RE: P.grandiflora f. chionopetra.

From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
Date: Mon Jun 08 1998 - 09:11:01 PDT


Date:          Mon, 8 Jun 1998 09:11:01 
From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg1945$foo@default>
Subject:       RE: P.grandiflora f. chionopetra.

Dear Paul et al.,

> I predict P.grandiflora f. chionopetra will not survive a
> revision, unless of course we hear from Jan that it is not accepted and a
> revision of this "form" already exists.

The name may be valid although the eccentric mode typification is in
conflict with extant rules. A type must be a specimen, not a
photograph of the living plant. A phototype may be selected if the
holotype can be demonstrated to be unavailable (if it was destroyed
or lost). However, a phototype is always a photograph of a dried or
preserved specimen, not of a living plant.

I do not consider this form as distinct from the blue form. It is
obviously a mutant without taxonomic significance. It would have been
more appropriate to select the plant as a cultivar because it does
probably have a significance for the horticultural trade (otherwise
there would not have been a reason to be so secretive about the exact
locality!).

Kind regards
Jan



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:32 PST