Taxonomic Swap 134362
(Committed on 2023-11-20)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
I've confirmed it with Kew Royal Botanic Garden's International Plant Names Index. They've forwarded Lamarck's 1791 Tableau Encyclopédique Et Méthodique Des Trois Régnes De La Nature - Botanique Premiere Livraison in which it is Dilatris caroliana which Dandy then reclassifies to Lachnanthes caroliana in 1932. Not sure if it can necessarily be changed just due to the assumption it was a spelling error from those naming it. If I had to guess it would be something Kew's IPNI would need to accept. On top of that, it seems like a lot of what is seen online is citing Dandy's literature but in Dandy's it is caroliana so those themselves are typographical errors of what some are considering typos.
Thanks for the insight! This is historically fascinating, to me anyway.
I poked around a little and found some comments in the Journal of the Arnold Arboretum from 1976 that is in line what you have written, with a bit of a twist:
Although a photograph of the type specimen of Dilatris caroliana
Lam. in the Herbier Lamarck, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle,
Paris, shows the name as “‘Dilatris caroliniana” on the label, Lamarck
published the name as D. caroliana. This has been considered by some to
be an orthographic error. According to Wilbur, “the epithet originally
appeared as ‘caroliana,’ but Dr. Shinners has kindly pointed out that
this was an obvious misprint and hence is to be corrected under the pro-
visions of Art. 73” of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
It seems to the present author, however, that we are obliged to maintain
the spelling of the original publication
From https://archive.org/stream/mobot31753002407929/mobot31753002407929_djvu.txt. The quick route to the paragraph is to search for Dilatris caroliana.
I was not able to find the photograph of type specimen on line. That would be interesting to see.
Vive la faute de frappe!
Taxonomy Comments [for Lachnanthes caroliniana]: The correct spelling of the specific epithet has been disputed; the original spelling was "caroliana," but Gandhi (1999) argues convincingly that this is a correctable typographic error. -- https://fsus.ncbg.unc.edu/main.php?pg=show-taxon.php&parentid=65047
Weakley points to Gandhi, K.N. 1999. Nomenclatural novelties for the Western Hemisphere plants. II. Harvard Papers in Botany 4: 295-299.
Is there a write up somewhere that makes the argument for change? caroliniana rolls off the tongue and seems to be a commonly used species epithet. But I'm no taxonimist.