>some days ago there was a question about the name Pinguicula morrii, if this
>is a published name.
>Well, I searched in the Index Kewensis on CD-rom, and there isn't a P.
>morrii. The only resembling name is P. moranensis.
Before I published the very 1st edition of my nomenclatural synopsis
(1987), I have of course had searched the Index Kewensis (IK), too. Thus, a
name of a cp not included in my synopsis (available from the archives of
this list; Index Kewensis isn't) or in the www database is probably not
worth IK research.
Anyway, TNX for your efforts (it's always nice to see other people can't
read more in the same book than I).
>For everybody who doesn't know what the Index Kewensis is: this is a list
>with all the published plant names since 1753, when Linnaeus published his
>Species Plantarum.
For everybody who doesn't know what my synopsis is: it does include also
quite a lot (I hope most) of the early infraspecific taxa (which were
omitted in the first vols. of IK; this causes considerable problems for
people working on infraspecific classification!).
> In this list
(...i.e. IK...)
>are also included all the rejected names (e.g. later published synonyms).
At least many of them (cf. "Utricularia floribunda")...
Please do not misunderstand me. I agree that IK is an invaluable tool for
taxonomic and especially nomenclatural work. And it is of course not
restricted to cp (my synopsis is, unfortunately)! I just have tried to add
some (as I think important) further information in my synopsis, which
rather obviously does not deviate from IK except for some details
(homonyms, types, chromosome counts, bastard formulae).
I do of course invite any comment on (and especially improvement of) my
synopsis, however.
Nobody (& no index) is perfect. But as this world isn't perfect either, we
can still hope to create useful images of this world...8-)
> The only other possibility left is that P.
>morrii was an invalid publication (according to the ICBN
>(=International Code for Botanical Nomenclature)), but I think this
>isn't likely.
Another possibility is that it was never published at all. An especially
severe case of invalid publication, I'm afraid. Maybe we should call it
"virtually inexistent publication"; the resulting name being a "nomen
vacuum".
Kind regards
Jan