Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:48:26 +0000 From: schlauer@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2453$foo@default> Subject: Re: S. purpurea Subspecies
Dear Gentlemen (and lurking Ladies),
Before the names start spreading on labels, I would like to bore
you with a few orthographical/nomenclatural details. With
cordial thanks in advance for your kind attention.
> The burkei plants (...)
... should only be called such if they are _Nepenthes_ (BTW, this
species appears to be very rare in cultivation, most cultivated
plants bearing this name are in fact _N. ventricosa_). _N. burkei_
was named after BURKE.
The _Sarracenia_ is called _S. purpurea (subsp. venosa) var. burkii_
after BURK.
The difference is subtle, but we should honour the names of our
predecessors.
(...) _S. rosei_ you have what I feel should be called (...)
... _S. rosea_. This one is not named after a person but after the
colour of its petals.
> S. purpurea subsp. rosei
... was never published properly. If you want to use it (with the
correct spelling, of course!), you must validate the combination by
publishing it along with its basionym (incl. a literature reference)
and an explicit statement that it receives a new rank (comb. nov.,
stat. nov.). I would, however, recommend to select the earliest
available epithet "burkii" rather than the later "rosea", especially
as the former was already used for an infraspecific taxon under _S.
purpurea_ (the change would only be a stat. nov. in this case).
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:11 PST