Reinstatement of an alleged nomen confusum and Typification of Givotia Griff. (Euphorbiaceae)

Abstract

A reevaluation of the nomenclatural status of Givotia rottleriformis points to the desirability of restoring the Linnaean epithet moluccanum to this species. Givotia Griff. (Calc. J. Nat. Hist. 4: 388. 1844) is a small genus of four species confined to India, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Madagascar and Eastern Equatorial Africa. For a detailed treatment of the genus the reader is referred to Smith (I968). accept his taxonomic opinions and at the same time intend to show that his choice of the name Givotia rottleriformis for the type species of the genus (and Wall. Cat. No. 78igC as the lectotype of G. rottleriformis) is contrary to the provisions of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. When Griffith (1844) described the genus Givotia he did not indicate any species as definitely belonging to it. He described only the genus and not the species. The publication of G. rottleriformis should be credited to Wight (1852) the first person to use the binomial in such a way as to satisfy the provisions of the Code. Wallich's Catalogue No. 78igC as lectotype for this name seems inappropriate to me even if it can be shown that Wight had access to this specimen. From Wight's description get the unmistakable impression that he based his description and plate on his own specimens. is my opinion that one of Wight's specimens should be chosen as lectotype and refrain from doing this myself because have not yet seen all of Wight's specimens. do not agree with Smith in his rejection of the Linnaean name Croton moluccanum which has priority over Givotia rottleriformis. Smith argues (p. 504) that there is some confusion because under C. moluccanum Linnaeus refers to the Hermann specimens and to the Nux juglans moluccana bifida of Burman which is not Givotia rottleriformis. The confusion is probably the result of attaching too much importance to descriptions even when they are pre-Linnaean and quite useless. Not very long ago Proskauer (I968) strongly and convincingly criticised this relict from the pre type-method days. The name Croton moluccanum can be easily lectotypified since Linnaeus definitely based most of the names in his Flora Zeylanica on Hermann's specimens and his treatment of C. moluccanum in Species Plantarum is essentialy the same as in his Flora Zeylanica (see also Steam, I957, p. II9). Trimen (1887) writing on Hermann's Ceylon Herbarium and Linnaeus' Flora Zeylanica remarks (p. 132, 133): It must be confessed that Linnaeus has rendered some of his species obscure by erroneous synonymy; in working out the 'Flora Zeylanica' he evidently endeavoured to embody as much as possible of what had been previously published of the plants of the 'East Indies' generally; and he has not infrequently given under the Ceylon species synonyms and references which belong to quite different Indian or Javan plants. In most though not all, of these cases think it must be allowed that Hermannian specimens should determine what was the plant intended by Linnaeus rather than his book references. On 346. Croton moluccanum Sp. Ioo5 he further remarks (p. Io5): I do not feel sure as to the determination of this specimen, but believe it to be Givotia. is certainly not Mallotus moluccanus Muell.-Arg., to which that author says (DC. Prod. XV. 2, p. 958) the specimen of Croton molucc. in Hb. Linn. is to be referred. Since Smith definitely