A nomenclature question

Jim McKenney via pbs pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
Mon, 17 Aug 2020 12:44:27 PDT
 Tony, two or three things:
Something's still fishy here. I have not seen Inariyama's paper, but if he really did describe it as an "autotriploid hybrid", he and we are not on the same page.  The modern concept of this plant is that it is an allotriploid hybrid of Lycoris longituba and something else. In other words it's not an autotripld of anything.Then there is the issue of nothospecies. Nothospecies are not species in the modern sense: they are not sexually reproducing populations. When a taxonomist names a nothospecific plant at rank species, the entity in question has been misclassified: it is not a species in the modern sense. It's often nothing more than a distinctive clone.When a taxonomist decides that a plant originally described at rank species should be treated as a part of another species ( for instance, as a subspecies of another species), the convention is to cite both the name of taxonomist who first gave the "whole" species its name and add the name of the taxonomist proposing the change to the formal name.This sort of information can be invaluable in tracing the history of names.
Jim McKenney    
   
  
_______________________________________________
pbs mailing list
pbs@lists.pacificbulbsociety.net
http://lists.pacificbulbsociety.net/cgi-bin/…


More information about the pbs mailing list