Index Nominum Research Articles

Classifying species versus naming clades

The February 2004 issue of Taxon included two articles and opinion piece that either (Jorgensen, 2004) opposed development of the PhyloCode (Cantino & de Queiroz, 2003) or (Barkley & al., 2004a, b) argued that it was unnecessary to meet the needs of phylogenetic classification. Barkley & al. (2004a: 159) conducted an article by article vetting of the ICBN and concluded that it does not contain any rules that actually prevent phylogenetic classification but that clarification of a few articles is needed. To this end, Moore & al. (2004) proposed adding notes to Articles 3.1, 22.3, and 26.3 of the ICBN (Greuter & al., 2000). However, a major problem that motivated development of the PhyloCode-the inability of rank-based nomenclature to provide stable, unambiguous names for clades-was not given serious consideration by Barkley & al. (2004a, b), and the ICBN rules that cause the greatest problems (e.g., Articles 11.2, 11.3 and the various articles that mandate terminations at particular ranks) were completely ignored. In my view, the primary goals of modem systematics are to document biological diversity and place this diversity in a phylogenetic context. Stated simply, we are trying to reconstruct the tree of life and provide names for the of the tree to facilitate communication and information retrieval. The parts that are of interest to phylogenetic systematists are species and clades. It is important to discover, characterize, and name both of these kinds of entities, and the names we provide for them should be stable and unambiguous. I consider nomenclatural clarity to be just as important for clades as it is for species. While other PhyloCode supporters may have different reasons for preferring phylogenetic to rank-based nomenclature (the Linnaean nomenclature of Barkley & al., 2004a, b), my rejection of the latter is due largely to practical considerations: its inability to provide stable, unambiguous clade names, and the difficulty of naming clades as they are discovered without developing or revising a classification. These aspects of rank-based nomenclature discourage systematists from naming clades and are impediment to communication about phylogeny (Hibbett & Donoghue, 1998; Cantino, 2000). The problems with rank-based nomenclature. The instability of clade names governed by rank-based nomenclature has been pointed out repeatedly (de Queiroz & Gauthier, 1994; Cantino & al., 1997; de Queiroz, 1997; Kron, 1997; Hibbett & Donoghue, 1998; de Queiroz & Cantino, 2001; Pleijel & Rouse, 2003). To cite just one example, the subclade of Lamiaceae that is named Ajugoideae when ranked as a subfamily must be named Teucrieae if ranked as a tribe due to application of priority within rank (ICBN Art. 11.2); the oldest name at the tribal rank based on a type within this clade is Teucrieae Dumort., while the oldest such name at the subfamilial rank is Ajugoideae Kostel. (Index Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium Project DataBase; http://matrix.nal.usda.gov: 8080/star/supra genericname.html). Nothing about the clade has changed other than its arbitrary rank assignment, and the same information is provided by the name regardless of its rank. If comparably unnecessary changes were occurring in species names, the taxonomic community would not stand for it and the nomenclatural system would be changed to eliminate the instability. Not only may a clade have different names under rank-based nomenclature, but the same name is frequently applied to different clades. This may occur because different systematists choose to apply the same name to different nodes of a cladogram. For example, Urticaceae sensu Zomlefer (1994) applied to a more inclusive clade than Urticaceae sensu Judd & al. (2002), though there was no apparent disagreement about the phylogeny (Bryant & Cantino, 2002). It may also occur because ICBN Arts. 19.4 and 22.1 mandate the names that must

(1586) Proposal to conserve the name Chaetostoma pungens against Rhexia armata (Melastomataceae, Microlicieae)

TAXONVolume 52, Issue 2 p. 366-367 Proposals to Conserve or RejectsFree Access (1586) Proposal to conserve the name Chaetostoma pungens against Rhexia armata (Melastomataceae, Microlicieae) Cristiana Koschnitzke, Corresponding Author Cristiana Koschnitzke criskos@mn.ufrj.br Department of Botany, Museu Nacional/UFRJ, Quinta da Boa Vista, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrazilSearch for more papers by this authorAngela Borges Martins, Angela Borges Martins amartins@unicamp.br Department of Botany, IB, UNICAMP, P.O. Box 6109, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, BrazilSearch for more papers by this author Cristiana Koschnitzke, Corresponding Author Cristiana Koschnitzke criskos@mn.ufrj.br Department of Botany, Museu Nacional/UFRJ, Quinta da Boa Vista, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrazilSearch for more papers by this authorAngela Borges Martins, Angela Borges Martins amartins@unicamp.br Department of Botany, IB, UNICAMP, P.O. Box 6109, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, BrazilSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 May 2003 https://doi.org/10.2307/3647420AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume52, Issue2May 2003Pages 366-367 RelatedInformation

Typification of Notholaena R. Br. (Pteridaceae)

Notholaena has been accepted widely as the name for a of ferns inhabiting arid and seasonally dry habitats. Prior to 1950, a few authors, notably Mettenius (1859), Domin (1914-1915), and Copeland (1947), treated Notholaena as a synonym of a broadly circumscribed Cheilanthes Sw. Since 1950, a few authors have followed Mickel (1979) this practice, and have done so the context of various floristic projects for the pragmatic reason of avoiding having to deal with some aspects of the complex morphological variation that can confound generic recognition the cheilanthoid ferns as a whole. In most floristic and taxonomic accounts of the group from the last two centuries, authors have accepted the Notholaena. However, typification of the name and resulting taxonomic circumscription of the have remained controversial, spite of attention from highly respected pteridologists. The typification of Notholaena, variously treated as a member of Pteridaceae or Sinopteridaceae, was discussed detail by Pichi Sermolli (1983, 1989) and is summarized briefly here. When he first described Notholaena a treatise on plants of Holland [Australia], Robert Brown (1810) named three Australian species, N. distans R. Br., N. vellea R. Br., and N. pumilio R. Br. He also admitted two additional taxa from outside the region to Notholaena, namely Acrostichum marantae L. [N. marantae (L.) R. Br.] and Pteris trichomanoides L. [N. trichomanoides (L.) R. Br.]. In a cryptic statement, he implied that his concept of the extended beyond those taxa specifically mentioned [...et aliae nonnullae ineditae, (and several others, unpublished)]. Brown's brief description was sufficiently concise that it applies to all five of the original species. In fact, it is sufficiently imprecise that it could be applied to many other species of cheilanthoid ferns: Sori marginales, continui v. interrupti. Involucrum nullum (nisi setae interstinctae v. squamulae lanave frondis). Three different attempts have been made to lectotypify Notholaena, but none has yet been universally accepted. John Smith (1875) published the first of these, selecting the Antillean Pteris trichomanoides as the type, though supplying no rationale for choosing this species. Underwood (1899) chose as the lectotype Notholaena distans, which occurs Australia, New Zealand, and a few other Pacific islands. This typification has the appeal that Brown was writing on Australian plants, and N. distans is the only type suggested thus far that is referable to an Australian taxon. However, Underwood selected it only because of the stated reason that it was the first taxon listed by Brown, a method of selection that has been considered largely mechanical by the Code (Art. 10.5; Art. 10 Ex. 7, a voted example). Few authors have adopted it, although it was independently redesignated by Copeland (1947). The third attempt to typify the was Index Filicum by Christensen (1905-1906), who designated Acrostichum marantae L. as the type. Like Smith (1875), Christensen did not provide any reason for his choice. Many later authors accepted Christensen's (1905-1906) lectotypification without further investigation. For example, the Index Nominum Genericorum project (Farr & al., 1979) cited N. marantae as the generic type, referencing Index Filicum without further comment. Pichi Sermolli (1977) adopted Christensen's lectotypification his comprehensive classification of fern families and genera and later (1983, 1989) provided arguments support of this choice. He also argued to overturn the initial lectotypification by John Smith since it was based upon a misinterpretation of its original description and was established without sufficient understanding of Brown's genus (Pichi Sermolli, 1983: 112-117). This part reflects the wording of editions of the ICBN prior to the Sydney Congress 1981 (e.g., Stafleu & al., 1978: Art. 8.1), before the option of superseding had the current more stringent requirement of the first selected type being in serious conflict with the protologue (Art. 10.5 of the current edition of the ICBN Greuter & al., 2000). Pichi Sermolli took this view mainly because Brown did not mention the possibility of fronds with farinose indument, such as possessed by N. trichomanoides. We point out that the ICBN has never required that a rationale be given for the choice of lectotype, nor does it suggest that one may exclude a species (like N. trichomanoides) from consideration that possesses a trait (such as farina) differing from the condition found other species included the original circum-

(1584) Proposal to conserve the name Acacia (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae) with a conserved type

TAXONVolume 52, Issue 2 p. 362-363 Proposals to Conserve or RejectsFree Access (1584) Proposal to conserve the name Acacia (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae) with a conserved type Anthony E. Orchard, Corresponding Author Anthony E. Orchard tony.orchard@ea.gov.au Australian Biological Resources Study, GPO Box 787, Canberra, ACT 2601 AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorBruce R. Maslin, Bruce R. Maslin brucem@calm.wa.gov.au Department of Conservation and Land Management, Locked Bag 104, Bentley Delivery Centre, Western Australia, 6983 AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author Anthony E. Orchard, Corresponding Author Anthony E. Orchard tony.orchard@ea.gov.au Australian Biological Resources Study, GPO Box 787, Canberra, ACT 2601 AustraliaSearch for more papers by this authorBruce R. Maslin, Bruce R. Maslin brucem@calm.wa.gov.au Department of Conservation and Land Management, Locked Bag 104, Bentley Delivery Centre, Western Australia, 6983 AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 May 2003 https://doi.org/10.2307/3647418Citations: 67AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume52, Issue2May 2003Pages 362-363 RelatedInformation

Charles S. Peirce's philosophy of signs: essays in comparative semiotics

Preliminary Table of Contents: Introduction - Peirce Compared: Directions for Use Part I - Semeiotic as Philosophy Chapter 1. Peirce's New Philosophical Paradigms Chapter 2. Peirce's Philosophy of Semeiotic Chapter 3. Peirce's First Pragmatic Papers (1877-1878) The Postscriptum of 1893 Part II - Semeiotic as Semiotics Chapter 4. Sign: Semiosis and Representamen-Semiosis and Time Chapter 5. Sing: The Concept and Its Use-Reading as Translation Part III - Comparative Semiotics Chapter 6. Semiotics and Logic: A Reply to Jerzy Pelc Chapter 7. Semeiotic and Greek Logic: Peirce and Philodemus Chapter 8. Semeiotic and Significs: Peirce and Lady Welby Chapter 9. Semeiotic and Semiology: Peirce and Saussure Chapter 10. Semeiotic and Semiotics: Peirce and Morris Chapter 11. Semeiotic and Linguistics: Peirce and Jakobson Chapter 12. Semeiotic and Communication: Peirce and McLuhan Chapter 13. Semeiotic and Epistemology: Peirce, Frege, and Wittgenstein Chapter IV - Comparative Metaphysics Chapter 14. Gnoseology - Perceiving and Knowing: Peirce, Wittgenstein, and Gestalttheorie Chapter 15. Ontology - Transcendentals of or Without Being Peirce Versus Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas Chapter 16. Cosmology - Chaos and Chance Within Order and Continuity: Peirce Between Plato and Darwin Chapter 17. Theology - The Reality of God: Peirce's Triune God and the Church's Trinity Conclusion -Peirce: A Lateral View Bibliography Index Nominum Index Rerum

Index Nominum 2000. Medpharm Scientific Publishers, 1932 pp, ISBN 3‐88763‐075‐0. Price: DM398/EuR 203.49

Phytotherapy ResearchVolume 15, Issue 3 p. 271-271 Book Review Index Nominum 2000. Medpharm Scientific Publishers, 1932 pp, ISBN 3-88763-075-0. Price: DM398/EuR 203.49 Kaleab Asres, Kaleab Asres School of Pharmacy, Addis Ababa, EthiopiaSearch for more papers by this author Kaleab Asres, Kaleab Asres School of Pharmacy, Addis Ababa, EthiopiaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 08 May 2001 https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.820AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume15, Issue3May 2001Pages 271-271 RelatedInformation

Nomenclatural status of Carphobolus (Compositae: Vernonieae)

SummaryStrother, J. L.: Nomenclatural status of Carphobolus (Compositae: Vernonieae). – Taxon 50: 191–192. 2001. – ISSN 0040‐0262.The generic name Carphobolus dates from 1863 and is lectotypified by C. lucidus.

Lectotypification of Erythrocephalum Benth. (Compositae: Mutisieae)

Summary. The genus Erythrocephalum Benth. (Compositae: Mutisieae) is lectotypified, based on E. nutans Benth. ex Oliv. (= E. longifolium Benth. ex Oliv.). During recent work on the tribe Mutisieae for the Compositae volume of Kubitzki's Families and Genera of Vascular Plants several nomenclatural and taxonomic problems have surfaced. Recent African floristic treatments have, because of their format, omitted citation of types of genera and in consequence notes on lectotypification; such is the case with the genus Erythrocephalum Benth. (tribe Mutisieae) (Jeffrey 1967, Wild 1972, Pope 1992, Beentje 2000). Bentham (1873) merely described the genus indicating that there were 'Species 2 v. 3, ...' but omitted to cite any species names. Later the same year Oliver published Bentham's manuscript names, E. nutans and E. longifolium as 'Benth. MSS in hb. Kew' (Oliver 1873), together with a new third species E. minus Oliv. Examination of the literature and the Index Nominum Genericorum web database indicates that no lectotype has been designated. It seems appropriate to select a lectotype, which must, according to the ICBN (Greuter et al. 2000), Art. 10.2, be selected from the material available to Bentham at the time he drew up the generic description, provided it is conspecific with any of the material associated with the protologue. The only collections which were evidently available to Bentham at the time were those of Grant made between 1860 - 63 on the Speke and Grant expedition. Examination of the generic protologue provides characters allowing easy lectotypification. The last two sentences of the protologue read 'Capitulum magnum, ad apicem caulis longe pedunculatum, nutans. Corollae coccineae.' Of the three species described by Oliver (1873) (with two bearing manuscript names of Bentham) only material of E. nutans Benth. ex Oliv. satisfies the generic protologue in that its capitula are long-pedunculate and nodding (with red corollas); this was also clear in a later key (Oliver & Hiern 1877). The diagnosis of E. longifolium Benth. ex Oliv. states clearly that the capitula were erect and the description of E. minus, in a note by Grant, indicates the corollas were yellow, although all herbarium material examined by the author suggests that they are red. Jeffrey (1967) appears to be the first author to have synonymized E. nutans with E. longifolium and must therefore be followed (cf. Beentje 2000). However Pope

Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge

Illustrations Ch. 1 Stoic Seeds of Virtue and Sparks of Divinity Ch. 2 The Challenge to Christian Theologians Ch. 3 Medieval and Renaissance Vegetative Images Ch. 4 Ficino: Neo-Platonic Ascent through Love and Education Ch. 5 Italian Renaissance Humanism: Rebirth and Flowering of the Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge Ch. 6 Vegetative Language of Virtue and Vice in Discourses on the Dignity or Depravity of Humankind Ch. 7 Northern Renaissance Humanism: Cultivating and Transplanting the Seeds of Virtue and Knowledge Ch. 8 Bodin: All the Ancient Hebrews and Academics Have Held Ch. 9 Montaigne: Seeds of Virtue in Peasants and Amerindians Ch. 10 Charron: Seeds of Virtue for Virtue's Own Sake Epilogue Notes Index Nominum Index Rerum

The Index Nominum Algarum

SummarySilva, P. C. & Moe, R. L.: The Index Nominum Algarum. – Taxon 48: 351‐353. 1999. – ISSN 0040‐0262.The Index Nominum Algarum (ING) is an ongoing project with the goal of producing and maintaining an index of scientific names of algae, both living and fossil, at all ranks. Initiated by Silva in 1949, it now comprises about 180,000 entries. Although it is currently in the form of a card file housed in the Herbarium of the University of California at Berkeley, it is being converted into a database that will be searchable on‐line. Meanwhile, the cards, only about 10% of which are backed by an electronic file, have been archived as digital images on compact discs. An important by‐product of the INA is the Bibliographia Phycologica Universalis (BPU), which now comprises about 65,000 references. Both the INA and the BPU have been made available to the taxonomic community continuously since their inception.

Byzantine Scholars in Renaissance Italy: Cardinal Bessarion and Other Emigrés. Selected Essays by John Monfasani

Byzantine Scholars tn Renaissance Italy: Cardinal Bessarion and Other Emt gres. Selected Essays By John Monfasani. [Collected Studies Series.] (Brookfield, Vermont: Variorum, Ashgate Publishing Co. 1995. Pp. xii, 351.) This is the second of two collections of his articles that John Monfasani has recently published in Variorum's Collected Studies Series. The first volume, Language and Learning in Renaissance Italy, contains his articles on fifteenth-century humanism. The present volume contains fourteen articles in English and Italian on Byzantine emigre scholars in Quattrocento Italy, all previously published, including nine articles on Cardinal Bessarion and his circle. In addition to Bessarion, the volume contains studies dealing with Niccolo Perotti, Theodore Gaza, Pletho, Alexius Celadenus, Andronicus Contoblacas, Andronicus Callistus, Nicholas Secundinus, and numerous other figures. The articles are rather spottily updated in a four-page appendix, but the author adds a useful index of manuscripts and an index nominum. All of the articles display Professor Monfasani's deep learning and brilliant skills in textual and historical criticism; with their publication, he inherits Deno John Geanakoplos' place as the leading American authority on the emigration of Byzantine intellectuals to Renaissance Italy Much of this volume consists of detailed textual studies of the works of Bessarion and his `academy, including hitherto unpublished texts of Bessarion, Gaza, Callistus, and others, collations of new manuscripts of previously published texts, manuscript descriptions, paleographical data, and rich new material on the textual tradition of Bessarion's writings. There is also important new biographical information on Bessarion, Niccol6 Perotti, and Andronicus Callistus. Beyond this, we are given an intimate view of Bessarion's struggles to enter the new linguistic environment of Latin humanism. From the Council of Ferrara-Florence onwards, Bessarion's three great causes were the union of the Greek and Latin churches, the preservation of the Greek cultural heritage, and the launching of a crusade against the Turks to recover Constantinople. In order to compass these ends, Bessarion needed the ability to write persuasively in Latin and to defend, against numerous detractors, his image as a pious, orthodox, and loyal prince of the Roman Church. Though competent enough in the Italian and Kchenlatein of the papal court, Bessarion never really developed first-rate skills as a writer of Latin prose. Monfasani shows the important role played by Niccolo Perotti in translating or transforming many of Bessarion's controversial and scholarly writings into good humanistic Latin; Perotti's lost biography of Bessarion, as Monfasani demonstrates, was probably the most important source for the encomiastic biographical tradition of the great Greek cardinal that took shape after the latter's death. …

Nomenclatural Status of the Moss Grevilleanum serratum, with Notes on the Early 18th Century American Scientists, L. C. Beck and E. Emmons, Senior

From various lines of evidence, including handwriting, contemporary correspondence, and study of herbarium specimens, the holotype of Grevilleanum serratum, the name of a moss that dates from 1826, is shown to be a specimen in the Bryophyte Herbarium of the New York State Museum. The holotype of G. serratum is identical taxonomically to Timmia megapolitana Hedwig (1801), making the former name a taxonomic synonym of the latter. The bryological contributions of the authors of G. serratum, L. C. Beck and E. Emmons, are discussed. Beck's bryophyte herbarium, mentioned as the foundation of an evidently completed but unpublished early moss flora of the United States, has been located largely intact but unrecognized as such in the collections of the New York State Museum. Ebenezer Emmons, remembered today mainly for his significant contributions to stratigraphic geology, had only a passing interest in mosses; Lewis Beck, in contrast, worked extensively on mosses between about 1825 and the 1830s, although the results of his studies were largely unpublished. A new North American moss was described in 1826 by Lewis C. Beck and Ebenezer Emmons, Senior, two accomplished American scientists (and doctors of medicine). They worked mainly in the Albany, New York, region as independent investigators and in association with scientific surveys as well as educational and other scholarly institutions that had been established there or in nearby Troy. While the valid publication of Grevilleanum serratum L. C. Beck & Emmons occurred in a leading periodical, The American Journal of Science and Arts (Silliman's Journal), and the description and accompanying illustrations were remarkably complete, this moss and the application of its name have not been evaluated thoroughly by subsequent study. For example, the name is absent from the authoritative Index Muscorum (van der Wijk et al. 1969), although Grevilleanum and associated bibliographic details are listed by Farr et al. (1979) in Index Nominum Genericorum (Plantarum) and in the Index of Mosses (Crosby et al. 1992). In their Dictionary of Mosses Crosby and Magill (1981) listed Grevilleanum as family insertae sedis (taxonomic position uncertain). The holotype of Grevilleanum serratum remained obscure for reasons that are explained below. Since both Beck and Emmons had worked in Albany, and the Herbarium of the New York State Museum (NYS) is known to contain specimens of vascular plants originally in Beck's herbarium, an initial, but unsuccessful, search for the holotype was made in the Museum's Bryophyte Herbarium at the request of Marshall Crosby. This result was frustrating because Crum and Anderson (1981) reported that the type specimen had been found in the New York State Museum. However, during the preparation of a computer-supported data base consisting of information about plant specimens from Rensselaer County, New York, which is located along the Hudson River, immediately east of Albany, a candidate specimen was discovered filed with the Museum's holdings of Timmia megapolitana Hedw. This specimen was originally overlooked because the sparse label data differed considerably from information published in the protologue of Grevilleanum serratum. We have evaluated this specimen and duplicates of it, which, although located in another herbarium, were crucial in establishing that the specimen is indeed the holotype. SPECIMENS OF Grevilleanum serratum AND THEIR INTERPRETATION Our search for the holotype specimen of Grevilleanum serratum involved an analysis of the protologue, examination of three candidate specimens from the herbarium of the New York State Museum (NYS) and the W. J. Hooker Herbarium at the Natural History Museum, London, England (BM), and information contained in correspondence between L. C. Beck and W. J. Hooker, which is preserved 0007-2745/97/198-203$0.75/0 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.104 on Sun, 19 Jun 2016 06:19:52 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 1997] MILLER & McKINLEY: GREVILLEANUM SERRATUM 199

John Milton: an annotated bibliography, 1968-1988

Huckabay, Calvin and David V. Urban, comps, John Milton: An Annotated Bibliography, 1989-1999, ed. by David V. Urban and Paul J. Klemp (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2011). xv+488pp. ISBN 978 0 8207 0443 2.Compilers of annotated bibliographies can try to be comprehensive, or they can explain their boundaries of inquiry. They can attempt objectivity or announce their biases. But whatever the approach, their final product will fall short of full comprehensiveness, and will be colored, however faintly, by their perspectives and decisions. The wide variety of approaches to bibliography writing is evident in the very existence of bibliographies of bibliographies, an example of which we may find in a section of Calvin Huckabay, David Urban, and Paul Klemp's recent contribution to Milton studies. Within this treasure-house one may also find almost 500 hundred pages of meticulously compiled annotations of Milton scholarship covering the span of eleven years - an excellent example of the value of chasing the horizon of scholarly perfection.Roughly the size of its predecessor (John Milton: An Annotated Bibliography, 1968-1988, also published by Duquesne UP) and yet covering half the length of time, this bibliography represents not so much a growth spurt in Milton studies as it does an improvement in the quality and documentation of it. The volume enjoys the benefits of the experience of Huckabay, Klemp, and Duquesne University Press in similar projects, yet it is especially a labor of love from David Urban, who not only accepted the task of continuing the project at the passing of Huckabay in 2001, but also rechecked, revised, and lengthened those annotations Huckabay had begun. The result is a reference work that is similar to Huckabay's other Milton bibliographies in its attempted comprehensiveness and in avoiding passing judgment on the value of the works it annotates, and superior in its measure of success in achieving its goals through wealth of detail, uniformity among entries, and inclusion of useful quotations.David Urban tells his story in his 'Confessions of a Milton Bibliographer', reviewing the isolating and increasingly endangered task of writing a bibliography designed for print. He offers positive recommendations for the future of bibliography in Milton studies, suggesting collaboration, a greater online presence, and more frequent updating. He is aware that his project may be the last of dying breed: the first of his reflections is 'I am a dinosaur'. The pains once required to assemble a Milton concordance have been rendered obsolete with a good searchable online text; now more scholars have come to rely heavily on internet databases such as the MLA Bibliography to conduct research, even when the information provided in these databases can be relatively limited. Finding a clothbound annotated bibliography, after all, might require an inconvenient trip across the quad to a brick-and-mortar library. Why then is this a volume worth having on the shelf?First of all, it's designed to be useful. Impressive in its treatment of the mere eleven years of Milton studies it surveys, this hefty and sober book - and I've affectionately dubbed my copy 'Il Penseroso' - simplifies and expedites research for the Milton scholar. The organization of this volume is clear, sensible, and continuous with Huckabay's previous bibliographies. The annotations are divided into nine different categories: Bibliography; Biography; Editions; Translations; General Criticism and Miscellany; Criticism of Individual Works; Style and Versification; Criticism of Editions, Translations, and Illustrations; and lastly, Fame and Influence. By far the largest section is on criticism of individual works, and this section is divided into five subsections: Shorter Poems, Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, Samson Agonistes, and Prose Works. There are 2,411 entries, but some of these are duplicates under separate categories. An index nominum makes it simple not just to track down the work of particular scholars from the last decade of the twentieth century, but also to discover which historical figures were studied in light of Milton, from Addison to Zwingli. …

The taxonomy of Aloinella, Guillauminia and Lemeea (Aloaceae)

SummarySmith, G. F., Wyk, B. E. van, Mössmer, M. & Viljoen, A.: The taxonomy of Aloinella, Guillauminia and Lemeea (Aloaceae). – Taxon 44: 513‐517. 1995. – ISSN 0040‐0262.The recent reinstatement of the genera Guillauminia and Lemeea (Aloinella Lemée non Cardot) in the Aloaceae is discussed. It is concluded that both should remain in the synonymy of Aloe L.

(1088) Proposal to conserve Thujopsis Endl. against Dolophyllum Salisb. (Cupressaceae)

Endlicher (Gen. P1. Suppl. 2: 24. 1842; Syn. Conif.: 53. 1847) ascribed Thujopsis to & Zuccarini, Fl. Jap. 2, t. 119-120, ined. According to Stafleu & Cowan (in Regnum Veg. 112: 589. 1985), the date of publication of this part of the Flora japonica (vol. 2(4): 29-36, t. 116-120) is Apr-Aug 1844. Endlicher apparently received a manuscript for the Flora from Zuccarini and published their generic diagnosis (with some modifications). It is obvious, from the dates given by Stafleu & Cowan for the first five parts of volume 2 of the Flora japonica, that there was an unexpected delay in publication of nearly two years, between parts 3 and 4. Siebold & Zuccarini (Fl. Jap. 2: 34. 1844) gave a full description of the only species in the genus, Thujopsis citing dolabrata Thunb. (Fl. Jap. 2: 266. 1784) in synonymy (i.e., dolabrata Thunb. ex L. f., Suppl. PI.: 420. 1782). The holotype specimen is from Japan (C. P. Thunberg s.n., as Thuja dolabrata, UPS; vide Juel, P1. Thunb.: 70. 1918). In the early stages of a conifer checklist project, being carried out at Kew by the authors, all generic names in Index kewensis and its supplements were screened. In checking the protologue of one synonym, the second author stumbled upon Dolophyllum Salisb. (in Quart. J. Sci. Lit. Arts 2(4): 313. 1817), which had not been listed in either Index kewensis or the Index nominum genericorum (plantarum):

Lectotypification of Lactoris fernandeziana Philippi (Lactoridaceae)

SummaryLammers, T. G. & Stuessy, T. F.: Lectotypification of Lactoris fernandeziana Philippi (Lactoridaceae). — Taxon 41: 537–540. 1992. — ISSN 0040‐0262.Type material of Lactoris fernandeziana Philippi was examined and the name lectotypified. The name was found to have been published validly first in the Anales de la Universidad de Chile rather than in the place cited by Index kewensis and Index nominum genericorum (plantarum).

Santisukia, a New Generic Name in Bignoniaceae

In 1972 Dr T. Santisuk asked me to confirm that there was no objection to his naming a new genus of Bignoniaceae as Barnettia after Dr Euphemia C. Barnett. At that time I could find no reason not to do so, and the name was published in 1973. However, publication of Index Nominum Genericorum in 1970 and its Supplementum 1 in 1986 shows that there is an earlier homonym in the Fungi published by A. C. Batista & J. L. Bezerra in 1962 and the name in Bignoniaceae is illegitimate. I now have pleasure in naming the genus after Dr Santisuk, now Director of the Forest Herbarium in Bangkok, Thailand.

The Identity of Campylotrichum (Callicostaceae)

Campylotrichum acuminatum is synonymous with Lepidopilum polytrichoides. The confusion of its identity resulted from an inaccurate protologue and the mistaken belief that it was collected in Australia rather than in the New World. Brief biographical data are given for Josef Sykora (=Sikora), the Bohemian botanist who described Campylotrichum. The identity of the genus Campylotrichum Sikora has remained a mystery for over 150 years since it was described (Sikora 1836). For many years it was completely overlooked by bryological compilers. Miiller (1850-1851) seems to have been the first to have missed it, followed by Paris (1894, 1900, 1904), and Brotherus (1905-1909, 1925). Although mod- ern references-e.g., Index Muscorum and Index Nominum Genericorum--cite it, the compilers did not see the original publication and failed to note the single species, Campylotrichum acuminatum. Even when the publication was available, it failed to clarify the problem, as indicated by a handwritten note in the herbarium of the British Museum (Nat- ural History) by the famed bryologist Ernst Hampe (1795-1880). Hampe obviously had seen the pro- tologue and even copied the accompanying illustra- tion, but in his note he expressed doubt as to the reliability of Sikora's description and illustration. There are numerous sources for the confusion surrounding Campylotrichum. The obscurity of the author and his publication were the initial problem. Josef Sykora (Latinized to Sikora) was well known to his botanical contemporaries as evidenced by the citation of his specimens from the town of Stiiin by Opiz (1819-1820, 1823) and by being acknowl- edged by Opiz (1816) and Presl and Presl (1819), but we have found no publications by him other than the one under consideration here. However, there was apparently a manuscript by him entitled Beitrdige aus der Gegend von Stifin (Maiwald 1901), but it was never published and may no longer be extant. Sikora was secretary to the Earl of Salm and later secretary to the small Bohemian town of Kaunitz (=Kounice), east of Prague, and when he

THE PREHISTORY AND HISTORY OF IAPT

SummaryAn account of the pre‐1950 attempts to set up an international organization to deal with “urgent taxonomic needs” such as the coordination of the work on botanical nomenclature, the provision of guides to herbaria, collections and literature, the organization of international meetings, and the publication of a journal as the main tool to achieve these goals. The history of IAPT, founded 1950, is briefly treated, highlighting the role of the journal Taxon and the publication of the Index herbariorum, the Index nominum genericorum, and Taxonomic literature in realizing the pre‐1950 as well as several of the current needs of plant taxonomy with an emphasis on the importance of maintaining the IAPT and its Bureau for the implementation of these projects.

CORRECT APPLICATION OF GONIOPHLEBIUM (POLYPODIACEAE)

The Asian species of Polypodiaceae with a goniophleboid venation pattern, presently studied by the junior author, have been generally accommodated in the genus Goniophlebium (Blume) Presl. In the Index Nominum Genericorum (Farr et al., 1979), Pichi Sermolli retained Goniophlebium in another sense, consisting of American species. He excluded Blume's section and typified Goniophlebium by G. articulatum Presl. In a 1973 paper Pichi Sermolli explained this opinion and stated that the Asian species should be referred to Schellolepis. We cannot agree for the following reasons: Polypodium sect. Goniophlebium was published by Blume (1828). It was raised to generic rank by Presl (1836), unequivocally including a reference to Blume's section in his protologue. According to Art. 7.10 ICBN (Voss et al., 1983) a new name, formed from a previously published legitimate name is, in all circumstances, typified by the type of the basionym. Therefore Pichi Sermolli is incorrect in considering Goniophlebium as an entirely new name established by Presl. The lectotype of the generic name Goniophlebium must be provided by one of the species of Blume's section. Polypodium cuspidatum Blume non D. Don, nec Presl was designated by Copeland (1929), Farwell (1931) and Copeland (1947). Presl (1836) listed eight species, among those the three from Blume's section with question marks, denoting taxonomic doubts. He explained this with the following sentence (translated): I have not seen Blume's species, and included them only on the authority of the learned Blume. Under Art. 34.1-2 ICBN, the new combinations are validly published. Under Art. 48 ICBN, Goniophlebium Presl ex Pichi Sermolli (1973) is a later homonym, for which no substitute name is available. This is no problem, because the species concerned are generally retained in Polypodium.