ISN'T THE GENERIC NAME PART OF THE PROTOLOGUE OF A NEW SPECIES?

Abstract

concluded that the lectotypification could not be overturned. In contrast Wilbur (1987) argued that the lectotypification by Wherry could and should be rejected since 1) the inadequate illustration regrettably chosen by Wherry as lectotype was clearly of such poor quality that even as keen a botanist as Wherry and one as familiar as he was with the eastern North American flora was unable to place it its proper family, and 2) to make a choice between potential lectotypes without actually examining any of the material [is] arbitrary and consequently subject to reversal ... since the lectotype chosen by Wherry is serious conflict with the protologue and another element is available which is not conflict with the protologue, since 3) the name of the genus and its associated diagnosis is also a very significant part of the protologue and the Linnaean characterization of the genus clearly excludes a species of Ruellia. Considering the above, Wilbur then felt justified retypifying ovata as permitted by Art. 8.1(b) of the ICBN by specimen 217:10 now the Linnaean Herbarium and studied by Linnaeus prior to the publication of Species Plantarum as it was his personal herbarium. ovata 6. PHLOX foliis ovatis, floribus solitariis. Lychnidea fistulosa marilandica, clinopodii vulgaris folio, flore amplo singulari. Pluk. mant. 122.t.348. f.4. Habitat Virginia. Recently Reveal (1989) took exception to Wilbur's retypification of ovata based on Art. 8.1 (b) and argued that the Linnaean descriptive phrase Phlox foliis ovatis, floribus solitaris corresponded fully with both the Plukenet illustration designated by Wherry as the lectotype of ovata and its typotypic specimen. Reveal was clearly not impressed with Wilbur's (1987) argument that the generic name is an important part of the protologue and consequently that the description of the genus Genera Plantarum is not to be ignored sifting through the various components of the protologue. The Linnaean placement of the Class Pentandria and Ruellia the Didynamia demonstrates the wide separation the two genera would have the Linnaean classification. The actual specimens possession prior to 1753 of what was called ovata by Linnaeus were of that species of Phlox. Linnaeus placed unwarranted faith the faulty generic assignment by Plukenet (the preLinnaean Lychnidea =Phlox) and, not having seen the specimen that was the basis for Plukenet's miserable figure, had no chance of straightening out the confusion. Wherry, a monographer of the genus Phlox, did not examine the basis of the illustration and consequently did not discover the mistake although he unfortunately compounded the error of Plukenet, Linnaeus, and all previous authors by lectotypifying the Linnaean species by Plukenet's inadequate illustration. Possibly it could be argued that the specimens own herbarium entered the protologue as the locality of the species was stated to be in Virginia to which locality the specimens possession can be indirectly traced while Plukenet's account specified Maryland. It is inconceivable that Wherry would have chosen Plukenet's figure as the lectotype of ovata if he was possession of the facts discovered by Reveal et al. (1982). As stated Steam's facsimile edition (1957: 84) of Species Plantarum, Linnaeus's application of a generic name to a given species implies that this species agrees with the full generic definition given that work [Genera Plantarum ed. 5]. There are of course exceptions such as the notorious Viscum terrestre L., the basionym ofLysimachia terrestris (L.) BSP. but this case Linnaeus stated he was working with very incomplete