Taxon16rpt_norvell2011 - International Mycological Association

TAXON 60 (1) • February 2011: 223–226 Norvell • Report of the Committee for Fungi
PR O POSAL S TO CO NSERVE O R R E J EC T NA M E S
Edited by John McNeill, Scott A. Redhead & John H. Wiersema
Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi: 16
Lorelei L. Norvell
Pacific Northwest Mycology Service, Portland, Oregon 97229-1309, U.S.A.; llnorvell@pnw-ms.com
Summary The following five generic names are recommended for conservation: Cladia against Heterodea; Hemipholiota against
Nemecomyces; Lactarius with conserved type; Mixia against Phytoceratiomyxa; Stirtonia A.L. Sm. against Stirtonia R. Br.
bis; the following five specific names are also recommended for conservation: Aspicilia aquatica against Lichen mazarinus;
Dermatocarpon bucekii (Placopyrenium bucekii) against Placidium steineri; Hebeloma cylindrosporum against Hebeloma
angustispermum; Psoroma versicolor (Degeliella versicolor) against Psoroma subdescendens; Thelephora comedens (Vuilleminia
comedens) with conserved type. Lecidea epiploica is recommended for rejection under Art. 56 and it is recommended
that Verrucaria thelostoma and Pyrenula umbonata not be rejected under Art. 56. As a result of reference under Art. 53.5, it is
recommended that the following two pairs of names be treated as homonyms: Calongea Healey & al. and Calongia D. Hawksw.
& Etayo; and Phyllocratera Sérus. & Aptroot and Phyllocrater Wernham.
The previous report of the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi
(Report 15) appeared in Taxon 59: 291–293. 2010; the current report
constitutes Committee recommendations determined from
votes received by the Secretary during the October 11–November
15 (2010) voting period. Those voting on this Ballot 2010–2 were
J.L. Crane (Urbana-Champaign, Illinois), V. Demoulin (Liege),
D.L. Hawksworth (Madrid/London), T. Iturriaga (Caracas), P.M. Kirk
(Egham), P.-G. Liu (Kunming), T. May (Melbourne), J. Melot (Reykjavík),
L.L. Norvell (Portland, Oregon), S.R. Pennycook (Auckland),
C. Printzen (Frankfurt), S.A. Redhead (Ottawa), S. Ryman (Uppsala),
and D. Triebel (München).
A 9-vote minimum is required for the 14-member Committee to
recommend or reject a proposal for conservation. Outcomes below
are reported as Yes : No : More Discussion + Abstention. Percentages
are based on our membership total.
Proposals to conserve or reject names
(1810) Conserve the name Hemipholiota against Nemecomyces
(Agaricales, Basidiomycota). Proposed by Jacobsson & Holec
in Taxon 57: 641–642. 2008. Votes – 12 : 1 : 1 (86% recommend conservation).
Pholiota destruens (Brond.) Gillet (= Hemipholiota populnea
(Pers. : Fr.) Bon) and Nemecomyces mongolicus Pilát represent two
names with conspecific types. Hemipholiota (Singer) Bon was proposed
as a subgenus of Pholiota in 1951 (validated in 1962) and as
genus in 1980 (validated in 1986). Nemecomyces was proposed in 1933
for a Mongolian fungus that its young author did not recognize as a
mushroom already well known in Europe and North America. Noting
that Nemecomyces was essentially “published by mistake,” Jacobsson
& Holec propose to conserve the basionym Pholiota destruens (type
species for Hemipholiota) for a genus DNA sequence analyses support
as distinct from Pholiota.
The proposal passed with little comment, although two members
did observe that an author’s age is irrelevant. One member further
noted that both Hemipholiota and Nemecomyces were names equally
rarely used (at genus level) but that the similarity of Hemipholiota to
Pholiota was as good a reason as any to conserve the former.
(1828) Conserve Aspicilia aquatica against Lichen mazarinus
(Ascomycota, Pertusariales, Megasporaceae). Proposed by Nordin
& Jørgensen in Taxon 57: 989. 2008. Votes – 12 : 0 : 2 (86% recommend
conservation).
Aspicilia aquatica (Fr.) Körb. (1855) is the currently accepted
name for a widely distributed crustose lichen. When Du Rietz (1915)
transferred the oldest name available for the species (Lichen mazarinus
Wahlenb., 1812) to Lecanora, citing A. aquatica among the
synonyms, he unfortunately also cited as synonyms names now associated
with species accepted as distinct from L. mazarina. Conflicting
opinions regarding the integrity of the species name and its application
have led to a confused species concept. Nordin & Jørgensen
propose to conserve Aspicilia aquatica (“the generally accepted and
less often misapplied name”) to prevent replacement by the “obscure
and taxonomically misused epithet mazarina.” Committee members
voiced no opposition to conservation.
(1829–1830) Reject the names Verrucaria thelostoma (1829)
and Pyrenula umbonata (1830) (lichenized Ascomycota). Proposed
by Jørgensen in Taxon 57: 990–991. 2008. Votes – (1829) 1 : 11 : 2 and
(1830) 2 : 10 : 2 (71%/79% do not recommend rejection).
The species now accepted as Pyrenocarpon flotowianum
(Hepp.) Trevis. (1855, bas. Verrucaria flotowiana Hepp. 1853)
was earlier referenced by “thelostoma” (Verrucaria thelostoma
J. Harriman in Winch, 1807) and “umbonata” (Pyrenula umbonata
Ach..1810). Noting that the first was based on a poorly developed
specimen that has “puzzled lichenologists for centuries” and the
second on a similarly undeveloped and misunderstood duplicate
retained by Acharius in his herbarium, Jørgensen proposed to reject
those names in favor of Pyrenocarpon flotowianum, a name that has
remained constant since it was established as the type species, in
order to minimize taxonomic confusion and preserve nomenclatural
stability.
However, after Proposals 1829–1830 were published, Coppins
& Aptroot (in Lichenologist 40: 372. 2008) found that there was no
reason to reject either Verrucaria thelostoma or Pyrenula umbonata,
as they had located two more specimens (in excellent condition)
of the type collection of V. thelostoma, which they transferred to
223

Norvell • Report of the Committee for Fungi
Pyrenocarpon. In view of the more recent information, the Committee
does not support rejection of either earlier name.
(1831) Conserve the name Mixia against Phytoceratiomyxa
(Basidiomycota). Proposed by Sugiyama & Katumoto in Taxon 57:
991–992. 2008. Votes –12 : 1 : 1 (86% recommend conservation).
Mixia C.L. Kramer (1959) was introduced to accommodate
Taphrina osmundae Nishida (lectotypified by Sugiyama & Katumoto,
2008), which molecular analyses place in Pucciniomycotina
(Basidiomycota), not Taphrinales (Ascomycota). The species has been
associated with Mixia and exemplified as an enigmatic fungus in
systematic and phylogenetic papers since first introduced. The monotypic
Phytoceratiomyxa Sawada (1929), based on a single collection
of P. osmundae (a putative myxomycete fern parasite), was listed by
Greuter & al. (1993) as a generic myxomycete name in current use
but was later cited as a “nom dub?” in the Dictionary of Fungi (Kirk
& al., 2001). Discovery that both names represent the same basidiomycete
species gives the earlier named genus, Phytoceratiomyxa,
nomenclatural priority. The Committee agrees that conservation of
the better known Mixia will prevent disruption that might be caused
by adopting the lesser used name, Phytoceratiomyxa.
(1862) Conserve the name Psoroma versicolor (Degeliella versicolor)
against Psoroma subdescendens (lichenized Ascomycota,
Pannariaceae). Proposed by Fryday & Coppins in Taxon 58: 293.
2009. Votes – 12 : 0 : 2 (86% recommend conservation).
In combining Degeliella versicolor (Müll. Arg) P.M. Jørg. (2004),
Jørgensen originally cited Lecanora versicolor Hook. f. & Taylor
(1844) as basionym. Although Lamb (1963) had declared the basionym
an illegitimate later homonym of Lecanora versicolor (Pers.)
Ach. (1810), under Art. 58.1 the name was available as Psoroma versicolor
Müll. Arg. (1888). Müller’s name, however, was published a
few months after Psoroma subadscendens Nyl. (1888), which had
been proposed for a South American collection now thought to represent
the same taxon. Nonetheless, all recent floras have used either
Psoromidium versicolor (Müll. Arg.) D.J. Galloway (1983) [pre-2004]
or Degeliella versicolor [after 2004], while Psoroma subadscendens
was last used in 1953. Conservation of the name Psoroma versicolor
will leave Psoroma subadscendens available to represent the South
American collection, should future research determine it to represent a
separate species. The proposal was recommended without controversy.
(1897) Reject the name Lecidea epiploica (lichenized Ascomycota).
Proposed by Jørgensen & Nordin in Taxon 58: 1003–1004. 2009.
Votes – 13 : 0 : 1 (93% recommend rejection).
Lecidea epiploica Norman (1867) is a little-used name based
on an unusual lichen specimen now accepted under a younger name,
Calvitimela perlata (Haugan & Timdal) R. Sant. (2004). First named
Lecidea (! Lecidella) bullata (Körber) Th. Fr. (1874), nom. illeg.,
non Lecidea bullata Meyen & Flotow (1843), the taxon was renamed
Lecidea bullosa A. Zahlbr. (1925). Magnusson, however, who later
discovered that Fries had misinterpreted Körber’s original concept,
proposed for Fries’s material another illegitimate homonym Lecidea
perlata H. Magn. (1931) [non Lecidea perlata Hue (1915)], an epithet
later adopted when the taxon was reclassified as Tephromela perlata
Haugan & Timdal. (1994), a legitimate name subsequently transferred
to Calvitimela. The proposal that the “already forgotten name” Lecidea
epiploica be rejected to maintain nomenclatural stability and thus
avoid introducing yet another new name was recommended without
controversy.
224
TAXON 60 (1) • February 2011: 223–226
(1898) Conserve the name Stirtonia A.L. Sm. (lichenized Ascomycota,
Arthoniales) against Stirtonia R. Br. bis (Bryophyta, Dicranales).
Proposed by Frisch & Thor in Taxon 58: 1004. 2009. Votes
– 12 : 0 : 2 (86% recommend conservation).
The name Stirtonia was applied first in 1920 to a monotypic
moss genus Stirtonia (type: S. mackayi R. Br. bis) and secondly in
1926 to a small group of tropical lichens Stirtonia A.L. Sm. (type:
S. obvallata (Stirt.) A.L. Sm.). After Brotherus transferred S. mackayi,
the type of Stirtonia, to the moss genus Trematodon in 1901,
T. mackayi has been used continuously, with S. mackayi cited only
in the original publication. The lichen genus Stirtonia, on the other
hand, now accommodates 14 rare, seldom-collected species, is well
established among tropical lichenologists, and has been “in continuous
scientific use to the present day.” A third name, Stirtonia
Van Wyk & Schutte (1994), is an illegitimate third homonym for a
vascular plant genus already replaced by Stirtonanthus Van Wyk
& Schutte.
As Stirtonia R. Br. bis has not been used except in the original
description and as there is “no older name available for Stirtonia
A.L. Sm.,” the proposers seek to conserve the lichen genus Stirtonia
to ensure taxonomic stability rather than propose a new generic name
for 14 species, even though that would leave no separate generic name
for S. mackayi, should it be shown generically distinct from the type
of Trematodon.
After Nomenclature Committee for Bryophyta Secretary Klazenga
informed the Committee that it is unlikely that bryologists
would object to relinquishing Stirtonia, the proposal passed without
further comment.
(1899) Conserve the name Hebeloma cylindrosporum against
Hebeloma angustispermum (Basidiomycota). Proposed by Vesterholt
& al. in Taxon 58: 1005. 2009. Votes –13 : 1 : 0 (93% recommend
conservation).
This common European agaric, which is one of the six most
intensively studied ectomycorrhizal fungi due to its culturability,
has been cited in 585 publications from 30 countries under the name
Hebeloma cylindrosporum Romagn. (1965). Grilli (2006) recently declared
the little-known H. angustispermum A. Pearson (1951) synonymous
with H. cylindrosporum, a synonymy since supported by ITS
sequence analyses of the holotypes. Vesterholt & al. propose H. cylindrosporum
for conservation to preserve nomenclatural stability. They
further dismiss challenge by an even earlier synonym—H. spoliatum
(Fr.) Gillet (1876)—noting that Grilli’s (1997) proposed synonym is
yet to be accepted generally, the basionym (Agaricus spoliatus Fr.
1838) has not been typified, and H. spoliatum was described from a
montane habitat, not a lowland habitat as for H. cylindrosporum. No
opposing arguments were presented in Committee.
(1918) Conserve the name Dermatocarpon bucekii (Placopyrenium
bucekii) against Placidium steineri (lichenized Ascomycota,
Verrucariaceae). Proposed by Senkardesler in Taxon 59: 294. 2010.
Votes – 12 : 0 : 2 (86% recommend conservation).
The name Placidium steineri, first proposed in a list of lichens
from Turkey published in a larger publication by Wettstein, has been
variously attributed to J. Steiner, who determined the taxon as new,
and Wettstein, who named the species to honor Steiner. Although
transferred to Dermatocarpon by Zahlbruckner, the name appears
not to have been otherwise accepted after its publication in 1889.
Examination of the holotype shows that it is synonymous with Placopyrenium
bucekii, a name well established in numerous floras all

TAXON 60 (1) • February 2011: 223–226 Norvell • Report of the Committee for Fungi
over its distribution range throughout the Mediterranean and Southeast
Asia. Senkardesler proposes to conserve “an uncontested species
name in current use” over a forgotten and relatively unknown one.
No opposing arguments were presented in Committee.
(1919) Conserve the name Lactarius (Basidiomycota) with a conserved
type. Proposed by Buyck & al. in Taxon 59: 295–296. 2010.
Votes – 11 : 2 : 1 (79% recommend conservation).
Current multi-gene sequence analyses support four major
phylogenetically distinct clades for species previously distributed
between Lactarius and Russula. The recent transfer of one clade
to Multifurca Buyck & al. (2008) leaves the remaining Russula species
“firmly within a monophyletic ‘Russula’ clade.” The two other
well-supported clades belong to a paraphyletic Lactarius, a large
mushroom genus with over 400 species. The first clade includes
species commonly placed in L. subg. Piperites, Plinthogali, Russularia,
Colorati, Tristes, Rhysocybella, and all sequestrates previously
classified in Arcangeliella, Zelleromyces, and Gastrolactarius. The
second clade contains 20%–25% of the currently described Lactarius
species now placed in L. subg. Lactarius, Lactifluus, Lactariopsis,
and Russulopsis along with other unassigned species. The currently
listed lectotype of the conserved generic name Lactarius, which falls
into the second clade, is L. piperatus, lectotypified by Earle (1909)
and first cited as type in the 1988 Code (and hence established unless
another type is conserved – Art. 14.8) when the orthography of the
genus was conserved.
Two other names previously cited as lectotype of the generic
name—L. torminosus (selected by Singer, 1936) and L. deliciosus
(selected by Singer & Smith, 1946)—apply to common well-known
taxa that “belong to the generic clade that does not include L. piperatus
but … comprises most of the well known northern hemisphere
taxa that are part of the various revisions and monographs of the
genus.”
So as to limit the number of name changes resulting from recognition
of two phylogenetically supported genera, Buyck & al. propose
L. torminosus as conserved type for Lactarius because L. torminosus,
“clearly part of [Persoon’s] protologue of the genus,” is currently
type of the primary and diverse subg. Piperites, its diagnostic white
latex color is the most common in the genus (unlike the orange latex
characterizing L. deliciosus, the other possible lectotype), and original
material cited in the sanctioning work is available. Lectotypification
of Lactarius by L. torminosus would leave most current Lactarius
names unchanged and avoid “hundreds of combinations” in the forgotten
genus Lactariella while those in the “piperatus” clade would
revert to Lactifluus, where numerous significant combinations already
exist. Although a few widely used names would still need to be
transferred, conservation of L. torminosus would limit name changes
to about 90 species, many fewer than the number required “if the type
is not conserved as proposed.”
Many comments were raised in Committee regarding whether
(1) a type should be changed based on the number of species affected,
(2) nomenclature should follow phylogenetic-based taxonomy
(3) the phylogeny related by the authors was accurate, and (4)
the proposed change in type would lead to nomenclatural stability.
In the end the proposal passed with only two opposing votes and
one abstention.
(1926) Conserve the name Cladia against Heterodea (Ascomycota).
Proposed by Lumbsch & al. in Taxon 59: 643. 2010. Votes –
12 : 0 : 1 (86% recommend conservation).
Molecular data from 2000 show Heterodea Nyl. (1868), currently
represented by its type (H. muelleri) and a second species added in
1978, nested within Cladoniaceae, where it is currently classified.
The name Cladia was introduced in 1870 in a Ramalina monograph
for three species, the validly published C. aggregata and two
others (retipora, schizopora) referred to only by epithets in the accusative
and lacking basionyms and author citations but which were
“unique published fungal epithets applied to lichens prior to 1870”
that indirect evidence ties to Baeomyces retiporus and Cladonia
schizopora. Filson (1981) was the first to lectotypify Cladia with
C. aggregata; the combinations C. retipora and C. schizopora were
validated later. Currently 14 species are accepted in Cladia, a genus
that has been classified in Cladoniaceae or in the separate Cladiaceae.
Current (2010) molecular research, which shows that Heterodea
nests not only within Cladoniaceae but also within Cladia, indicates
that the two genera are “best regarded as congeneric,” an inference
also supported by morphological characters and chemistry. Heterodea
is represented by two Australian species while the 14 species in
Cladia are widely distributed throughout the Southern Hemisphere.
As the name Cladia has been widely used in numerous publications
and no authors have ever included the genus within Heterodea, the
authors propose the well-established Cladia for conservation against
Heterodea. The proposal was recommended without discussion.
(1945) Conserve the name Thelephora comedens (Vuilleminia
comedens) with a conserved type (Basidiomycota). Proposed by
Ghobad-Nejhad & Hallenberg in Taxon 59: 1277–1278. 2010. Votes
– 14 : 0 : 0 (100% recommend conservation).
The name Thelephora comedens Nees : Fries is currently applied
to a “basidiomycetous corticioid fungus presently known as Vuilleminia
comedens (Nees : Fr.) Maire,” the type of Vuilleminia Maire.
The epithet comedens is typified by a color drawing of a specimen
in UPS that appears not to have been examined by anyone (including
Fries) since publication of T. comedens in 1816–1817; the authors are
unaware of any other Fries or Nees specimens representing T. comedens
and regard the UPS specimen as the only extant material. The
specimen does not conform to the current concept of V. comedens but
rather represents a Hyphoderma. To preserve the stability of the species
concept with the name, the authors have proposed as a conserved
type a specimen collected by Petrak from Quercus, which they regard
as representing T. comedens as currently recognized. The proposal
passed without comment.
Recommendations on cases of near homonymy
(under Art. 53.5)
(1) Calongea Healey & al. in Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 66(51):
27. 2009 (Pezizaceae) and Calongia D. Hawksw. & Etayo in
Lichenologist 42: 355–359. 2010 (mitosporic fungi).
Votes – 13 : 0 : 1 (93% considered the names are sufficiently alike
to be confusable). It is recommended that they be treated as homonyms.
(2) Phyllocratera Sérus. & Aptroot in Aptroot & al., Biblioth.
Lichenol. 64: 132. 1997 (Phyllobatheliaceae) and Phyllocrater
Wernham in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 42: 90. 1914 (Dicotyledones,
Rubiaceae).
Votes – 9 : 5 : 0 (64% considered the names are sufficiently alike
to be confusable). It is recommended that they be treated as homonyms.
The lower support shown in the second case is due to the fact
that two different kingdoms (Fungi vs. Plantae) were represented.
225

Brummitt • Report of the Committee for Vascular Plants TAXON 60 (1) • February 2011: 226–232
Also included on the ballot was a poll to determine the view of
the Committee on the applicability of Art. 60.1 to the elements ‘rhiz,’
‘rrhiz,’ ‘riz,’ or ‘rriz’ within a name, a source of continued discussion
among mycologists. Eighty-six percent (12 : 1 : 1) of the full Committee
considered that the element ‘rhiz,’ ‘rrhiz,’ ‘riz,’ or ‘rriz’ within a
226
Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 62
R.K. Brummitt
The Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, U.K.; r.brummitt@rbgkew.org.uk
Summary The following nine generic names are recommended for conservation: Crataegus against Mespilus; Dasymaschalon
against Pelticalyx; Eubotrys Nutt. against Eubotrys Raf.; Goniothalamus against Richella; Heteromeles to make legitimate;
Mallotus against Trevia; Photinia with conserved type; Planchonella additionally against Iteiluma and Peuciluma; and Teesdalia
to make legitimate. The following 13 specific names are also recommended for conservation: Acacia goetzei against A. andongensis;
Achillea pannonica against A. seidlii; Alstroemeria presliana with conserved type; Dodecatheon jeffreyi against D. jeffreyanum;
Echium laevigatum with conserved type; Eucalyptus camaldulensis with conserved type; Malus toringoides against
Pyrus bhutanica; Potentilla bipinnatifida against P. normalis and P. missourica; and P. stolonifera against P. sprengeliana;
Prunus serotina with conserved type.; Rosa virginiana Mill. against R. virginiana Herrm.; Sedum rupestre with conserved type;
and Sisyrinchium bermudiana with conserved type. The following two names are not recommended for conservation: Acacia
willardiana against Prosopis heterophylla; and Astrocaryum aculeatum with conserved type. The following 17 specific names
are recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Alstroemeria albiflora; Amaryllis africana; Cephalanthera oregana; Colchicum
tenorei and C. todaroi; Dodecatheon meadia var. puberulum; Epidendrum caninum; and E. trilabiatum Vell.; Festuca pannonica;
Ficus taab; Fritillaria alba; and F. racemosa; Koeleria nitida; Orchis montana; Ornithogalum flavum; Potentilla dissecta and
P. retusa. The following two names are not recommended for rejection under Art. 56: Acer pictum; and Aster bracteolatus.
The following work is recommended to be added to App. VI (Opera utique oppressa): J. de A. Pinto da Silva, Diccionario de
Botanica Brasilieira, 1873. As a result of reference under Art. 53.5, it is recommended that the following three pairs of names
be treated as homonyms: Gymnoleima Decne. and Gymnolaema Benth. & Hook. f.; Calea L. and Calia Terán & Berlandier;
and Fimbristylis breviculmis Boeck. and F. breviculma Govind. As a result of reference under Art. 32.4, it is recommended
that Dipteryx oleifera Benth. be treated as validly published and that Cusparia Humboldt be treated as not validly published.
The previous report of this committee appeared in Taxon 59:
1271–1282. 2010. Those voting on proposals in this report were W. Applequist
(St. Louis), R.K. Brummitt (Kew, Secretary), G. Davidse (St.
Louis), R. de Mello-Silva (São Paulo), I. Friis (Copenhagen, Chairman),
K. Gandhi (Cambridge, Massachusetts), C.E. Jarvis (London),
R. Kiesling (Mendoza), H.-W. Lack (Berlin), H. Ohashi (Sendai),
G. Perry (Perth, W.A.), J. Prado (São Paulo), J.P. Roux (Cape Town),
P.A. Schäfer (Montpellier), A. Sennikov (Helsinki), M. Thulin (Uppsala)
and P. Vorster (Stellenbosch). A minimum of 11 votes is required
for recommendation by this committee that a proposal for conservation
or rejection of a name or publication be accepted or rejected.
Proposals to conserve or reject names
(1834) To reject Colchicum tenorei Parl. (Colchicaceae). Proposed
by R. Govaerts & K. Persson in Taxon 57: 995–996. 2008.
Votes: 14–3 (recommended).
This has to be seen alongside an earlier work by one of the proposers,
Persson (in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 127: especially p. 180. 2007). It was
argued that the original description was based on a mixture of C. cilicicum,
a species from Turkey to Syria with yellow anthers, and C. lusitanum
from Portugal which has purplish anthers. It was said by D’Amato
in 1957 that these were naturalised in Italy as escapes from cultivation.
Colchicum tenorei is said to be in current use in cultivation for a plant
name should be spelled as written by the original author. Demoulin’s
Prop. 185 (in Taxon 59: 1611. 2010), adding the phrase, “[t]he spelling
used by a sanctioning author is treated as conserved, except if it
is to be corrected or standardized under Art. 60,” to Art. 15.1, is an
outgrowth of this discussion.
which has 2n = 72 chromosomes resembling C. cilicicum – but not identical
with it – and C. cilicicum has 2n = 54 and C. lusitanum 2n = 108. In
2007 a lectotype for C. tenorei was chosen which is clearly C. cilicicum.
The latter has priority only from 1898, while C. tenorei was published
in 1860. It is unusual to propose rejection completely of a name which
is in current use, and the committee has wondered whether a conservation
proposal to typify C. tenorei with a specimen of the plant currently
under this name would have been better than the lectotypification in
2007 and proposal to reject it in 2008. However, the committee has
voted with some hesitation to recommend acceptance of the proposal.
(1835) To reject Colchicum todaroi Parl. (Colchicaceae). Proposed
by R. Govaerts & K. Persson in Taxon 57: 995–996. 2008.
Votes: 17–0 (recommended).
As in the case of C. tenorei above, it is said that the original
material was a mixture. The type cited is from Italy and not Turkey/
Syria, but it is said to be C. cilicicum. Colchicum todaroi published
in 1860 is the earlier name. Again there seems to be confusion in details,
but nobody seems to want to use C. todaroi and the committee
recommends acceptance of the proposal.
(1836) To reject Koeleria nitida Ten. (Poaceae). Proposed by
A. Quintanar & S. Castroviejo in Taxon 57: 996. 2008. Votes: 15–2
(recommended).