In message , Nick Maclaren
writes

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 :-(

But I might be wrong. If you care enough you could drop a note to the
editor of Taxon and see if they would entertain a proposal to conserve
Viburnum fragrans Bunge against Viburnum farreri Loisel. (However as
there are 18,500 hits in Google for "Viburnum farreri" and 1,110 for
"Viburnum fragrans" it seems that the balance of usage has swung against
you.)


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.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley