On 14 Mar 2006, at 07:36,*"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote:
writes:
Given the following two names:

Tillandsia usneoides fo. longissima André, 1889

I still believe (see below) that this probably needs to be corrected to
var. longissima André, only a check of the publication can confirm.

Tillandsia usneoides var. longissima (André) Mez, 1896
I still believe (see below) that this is probably a later homonym.

"Nadia talent" schreef in
I suspect that neither of these is correct, see below.

***
You have been doing quite a bit of work! Unfortunately, it appears to have
been mostly wasted?

ICBN Art 35.4. If in one whole publication (Art 35.5), prior to 1 January
1890, only one infraspecific rank is admitted, it is considered to be that
of variety unless this would be contrary to the author's statements in the
same publication."

presumably does not apply as Mez* (in the Flora Brasiliensis) indicates that
André published this name in the rank of forma. If this is correct then we
have an "author's statement" and there is no need to involve Art 35.4.


I disagree. The publication in question is André's. However, it would be advisable
to check André's publication to make sure that he did not use varieties also, or
state that he considered the formas to be subsidiary to some other infraspecific
rank used by other authors.

As you note the GCI and Mez disagree about the rank used by André, but in
the absence of evidence to the contrary I will assume that the CGI is in
error (this is a fairly safe assumption as indexes are notorious for the
amount of error they contain). This is supported by TROPICOS which states
that Mez did transfer the name from the rank of forma to that of varietas
(upgrading this plant in rank), although not in the Flora Brasiliensis but
in the Monographiae Phanerogamarum


Interesting! I had not realized that TROPICOS and IPNI are not synchronized.

Monographiae Phanerogamum is unfortunately not in Gallica or any other online
database that I know of.

So IPNI appears to need just the one record to be added (but the original documents
need to be checked, as always):

"Tillandsia usneoides f. longissima Mez Fl. Bras. (Martius) 3, pt. 3: 615. 1894."

There would be no need to add:

"Tillandsia usneoides var. longissima Mez Monogr. Phan. 9: 883. 1896." because
it is just a later homonym of André's var. (but it would be nice if IPNI listed all
homonyms and clearly labelled them as such, as well as all corrections that have
been made including those that were made long ago in the GCI and IK).

TROPICOS apparently needs to have the formae listed from André changed to vars.
to keep it up to date with the Codes of Nomenclature.

As to the classification IPNI is a nomenclatural database, which means they
are listing botanical names, and a botanical name never has more than three
parts (so Tillandsia usneoides var conspecta f. longissima is not a name,
but a classification).

But please do not let me discourage you!
PvR


I fear that we are discouraging others from attempting to resolve nomenclatural
problems. They aren't always this difficult, but it is necessary to accumulate all
the old literature, and it can take years to accomplish that for a large group of
plants. I strongly believe that we all have a responsibility to submit corrections
to the database editors as we discover them while delving into that old literature.
It helps, of course, if one doesn't work on too many plants at once.

Nadia Talent

--------------------------------------------------
Nadia Talent
Department of Botany, University of Toronto,
25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, M5S 3B2, Canada
Fax +1 416-978-5878
Also: Department of Natural History,
Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park West, Toronto, M5S 2C6