|
UC/JEPS Home
Jepson eFlora home
Interchange home
|
 |
Lotus unifoliolatus (Hook.) Benth.
|
| · |
FABACEAE
·
|
Information from the Index of California Plant Names (ICPN)
|
|
Initial Editorial Analysis
11 Mar 2002
|
|
Source of Report for California
|
Kartesz & Meacham
|
|
Initial Editorial Comments
|
would be added if Lotus unifoliolatus (Hook.) Benth. var. unifoliolatus added; see comments under Lotus unifoliolatus (Hook.) Benth. var. unifoliolatus
|
|
Correspondence and Comments Subsequent to Initial Analysis
|
|
Correspondence 1
|
$ 8 Feb 2002, from Margriet Wetherwax see Comment 1
|
|
Editorial Comments 1
|
Correspondence 1 indicates author citation to be corrected to Lotus purshianus (Benth.) Ottley from Lotus purshianus (Benth.) Clem. & E. G. Clem. originally in The Jepson Manual [Ed. 1]. [The "nomenclatural steps taken by Kartesz & Gandhi"were based on a rather lengthy and complex discussion, with the conclusion that Lotus purshianus Clem. & E. G. Clem. was treated as a synonym of Lotus unifoliatus (Hook.) Benth. Evidently, the decision by MW/BGB to do just about the opposite, that is, to treat Lotus unifoliatus as a synonym of Lotus purshianus, is based on the fact that Kartesz & Gandhi did not examine type material of the two names to confirm that it belongs to the same species; in other words, it is possible they decided to act conservatively until the types can be studied. Differences between Kartesz & Gandhi and MW/BGB regarding the authorship of Lotus purshianus also are puzzling.]
|
|
Correspondence 2
|
6 Mar 2002 pers. comm. from John Strother see Comment 2
|
|
Editorial Comments 2
|
Correspondence 2 indicates agreement that Kartesz and Gandhi were correct to conclude that the correct citation is Lotus purshianus Clem. & E. G. Clem., and that a failure to consider type material leaves unanswered the question of which name to use. [According to Kartesz & Gandhi, Hosackia purshiana Benth. is superfluous and therefore illegitimate (Bentham should have used the epithet "americana", from Trigonella americana, and not "purshiana"). Because Clem. and E. G. Clem. provided not even an indirect reference to Hosackia purshiana Benth., and because Bentham's name was illegitimate, their publication of Lotus purshianus, which was otherwise both effective and valid, constitutes publication of a new species name, with priority from 1914. Thus, the correct citation is Lotus purshianus Clem. & E. G. Clem, corrected from Lotus purshianus (Benth.) Clem. & E. G. Clem, originally in The Jepson Manual [Ed. 1]. Kartesz and Gandhi also treated Lotus purshianus Clem. & E. G. Clem as a synonym of Lotus unifoliatus (Hook.) Benth., but did not cite type material in doing so, to verify that the types of the two names were conspecific. Therefore, until this determination is made, the choice of names remains unclear, even though the correct author citation of this name has been determined.]
|
|
Correspondence 3
|
Treatment and author notes submitted for The Jepson Manual [Ed. 2] by Luc Brouillet see Comment 3
|
|
Editorial Comments 3
|
Correspondence 3 does not address Lotus unifoliolatus (Hook.) Benth..
|
|
Editorial Summary and Current Status
|
|
Editorial Summary
|
possible addition, possible earlier name for taxon treated in The Jepson Manual [Ed. 1]
|
|
