Nomenclatural Corrections Research Articles

English

Linder, H. Peter (Bolus Herbarium, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa) 1997. Nomenclatural corrections in the Rytidosperma complex (Danthonieae, Poaceae). Telopea 7(3): 269–274. In a recent paper, Linder and Verboom proposed a new genus, Thonandia, but included the type of Notodanthonia Zotov in this new genus. Consequently, the species transferred to Thonandia should be under Notodanthonia, while the species placed by Linder and Verboom under Notodanthonia need a new generic name. The name Austrodanthonia Linder is proposed, and the relevant new combinations are made.

Additions and corrections to the lichen flora of the Kar Plateau, Southern Victoria Land, Antarctica

Abstract Nomenclatural corrections and species additions are provided for the published flora of the Kar Plateau, Southern Victoria Land, Antarctica. The combination Rhizoplaca priestleyi (Dodge) Seppelt is validated to accommodate Omphalodina priestleyi (Dodge) Dodge. Physcia dubia and an undetermined species of Buellia are added to the lichen flora. The lichen parasite Thelidiola caloplacae is considered referable to Muellerella. Aspicilia glacialis is confirmed for the Plateau.

New synonym ofDrosophila yakubaBurla, 1954 (Diptera: Drosophilidae)

AbstractNew biological and bibliographic information confirms that the widely accepted nameDrosophila yakubaBurla, 1954 and the unused nameDrosophila opisthomelainaare synonymous. The latter was coined by Nolte & Stoch in a 1950 work containing a disclaimer and is unavailable by strict application of Article 8b of theInternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature(3rd edn, 1985). In a previously overlooked publication, Nolte (1958) citesD.opisthomelainaas a senior synonym; the work also contains diagnostic information. Synonymy is not disputed but before 1958 the name was unavailable. ThusD. opisthomelainaNolte, 1958 is treated as a junior rather than a senior synonym ofD.yakuba.These nomenclatural corrections remove confusion concerning records of this species in southern Africa and will probably be met with general approval. The distribution in southern Africa and Madagascar ofD.yakubaand closely related species:D.melanogasterMeigen, 1830,D.simulansSturtevant, 1919 andD.teissieriTsacas, 1971, are summarized.

Stabilization in the Name of the Freshwater Gastrotrich Lepidodermella squamata, with Nomenclatural Corrections for Congeneric Species

Stabilization in the Name of the Freshwater Gastrotrich Lepidodermella squamata, with Nomenclatural Corrections for Congeneric Species

Senecio and Erechtites (Compositae) in the North American Flora: Supplementary Notes

Taxonomic and nomenclatural additions and corrections are provided to update the author’s treatment ofSenecio andErechtites inNorth American Flora II. 10: 50–142, 1978.

Studies on the Bryoflora of Macquarie Island. III. Collections, New Moss Additions and Corrections, and a Revised Checklist

A chronological history of bryophyte collections is given together with a revised checklist incorporating nomenclatural corrections, 24 species ad- ditions and several deletions. The moss flora now totals 79 species in 26 families. The first published record of the bryophytes of Macquarie Island was that of Scott (1882) from a collection he made in 1880. The collection included Dicranum robustum, D. menziesii, Bartramia elongata mixed with Jungermannia, Rhacomitrium lanuginosum, Andreaea mutabilis, Zygodon sp., Trematodon flexipes and Campylopus introflexus. Clifford (1953) suggested that Scott's Andreaea mutabilis may have been A. acutifolia. He also doubted the record of Campylopus introflexus, suggesting that this may have been C. clavatus. Trematodon flexipes and Dicranum (Dicranoloma) menziesii have not been reported since Scott's collection, and I have not located any specimens referable to these species, although a gathering I made in February 1980 may confirm the presence of the latter species. The second published record of bryophytes from Macquarie Island appeared anony- mously in the Kew Gardens Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information in 1894 (Bull. 95, p. 401). Attached to or growing among vascular plants collected by Scott in 1880 were found an additional eight bryophyte species. It was not until the Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911-14 that a further collec- tion of bryophytes was made, despite numerous earlier visits by sealing parties and oc- casional botanical parties. Unfortunately, no determinations of the bryophytes collected by the expedition appear to have been published, and I have not located the specimens. In 1930 the British, Australian and New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition (B.A.N.Z.A.R.E., 1929-31) visited the island, and eleven additional species of mosses were collected.

A CLASSIFICATION OF GOSSYPIUM L. (MALVACEAE)

The genus Gossypium has received considerable attention from botanists as a result of its well-known economic importance as a source of cotton fiber. However, continuing study of the genus has brought to light new taxa, and revealed new relationships among taxa that have yet to be incorporated into a taxonomic framework. Moreover, existing classifications, apart from this need for updating in a purely chronological sense, all have significant flaws that the present treatment hopes to correct. The first comprehensive taxonomic study of the genus was that of Todaro (1863, 1877). His important contributions were followed by a major treatise by Watt (1907), a significant conceptual advance by Zaitzev (1928) and Mauer (1930), and such relatively modern works as those by Hutchinson (1947), Prokhanov (1947), Wouters (1948), Roberty (1942, 1946, 1950), and Mauer (1950, 1954). Hutchinson's (1947) treatment is perhaps the most widely used and generally accepted of the modern treatments because it is useful i.e., it is in broad outline conceptually sound. Yet, many problems have resulted from its nomenclatural inadequacy. The treatments of Wouters (1948) and Mauer (1954) are generally quite similar to that of Hutchinson in these respects. On the other hand, the classifications presented by Prokhanov (1947) and Roberty (1942, 1946, 1950) have in general a technically satisfactory nomenclature, but are structurally so chaotic as to be neither conceptually adequate nor useful. It is my intention to provide in outline form a nomenclatural basis for a taxonomic view of Gossypium that differs only by minor modifications from the views presented by Hutchinson (1947) and Mauer (1954). In addition to simple up-dating and nomenclatural corrections in both cases, my treatment differs from that of Hutchinson principally in providing a more detailed infra-generic breakdown that more sensitively reflects known relationships, in changing certain species alignments (e.g., G. armourianum, G. harknessii, G. gossypioides, G. areysianum), nd in including the several Australian species of section Hibiscoidea that he omitted; my treatment differs from that of Mauer principally in changing certain species limits (e.g., the recognition of G. thurberi, the reduction of G. ellenbeckii and G. californicum), and in the exclusion of G. bakeri Watt [= Senra bakeri (Watt) Prokh.] and of section Thespesiastra Tod., which has been shown (Fryxell 1965) to belong in Thespesia Sol. ex Corr. These views lean heavily upon cytogenetic findings, as well as upon geographical and morphological criteria. Indeed, these three kinds of data are strongly correlated. The tetraploid species are separated at the subgeneric level (subgenus Karpas), and the remaining diploid species are segregated into three additional subgenera, coordinate with the major continental divisions of the genus, as follows: subgenus Sturtia Australia; subgenus Gossypium Africa; and subgenus Houzingenia the Americas. Full synonymies are given for all of the taxa, except for the four species that are in cultivation: 21. G. herbaceum L., 22. G. arboreum L., 33. G. hirsutum L., and 34. G. barbadense L. The nomenclature of these four species is too complex and involves too many unresolved problems to be included at this time. Continuing study is being devoted to these questions (e.g., Fryxell 1968, 1969), and a monographic treatment is projected. * Geneticist, Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Departmen of Agriculture, College Station, Texas.