|
Thanks Jose. I looked up Seidenfaden (pages 37 to
39) and according to him no definite type specimen is available. That being
the case then how can Kew accept a description without a type specimen? Perhaps
since Seidenfaden's work was published a type specimen has turned
up.
Once again many thanks for the much appreciated
reply.
Keep well and kind regards
Mike
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 6:01
PM
Subject: Bulbophyllum tingabarinum
The Rolfe entity does not have priority. As a matter of fact, if one
accepts Kew as the arbiter for species nomenclature ( as the AOS does),
Rolfe's Cirrhopetalum miniatum cannot be transfered to Bulbophyllum ( the Kew
accepted generic concept ) since there is a 1904 publication for a
Bulbophyllum miniatum ( a supposedly Tropical African species)
[Bulbophyllum miniatum auct., Orchid Rev. 12: 118 (1904).]
Kew makes the whole nomenclature issue more fun by reducing
Bulbophyllum tingabarinum and Bulbophyllum flaviflorum to synonyms to
Bulbophyllum pecten-veneris (Gagnep.) Seidenf., Dansk Bot. Ark. 29:
37 (1973 publ. 1974). based on the replaced basionym Cirrhopetalum
pecten-veneris Gagnep., Bull. Soc. Bot. France 78: 6 (1931).
which is the name with priority once the Rolfe's 1914 name is reduced to
non-usability.
Jose
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free
Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date:
2006/03/10
|
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/279 - Release Date: 2006/03/10
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[email protected]
http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
