Drosera publication

Guido.J.Braem@bio.uni-giessen.de
Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:52:44 +0000

Original Description of Drosera
..
> Yes, but the generic name and reference to previous description, together
> with descriptions of the Linnaean species appear in Species Plantarum,
> 1.ed. (1.5.1753). Thus, the validating publication for _Drosera_ as a
> generic name is Sp.Pl. and not later ones, nor Syst.Nat.. ...Just another
> example for shortcomings of I.K..

Thank you Jan. I missed that one! Did you sent the editor of IK a
correction sheet???

> The taxon is to be credited to Linnaeus alone (v.s.)

Of course, when it is in Sp. Pl.

> What do you need the "formal Generic description" (I assume you meant the
> protologue) for in the context of "irregular" flowers in _Drosera_? The
> generic circumscription and content are essentially not dependent on the
> protologue. Only the typus generis must always remain a part of the genus.
> All other species are assigned to the genus due to taxonomic
> considerations, nomenclatural ones (priority, protologue, typification) do
> not play a great role. It is rather common that original generic
> descriptions become inaccurate as further species are discovered.

Yes, Jan makes a very good point here. That is not a rare occurence
at all! For example, when parts of the corolla were joint together
(such as for example the syssepal of the slipper orchids or many
oncidiums) this was recognized as only one single segment, whereas
there really are two.

Happy CPing
Guido