New wiki photos; Worsleya bloom

Lee Poulsen
Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:25:15 PDT
On Sep 16, 2004, at 3:19 PM, Mary Sue Ittner wrote:
> Dear All,
> Some time ago I asked on this list whether the name on the wiki should  
> be Worsleya procera or Worsleya rayneri? I looked it up in IPNI and  
> both were recorded names and there was no mention of synonyms. W.  
> procera does have an earlier date.
> No one responded to my question. So I'll ask it again after I offer  
> congratulations to Lee on his blooming plant. Is there just one  
> species of this genus and should we have it listed as Worsleya procera  
> (syn. Worselya rayneri) instead of the other way around?
> We'd like to be giving out the most current information on the wiki  
> and this is not a plant I follow so appreciate help from those of you  
> who do. Thanks.
> Mary Sue

Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Glenn Callcott" <>
> Date: May 3, 2002 5:34:25 AM PDT
> To: <>
> Subject: [Worsleya_rayneri_growers] Worsleya procera
> This essay was written by David Mabberley who belongs to the  
> International Society of Plant Taxonomists (it may have another name)  
> and who has recently renamed the Worsleya.
> The blue amaryllis was first described as Amaryllis procera Duch. in  
> 1863. The generic name Worsleya was proposed for it by William Watson  
> in 1912, but not validly published then, though it was later used as a  
> subgeneric name in Amaryllis L. and first validly published as subg.  
> Worsleya Traub. Traub subsequently raised his subgenus to generic rank  
> as Worsleya (Traub) Traub (in Herbertia 10: 89, t. 246, 1944).
> In 1944, Traub also transferred Amaryllis procera Duch. to the new  
> genus making the name W. procera ('Duch.') Traub, the name first  
> suggested informally in 1912 and widely used since 1944.
> Subsequently, in 1949, Traub and Moldenke realised that Amaryllis  
> procera Duch. had been antedated by A. procera Salisb. (1796), the  
> name [actually a superfluous one!] for a completely unrelated plant  
> (apparently a species of Crinum). This meant that A. procera Duch. was  
> 'still-born', being a 'later homonym' and therefore an illegitimate  
> name. They therefore cast about for another name for the Worsleya and  
> chose the next-published in Amaryllis, A. rayneri Hook.f.., and made  
> the new name W. rayneri (Hook.f.) Traub and Moldenke, which has since  
> been followed by many.
> But they were wrong, as W. rayneri is an illegitimate substitution for  
> the original W. procera, which has therefore been restored by  
> Mabberley, Plant-book ed. 2, corr. reprint (1998), because they  
> overlooked the fact that the earliest validly published name is  
> Hippeastrum procerum Lem. (Ill. Horticole: t. 408, 1864), which  
> antedates A. rayneri, even though they included it in the synonyms. 
> Hippeastrum procerum Lem. is based on A. procera Duch., not A. procera  
> Salisb., but as the first was illegitimate, it is considered a nomen  
> novum with just 'Lem.' [= Lemaire] as authority and therefore a  
> validly published name. As it is based on the same plant as W. procera  
> ('Duch.') Traub, it can act as the base-name for the latter, which is  
> (with a minor authority change), correctly [once more!]:
> *Worsleya procera* (Lem.) Traub
>  (syn. Amaryllis procera Duch., nom. illegit. [non A. procera  
> Salisb.]; Hippeastrum procerum Lem. [nom. nov. pro. A. procera Duch.  
> non Salisb.]; A. rayneri Hook.f.; W. rayneri (Hook.f.) Traub &  
> Moldenke, nom. illegit.)
> (Whether Worsleya deserves generic rank or not is another matter and  
> resolution must await the results of DNA studies in this tight-knit  
> group of  
> Amaryllidaceae).                                                        
>                    David Mabberley

> From: "Alan Meerow" <>
> Date: May 5, 2002 5:15:43 PM PDT
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: [Worsleya_rayneri_growers] Worsleya procera
> Mabberly also needs to read Systematic Botany where the issue of  
> whether Worsleya is closely related to Hippeastrum was (hopefully) put  
> to rest by my and co-workers DNA studies!
> Does anyone know where he published this note?
> Alan Meerow

More information about the pbs mailing list