberulum, Loasa rudis vs. L. rhoeadifolia, Magnolia oblonga (Wall. ex Hook. f. & Thomson) Figlar vs. M. oblonga M. Chandler, Malus domestica vs. M. sylvestris, Myagrum paniculatum with conserved type, Oxalis eckloniana C. Presl vs. O. eckloniana F. Dietr. and O. bifolia, Phyllanthus claussenii with conserved type and vs. P. udicola, Phyllanthus flagelliformis vs. P. eurisladro, Phyllanthus klotzschianus vs. P. robustus, Prunus maackii vs. P. glandulifolia, Quercus frainetto vs. Q. conferta, Quercus pacifica Nixon & C.H. Mull. vs. Q. pacifica Knowlt., Ranunculus trichophyllus vs. R. peucedanifolius, Rubus ulmifolius vs. R. creticus, R. vulgaris, and R. inermis, Sida albida with conserved type, Solanum nitidibaccatum vs. S. stylesianum and Bosleria nevadensis, Thymus microphyllus with conserved type, and Valeriana scouleri with conserved type. The following five species names are not recommended for conservation: Aspidium devexum vs. A. membranaceum, Croton fuscescens vs. C. gnaphaloides, Daphniphyllum oldhamii vs. D. pentandrum, Rhododendron myrtifolium Schott & Kotschy vs. R. ×myrtifolium G. Lodd. ex Bosse, and Teucrium microphyllum vs. T. quadratulum. A proposal to conserve Echinocactus williamsii vs. E. williamsianus is noted to be unnecessary. The following 17 species names are recommended for rejection: Bryophyllum triangulare, Callitriche foliosa, Callitriche spuria, Commelina nimmoniana, Cuscuta aggregata, Dendrobium brownii, Eriostemon trinervis, Genista multicaulis, Grewia oppositifolia, Kalanchoe aleurodes, Marcgravia jacquinii, Narcissus flavus, Pereskia glomerata, Salsola coquimbana, Taxodium huegelii, Tulipa urumiensis, and Ulostoma filamentosum. The species name Thymus marschallianus is not recommended for rejection. It is recommended that the names Parisia and Parrisia not be treated as homonyms. The Committee recommends against making a binding decision on whether Silene dicolor and Silene discolor should be treated as homonyms, since they clearly should not be. It is recommended that Aethionema kopetdaghi be treated as validly published and that Anthurium ×macrolobum be treated as validly published by W. Bull ex T. Moore & Mast. (or Anon.). The Committee recommends against making a binding decision regarding the adequacy of the descriptive statement of Rhododendron humicola.
plant sciences,evolutionary biology