>It is the plant pictured in Kondo's book as N. pectinata. However
>that is clearly not true (nowadays N. pectinata (the one that was
>really pectinata _that_ _time_) is N. singalana anyway
Not completely. We (Joe N. and I) have lectotypified N.pectinata on a
specimen representing the Sumatran expression of _N.gymnamphora_ (a
distinct subspecies? Matthew, this is your turn).
> and N.pectinata is a nomen nudum
No. It is by no means a nomen nudum (with DANSERs protologue and our
lectotype it cannot be such). It is rejected as a nomen ambiguum and later
synonym, DANSERs (syn-)type material of which being composed of specimens
of _N.gymnamphora_ and _N.singalana_ (two earlier valid names).
> (see Schlauer & Nerz in Blumea)).
sic!
>(...) N. singalana which now includes the former N. pectinata.
_N.singalana_ includes only a part of N.pectinata, the rest (& lectotype)
being _N.gymnamphora_.
Kind regards
Jan