Yes Dr. Pankaj, I had already written to the KEW List on a few matters where things are so clear yet they have written basionym as synonym of one and the combination based on this basionym as unresolved or synonym of some other name. I hope things will get sorted soon.
-- 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 Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Pankaj Kumar <[email protected]>wrote: > Madhuca longifolia (J.Koenig) Macbr. var latifolia (Roxb.) Chevalier (1943) > > Basionym: Bassia latifolia Roxb. (1795) > > Other synonyms: > Madhuca latifolia (Roxb.) Macbr. (1918) > Madhuca indica J.F.Gmelin (1791) > > > Dr. Gurcharan is right when he says, "Principle of Priority is not > applicable at different ranks". This goes in accordance with the > Chapter II, Section 3, Article 11.2 of Vienna Code, which states, "In > no case does a name have priority outside the rank in which it is > published". Even they provide two examples: > > ------------------- > Ex. 2. Magnolia virginiana var. foetida L. (1753) when raised to > specific rank is called M. grandiflora L. (1759), not M. foetida (L.) > Sarg. (1889). > Ex. 3. Lythrum intermedium Ledeb. (1822) when treated as a variety of > L. salicaria L. (1753) is called L. salicaria var. glabrum Ledeb. (Fl. > Ross. 2: 127. 1843), not L. salicaria var. intermedium (Ledeb.) Koehne > (in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 1: 327. 1881). > ------------------------- > > There are some confusions on Kew's checklist as they show both M. > longifolia var. longifolia and M. longifolia but they are accompanied > with different synonyms. May be I should write to R. Govaerts about > it. > > Thank you Gurcharan sir for digging into this simple yes complicated > nomenclature. I think we can start our homework on this issue to > gather more information to share with members. > > Pankaj > > > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear H. S. > > A simple rule of ICBN > > Principle of Priority is not applicable at different ranks. > > The said plant is considered as variety of M. longifolia and as such > > earliest trinomial at varietal level is M. longifolia var. latifolia > (Roxb.) > > A. Chev., 1943. At least no varietal combination under M. longifolia was > > available up to 1943, based on M. indica Gmelin > > I hope I have been able to present true picture. > > > > -- > > 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 Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:14 PM, H S <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Sir ji > >> Madhuca indica Gmelin in 1791 > >> Bassia latifolia Roxb. 1795 > >> even if someone will change the rank.. it should go under var. indica > not > >> latifolia > >> > >> regards... > >> > >> - H.S. > >> A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart > of > >> stone > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > *********************************************** > "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 >
