>I got the new CPN today. Here's a synopsis:
>
>Cover photo: _Nepenthes eymai_. It is said _N. infundibuliformis_ is
> the preferred name. I thought _N. eymai_ was correct.
At least, the paper validating _N.eymai_ was *printed* a few days earlier
(this doesn't need to be the same as *published*, which alone is decisive
for priority!) than the corresponding one for _N.infundibuliformis_. There
are no (at least, I do not have any) reliable data on effective publication
so far.
The problem is (in this case) reduced to about NIL (0) if we consider these
names to be synonyms of _N.maxima_, anyway. The two "species" do commonly
grow together, there are plenty of individuals "in between", pitcher
morphology is not even constant within one and the same individual,
_N.eymai_-like plants do occur in eastern Borneo, etc., etc., etc...
>Literature Review:
>Published article by Schnell validates the name _S. purpurea (L) ssp. venosa
>(Raf) (Wherry) var. burkii (Schnell)_. [Need a yardstick to fit that name
>on a label] -- Rhodora 95:6-10.
(...)
>James Reveal's article in Phytologia 74:180-184 attempts to rename the
>two subspecies of _S. purpurea_ as 'var. terrae-novae' and 'var. purpurea'.
Taken these two papers together, Don Schnell has validated:
_S.purpurea_ssp.purpurea_var.burkii_ (and NOT _S.p._ssp.venosa_var.burkii_).
Reveal does not propose a new name for the northern expression of
_S.purpurea_ if this is considered a *subspecies*, however.
TMHO, it would be best to adopt the combinations of E.T.Wherry, who
proposed the epitheta _venosa_ (RAF.) WHERRY (southern expression) vs.
_gibbosa_ (RAF.) WHERRY (northern expression). As originally the northern
expression was the type of Linnaeus (but in the meanwhile, the type
specimen itself is lost!), the epithet _gibbosa_ was considered superfluous
and was automatically substituted by the autonym (i.e. _purpurea_).
But of course, according to the ICBN names have to be typified by a
specimen, and (very unluckily, indeed!) the *southern* expression was
chosen as the (neo-) type for _S.purpurea_ (by Britton & Brown, if I recall
Reveal's paper correctly). But if this is so, _gibbosa_ is no longer a
superfluous name, and _venosa_ becomes superfluous in turn.
I'm waiting for a decision by Don Schnell (who is more of an expert than I
am) regarding this situation, however. He certainly did not know about
Reveal's paper at the time he described his new variety.
Kind regards
Jan