Re: Re: No 'Kosobe'?

From: dave evans (T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU)
Date: Thu Jan 16 1997 - 17:03:00 PST

Next message: Frank Udovicic: "heat, was Re: cold and darlingtonia"
Previous message: Steve Tatman: "re:measuring restivity of water"
Maybe in reply to: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de: "Re: No 'Kosobe'?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date:    Thu, 16 Jan 97 20:03 EST
From: dave evans                           <T442119@RUTADMIN.RUTGERS.EDU>
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg225$foo@default>
Subject: Re: Re: No 'Kosobe'?

Hi Jan,

> > N: [Nepenthes * ' Kosobe ' {Hort. ex Hort.Bednar}]
> > P: in sched. (1993)
> > S: =[[Nepenthes mirabilis {(Lour.) Druce}] * [[Nepenthes rafflesiana {Jack}] *
> > [Nepenthes ampullaria {Jack}]]]
> >
> > 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).

So then, Bruce Bednar did make the cross, but he didn't publish
the new cultivar name. Is that correct? The label for my 'Kosobe'
should then read, "_N. * stewartii_ (Bednar '93)" until he, if ever,
has a name for it published?

> The first name used for the taxon (i.e. not specific cultivars) was
> apparently N. * stewartii (1879).

And the label for the N.wrigl*ey*ana ought to read:
N. * stewartii cv. 'wrigleyana'

That is, if I understand the rules so far...

Dave E

Next message: Frank Udovicic: "heat, was Re: cold and darlingtonia"
Previous message: Steve Tatman: "re:measuring restivity of water"
Maybe in reply to: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de: "Re: No 'Kosobe'?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:30:58 PST