AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROTOLOGUES OF NEW GENERA WITH NEW SPECIES IN FORSSKÅL'S FLORA AEGYPTIACO‐ARABICA

Abstract

SummaryIt is shown that a well‐defined scheme in agreement with the Linnaean method has been used in writing up diagnoses and descriptions of new genera with new species in the 'Descriptiones' of Forsskål's Flora Aegyptiaco‐Arabica. Frequent deviations from this scheme by the editor of Forsskål's posthumous work do not prevent us from distinguishing between generic diagnoses, generic descriptions, specific diagnoses, and specific descriptions. The specific epithet of the first new species in a new genus is often published elsewhere in the Flora. The consequences of these observations for the validity of a number of names are shown. The following names, valid under the modern Code, are dealt with in more detail: Alternanthera, with A. achyranthes; Chadara (=Grewia L., 1753), with C. tenax, C. arborea (wrongly indicated as the type of I.N.G.), and C. velutina; Charachera (=Lantana L., 1753), with C. tetragona, and C. viburnoides (wrongly indicated as the type by I.N.G.); Micrelium (=Eclipta L., 1771), with M. asteroides and M. tolak (wrongly indicated as the type by I.N.G.); Turia (=Luffa Miller, 1754), with T. sativa (lectotype, selected here), T. leloja, T. gijef, and T. moghadd. The generic names Saelanthus, Suaeda and Catha are not validly published, and as a consequence none of the specific epithets published in combination with these generic names. Zilla, with Z. myagrioides, is validly published under the present Code. The generic name Elcaja is considered validly published, but Elcaja roka is not.