In article ,
Stewart Robert Hinsley writes:
|
| When was that introduced? And is it sufficiently flexible to cancel
| that damn-fool V. farreri and similar namings?
|
| I don't know when it was introduced.

I know that it was after 1970.

| I doubt that the relevant committee would reverse a 40 year old name
| change. But, if I understand the situation with Vibernum dubium,
| fragrans and farreri (Viburnum fragans Loisel. a rarely used synonym of
| Viburnum dubium, and an early homonym of the widely used Viburnum
| fragrans Bunge), a proposal for conservation in a similar situation
| would probably pass nowadays.

That's what I thought :-(

The point there (and with some other widely grown plants, the names
of which escape me for now), that name change replaced a 100 year
established and widespread usage. Even today, I suspect that the
name V. fragrans is more commonly published than V. farreri. In
fact, I doubt that V. farreri will EVER replace V. fragrans in
horticultural usage.

| The orphan plant Cedrela alternifolia (it was known not to be a Cedrela,
| but no-one knew what it really was) was recently identified as a
| specimen of the plant known as Luehea speciosa, thus making, as C.
| alternatifolia was the earlier name, L. alternifolia the correct name.
| However in the meantime everyone had used L. speciosa, even if most of
| the usage was confined to botanical manuals (e.g. De Candolle's
| Prodromus) and Neotropical floras (e.g. Martius' Flora Brasiliensis).

Which is an example of "who gives a damn?" Specialists will know,
not merely what are the correct names, but what dates and contexts
are likely to use which names. The killer with things like V. fragrans
is that you STILL need to know the context, because it was SUCH a major
error to rename it that most people ignored the change.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.