Because there is no index of this information, one of most difficult tasks in nomenclature is determining who first united two equally priorable names. The basic idea has, nevertheless, long been codified, e.g., Art. 55 in Candollean Lois (Candolle, Lois de la Nomenclature, 1867) and Art. 46 of Vienna Rules (Briquet, Regles Int. Nomencl. Bot., 1906). No matter what author one thinks was first to choose between two equally priorable names, there is always a possibility that an earlier choice will be found, perhaps reversing nomenclature. A long-standing example in successive editions of ICBN, and one that became historically significant, is that of Triticum aestivum and Triticum aestivum, both published by Linnaeus in 1753 and both applying to common bread wheat. It had long been thought that choice of T aestivum by Fiori & Paoletti in 1896 was earliest, but Kerguelen (in Taxon 29: 516-517. 1980) discovered that M6rat had selected T hybernum in 1821. This became cause ce61bre that led to adoption of a provision for conservation of names of species of economic importance at Sydney Congress of 1981. The same thing happened to scientific name of another major economic crop, namely sesame, which Linnaeus treated as two species, Sesamum orientale L. (1753) with entire leaves and Sesamum indicum L. (1753) with lower leaves trifid, but which long been widely perceived as a single species. General usage was established by Candolle's choice (Prodr. 9: 250. 1845) of Sesamum indicum L., with S. orientale L. in synonymy. This usage was reinforced by influential works like Hooker's Flora of British India (4: 387. 1884) and Stapf in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. (IV.3.b: 262. 1895), as well as Index Kewensis (2: 890. 1895). However, Merrill, in his 1917 of Rumphius's Herbarium Amboinense, accepted S. orientale because it (p. 469) has page priority over more used Sesamum Saldanha & Nicolson's Flora of Hassan District (1975: 562) also accepted Sesamum orientale, citing Backer & Bakhuisen van den Brink's (Fl. Java 2: 544. 1965) assertion that first to unite species was Graham (1839) and that he adopted S. orientale. Saldanha & Nicolson (l.c.) noted that it is commonly known as S. indicum, suggesting that most workers had followed Candolle's (1.c.) acceptance of S. indicum. Nicolson, Suresh & Manilal's Interpretation of Van Rheede's Hortus Malabaricus (in Regnum Veg. 119: 207. 1988) reversed this, apparently convinced that Candolle (Pl. Rar. Jard. Geneve.: 18. 1825) had united both Linnaean species as S. indicum. The issue was thoroughly reviewed by Seegeler (in Taxon 38: 656-659. 1989) who argued that Candolle in his Plantes rares du jardin de Geneve (1825) did not actually unite Sesamum indicum and S. orientale. This is true. Candolle (p. 18) noted that catalogues of Kew Gardens, Berlin, and particularly of Calcutta, where Roxburgh knew these plants very well, maintained both species stating Je conserve donc encore les especes des auteurs... Candolle did express his preference and gave a false reason, here translated from French, I think that, if one decided to unite two species in one, name of Sesame de l'Inde, which indicates true home of plant, ought to be preferred to that of Sesame d'Orient, which only indicates usage of cultivating in Middle (... I'habitude qu'on a de la cultiver dans le Levant). Candolle equated the orient (i.e., Sesamum orientale) with Middle East (Lebanon and nearby countries), not realizing that Linnaeus clearly thought of Orient as Far East, including Ceylon (citing Paul Hermann) and Amboina (citing Rumphius), as opposed to India (indicus). Seegeler (l.c.), having made case against effectiveness of Candolle's 1825 choice, pointed out that Roxburgh (Fl. Ind. 3: 100-101. 1832) was actually first to choose between these names. He accepted only
Read full abstract
May 21, 2024
Anukul Datta 
Open Access