This kind of confusion occurs when revisioners rely only herbarium specimens. Since the color differences can't be seen in the herbarium, they tend to merge these otherwise distinct (by color) varieties. I don't know if Basella alba var. rubra occurs in wild, if not, it is a mere cultivar which doesn't require a formal combination and author citation. In that case the earlier treatments (B. rubra, B. alba var. rubra) become synonymous to B. alba as treated in Fl.China, GRIN etc.
Another similar situation can be seen in Vitex negundo var. purpurascens Sivar. & Moldenke. This variety can't be distinguished in the herbarium as it differs only by color (rather prominently) from its typica. Any revisioner may tend to merge these two by not finding strong taxonomic characters to distinguish. There may be several cases where plants distinct in the field but difficult to distinguish in the herbarium (such as Flacourtia indica (Burm.f.) Merr. and F. ramontchi L'Her.). The destiny of the status then becomes a matter of preference / opinion, to merge or to treat as different variety. And always a subject of debate. I feel if a 'variety' doesn't exist in wild, and originated by cultivation, it should be considered only a cultivar and not a taxonomical variety. Regards Vijayasankar Raman National Center for Natural Products Research University of Mississippi On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Gurcharan Singh <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear Mr. Porcher > The latest online version of Flora China (2003), treats B. rubra L. as > synonym of B. alba L. > > A agree with you that *Basella alba* L. 'Rubra' appears to be most > logical, but then it accepts merger of B. rubra with B. alba, and merely > regards it as cultivar of B. alba L. (not even a variety, which would need > formal author citation for the combination). I think there should be no > harm in linking all common names associated with B. rubra with B. alba > 'Rubra' and those associated with B. alba traditionally with simple B. alba > L. That would also go well with p[redominant taxonomic position. > > http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=103570) > > > -- > 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://www.gurcharanfamily.com/ > http://people.du.ac.in/~singhg45/ > > > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:00 AM, OZmic <[email protected]> wrote: > >> OK "invalid" may not be the correct term, would you prefer "unresolved"? >> certainly the synonymy isn't universal around the world. >> I have always failed to understand how 2 different plants can have 2 >> different names which are considered synonyms. >> B. alba var. rubra could be a synonym of B. rubra, but B. alba = B. rubra >> ???? >> The ARS GRIN database used to have many of those, years ago. Today they >> have a more logical approach (except in this case). >> If I am wrong, so be it, I'll plead guilty to being an "ignoramus", I am >> certainly not a taxonomist. >> My problem is matching common names with 2 different bot. names >> considered synonyms. One ends up with contradictory names which cannot be >> synonyms since they mean different things... like "Red-stemmed vine >> spinach" vs "White-stemmed vine spinach". Names with similar meaning exist >> in French, German, Spanish etc. for both. My approach is to find a bot. >> name that suits the horticultural rules. * >> Basella* *alba *L. '*Rubra*' for all the names referring to the colour >> red appears logical to me. >> Looking quickly at my favourite references: >> GRIN has B. alba = B. rubra >> Flora Europaea ignored B. rubra >> Flora of China considered both as different species, and so do many of >> the Indian scholars. >> >> >> On Friday, March 16, 2012 2:45:41 PM UTC+11, Gurcharan Singh wrote: >> >>> I have never cone across the statement that Basella rubra L. is an >>> invalid name. It is only that differences are not strong enough to >>> recognize it an independent species. Since both species were described on >>> the same date in Species Plantarum of Linnaeus, the author who merged these >>> two species chose B. alba L. as correct name and B. rubra L. as synonym. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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://www.gurcharanfamily.**com/ <http://www.gurcharanfamily.com/> >>> http://people.du.ac.in/~**singhg45/<http://people.du.ac.in/%7Esinghg45/> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:45 AM, OZmic wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Alastair, >>>> Catalogue of Life is fine but it contains things that bother me - >>>> unresolved taxonomic issues. For example they state that Basella alba and >>>> Basella rubra are synonyms. This is obviously not correct if you have ever >>>> seen both plants. Have you ever read anywhere that the reddish variety >>>> could be a cultivar of B. alba? I haven't, except on the M.M.P.N.D. I would >>>> say that Basella rubra is an invalid name but not a synonym of B. alba. >>>> Moreover Indian scholars use* *Basella alba L. var. rubra (L.) >>>> Stewart. * *Are they wrong? or are they ignored? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 7:19:12 PM UTC+11, Plant Diversity wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You might also try the Catalogue of Life web site for names and >>>>> synonyms. It does not have a complete coverage of names, but the ones it >>>>> has are usually current, give synonymy and often links to further >>>>> information. http://www.sp2000.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Alastair >>>>> http://www.facebook.com/**PlantD**iversity<http://www.facebook.com/PlantDiversity> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> > > >
