Very interesting discussion. Change of names in this group has become constant! But, I think Schaefer has finally come up with a solution for the confusion in the nomenclature by merging the closely allied 'genera', though he has added few more new names in addition to the existing list. But, GRIN seem to have updated the nomenclature based on some ref. (on 26 June 2007) before publication of Schaefer's paper (published on 4 July 2007).
Anyway, we should be aware that Cucumis ritchei is not our Cucumella ritchei which is now Cucumis indicus!! And from now we will call Mukia maderaspata as *Cucumis maderaspatanus*. Thanks Pankaj for the references. Regards Vijayasankar On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]>wrote: > Our last mails overlapped ... !!! > Many thanks once again for digging deeper !!! > > Hopefully friends pursuing *Mukia* and *Cucumis* will resolve this > confusion. > > Regards. > > > > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Pankaj Kumar <[email protected]>wrote: > >> No sir, its not because of popularity in this case. On the basis of >> popularity a wrong name can be accepted like they do for Orchidaceae. >> Like Orchidaceae described my Jussieu is accepted though the one >> described by Adanson was older. Former name (Orchidaceae Juss.) was >> conserved. >> >> Here the main reason given is the genetic makeup of the taxa which is >> given in the three references I provided in my last mail. On the basis >> of popularity it could have been done, but merging 5 different genera >> into one is a big deal!! >> >> Regards >> Pankaj >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Many thanks Pankaj for your clarifications ... yet hoping we get to know >> of >> > facts. >> > >> > Mukia maderaspatana is a very popular name ... it is found in many >> > literature (old non-botanic)... on the contrary, Cucumis maderaspatanus >> is >> > lesser found. >> > >> > From the two references, GRIN and IPNI, whatever status they show of >> this >> > species currently ... thoughts coming to my mind: ... for some reason, >> > Cucumis maderaspatanus gains currency somewhere in the recent past >> > (justifying GRIN's effort of stating it) ... for some reason, the old >> > popular name regains its status and becomes the accepted name (as per >> your >> > clarifications). >> > >> > >> > Regards. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks a lot for the information, Pankaj ji >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Gurcharan Singh >> >> Retired Associate Professor >> >> SGTB Khalsa College, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007 >> >> Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. >> >> Phone: 011-25518297 Mob: 9810359089 >> >> http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/ >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Pankaj Kumar <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> There was a project undertaken by Natural History Museum London, >> >>> called, The Linnaean Plant Name Typification Project. Headed by Dr. >> >>> Charles Jarvis a very senior taxonomist, who happens to be on my >> >>> friend list. They came out with a book called, "Order Out of Chaos: >> >>> Linnaean Plant Names and Their Types". In this he provided information >> >>> on the status of Type Specimens of Linnaeus and of those he referred >> >>> and the species what he had described. The books gives the details of >> >>> type and lectotypes of all the taxa described by Linnaeus along with >> >>> their currently accepted names. According to the book, the currently >> >>> accepted name is Mukia maderaspatana (L.) M.Roem.. The book was >> >>> released in 2007 and I am yet to have a copy of it :(. >> >>> >> >>> IPNI does provide the synonyms as well as basionyms and in this >> >>> particular taxa, it claims Cucumis as basionym. If you check the >> >>> record history of the taxa then there are editings done by "BARKER". I >> >>> know Dr. Tina Barker at IPNI personally, so I may ask her, but as the >> >>> site claims, most probably, her answer will be same. >> >>> >> >>> Even JSTOR accepts Mukia as accepted name. >> >>> >> >>> http://plants.jstor.org/flora/ftea001827 (I am not sure if you can >> >>> open this link, I can because I am a member of it). >> >>> >> >>> Note that GRIN database claims that it was last updated in 2008, but >> >>> updation there may not mean updation in the synonymy but also any >> >>> other information on the webpage of particular species, that may >> >>> include other references. >> >>> >> >>> IPNI may be wrong, and so can be GRIN, but I trust Dr. Charles Jarvis >> and >> >>> JSTOR. >> >>> >> >>> I am not forcing my point here. I am giving my reference and you are >> >>> giving yours. We just need to check who is correct. Both have our >> >>> references to support our views. >> >>> >> >>> Regards >> >>> Pankaj >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> *********************************************** >> >>> "TAXONOMISTS GETTING EXTINCT AND SPECIES DATA DEFICIENT !!" >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Pankaj Kumar Ph.D. (Orchidaceae) >> >>> Research Associate >> >>> Greater Kailash Sacred Landscape Project >> >>> Department of Habitat Ecology >> >>> Wildlife Institute of India >> >>> Post Box # 18 >> >>> Dehradun - 248001, India >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> *********************************************** >> "TAXONOMISTS GETTING EXTINCT AND SPECIES DATA DEFICIENT !!" >> >> >> Pankaj Kumar Ph.D. (Orchidaceae) >> Research Associate >> Greater Kailash Sacred Landscape Project >> Department of Habitat Ecology >> Wildlife Institute of India >> Post Box # 18 >> Dehradun - 248001, India >> > >
