Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:12:55 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg147$foo@default> Subject: Re: No 'Kosobe'?
Dear Dave,
> N: [Nepenthes ' Kosobe ' {Hort. ex Mellichamp}]nom.nud.
> P: Carniv.Pl.Newsl.8:17 (1979)
> S: =[Nepenthes alata {Blanco}]
>
> N: [Nepenthes * ' Kosobe ' {Hort. ex Hort.Bednar}]
> P: in sched. (1993)
> S: =[[Nepenthes mirabilis {(Lour.) Druce}] * [[Nepenthes rafflesiana {Jack}] *
> [Nepenthes ampullaria {Jack}]]]
>
> Jan, this on your list.
Yes, I know.
> Who's name is that?
This is exactly the question. Neither list entry refers to a proper
publication. The first is a nomen nudum (without description, only
synonym statement), the second is from informal communication (in
schedis, i.e. on herbarium or garden plant lables).
> Aren't all crosses of this type N. * wrigliana
Obviously the first is not even a cross at all.
> (or the name which came first, if any)?
The first name used for the taxon (i.e. not specific cultivars) was
apparently N. * stewartii (1879).
> At least that" wrigliana" name is much older than the cultivar name
> from 1993...
Yes, N. * wrigleyana is from 1882.
Kind regards
Jan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST