Paper · 2024 · Taxon

Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 75

Wendy L. Applequist

14
claims
14
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Summary Rejection of the subfamily name Crassulaceae subfam. Cotyledonoideae is not recommended. Conservation of the following 10 generic names is recommended: Ampelopsis with conserved type, Aria vs. Chamaemespilus and Torminalis , Bituminaria with conserved type, Dennstaedtia with conserved type, Klukia Racib. vs. Klukia Andrz. ex Besser, Osmelia vs. Stachycrater , Pycnarrhena vs. Antitaxis , Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke vs. Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck, Triraphis with conserved type, and Vella with conserved type. The following two generic names are not recommended for conservation: Lycaste vs. Anguloa and Xylobium and Mitrella vs. Pyramidanthe . The generic name Pacoseroca is recommended for rejection. The following 33 species names are recommended for conservation: Acalypha multicaulis vs. A. pruriens and A. ruderalis , Anethum segetum with conserved type, Bromus retusus vs. B. plukenetii , Cacao sylvestris with conserved type, Citrus reticulata with conserved type, Clerodendrum umbellatum with conserved type, Cycas riedlei Fisch. ex Gaudich. vs. C. riedlei Dum. Cours., Dendrobium officinale vs. D. catenatum , Dicksonia bipinnata with conserved type, Engelhardia roxburghiana with conserved type, Iris latifolia (Mill.) Voss vs. I. latifolia Heer, Isoetes sahyadrii with conserved type, Juncus acuminatus Michx. vs. J. acuminatus Balb., Kalanchoe rosei vs. K. bouvieri , Larrea nitida vs. Mimosa balsamica , Lilium humboldtii vs. L. puberulum , Loasa rudis vs. L. rhoeadifolia , Magnolia oblonga (Wall. ex Hook. f. & Thomson) Figlar vs. M. oblonga M. Chandler, Malus domestica vs. M. sylvestris , Myagrum paniculatum with conserved type, Oxalis eckloniana C. Presl vs. O. eckloniana F. Dietr. and O. bifolia , Phyllanthus claussenii with conserved type and vs. P. udicola , Phyllanthus flagelliformis vs. P. eurisladro , Phyllanthus klotzschianus vs. P. robustus , Prunus maackii vs. P. glandulifolia , Quercus frainetto vs. Q. conferta , Quercus pacifica Nixon & C.H. Mull. vs. Q. pacifica Knowlt., Ranunculus trichophyllus vs. R. peucedanifolius , Rubus ulmifolius vs. R. creticus , R. vulgaris , and R. inermis , Sida albida with conserved type, Solanum nitidibaccatum vs. S. stylesianum and Bosleria nevadensis , Thymus microphyllus with conserved type, and Valeriana scouleri with conserved type. The following five species names are not recommended for conservation: Aspidium devexum vs. A. membranaceum , Croton fuscescens vs. C. gnaphaloides , Daphniphyllum oldhamii vs. D. pentandrum , Rhododendron myrtifolium Schott & Kotschy vs. R. ×myrtifolium G. Lodd. ex Bosse, and Teucrium microphyllum vs. T. quadratulum . A proposal to conserve Echinocactus williamsii vs. E. williamsianus is noted to be unnecessary. The following 17 species names are recommended for rejection: Bryophyllum triangulare , Callitriche foliosa , Callitriche spuria , Commelina nimmoniana , Cuscuta aggregata , Dendrobium brownii , Eriostemon trinervis , Genista multicaulis , Grewia oppositifolia , Kalanchoe aleurodes , Marcgravia jacquinii , Narcissus flavus , Pereskia glomerata , Salsola coquimbana , Taxodium huegelii , Tulipa urumiensis , and Ulostoma filamentosum . The species name Thymus marschallianus is not recommended for rejection. It is recommended that the names Parisia and Parrisia not be treated as homonyms. The Committee recommends against making a binding decision on whether Silene dicolor and Silene discolor should be treated as homonyms, since they clearly should not be. It is recommended that Aethionema kopetdaghi be treated as validly published and that Anthurium ×macrolobum be treated as validly published by W. Bull ex T. Moore & Mast. (or Anon.). The Committee recommends against making a binding decision regarding the adequacy of the descriptive statement of Rhododendron humicola .

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 14

Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee recommends retaining the subfamily name Crassulaceae subfam. Cotyledonoideae.

Taxon
CrassulaceaeCrassulaceaee0
Outcome
Rejection of the subfamily name Crassulaceae subfam. Cotyledonoideae is not recommendede0

Verbatim

e0

“Rejection of the subfamily name Crassulaceae subfam. Cotyledonoideae is not recommended.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 8–96 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee recommends conservation of ten generic names.

Taxon
AmpelopsisAmpelopsise0
Outcome
Conservation of the following 10 generic names is recommendede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Ampelopsis
Ampelopsis · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryIsasza · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Conservation of the following 10 generic names is recommended: Ampelopsis with conserved type, Aria vs. Chamaemespilus and Torminalis , Bituminaria with conserved type, Dennstaedtia with conserved type, Klukia Racib. vs. Klukia Andrz. ex Besser, Osmelia vs. Stachycrater , Pycnarrhena vs. Antitaxis , Tetraphyllum Griff. ex C.B. Clarke vs. Tetraphyllum Hosius & Marck, Triraphis with conserved type, and Vella with conserved type.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 97–527 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee advises against conservation of two generic names.

Taxon
LycasteLycastee0
Outcome
not recommended for conservatione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lycaste
Lycaste · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Orchi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The following two generic names are not recommended for conservation: Lycaste vs. Anguloa and Xylobium and Mitrella vs. Pyramidanthe .”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 528–662 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee recommends rejecting Pacoseroca.

Taxon
Pacoserocae0
Outcome
recommended for rejectione0

Verbatim

e0

“The generic name Pacoseroca is recommended for rejection.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 663–720 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee recommends conserving 33 species names.

Taxon
Acalypha multicaulisAcalypha multicaulise0
Outcome
recommended for conservatione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Acalypha multicaulis
Acalypha multicaulis · TaxonAlex Popovkin, Bahia, Brazil from Brazil · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The following 33 species names are recommended for conservation: Acalypha multicaulis vs. A. pruriens and A. ruderalis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 721–839 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee advises against conservation of five species names.

Taxon
Aspidium devexume0
Outcome
not recommended for conservatione0

Verbatim

e0

“The following five species names are not recommended for conservation: Aspidium devexum vs. A. membranaceum , Croton fuscescens vs. C. gnaphaloides , Daphniphyllum oldhamii vs. D. pentandrum , Rhododendron myrtifolium Schott & Kotschy vs. R. ×myrtifolium G. Lodd. ex Bosse, and Teucrium microphyllum vs. T. quadratulum .”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2330–2650 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee considers conservation of Echinocactus williamsii unnecessary.

Taxon
Echinocactus williamsiiLophophora williamsiie0
Outcome
unnecessarye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lophophora williamsii
Lophophora williamsii · TaxonDav Hir · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A proposal to conserve Echinocactus williamsii vs. E. williamsianus is noted to be unnecessary.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2651–2746 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee recommends rejecting 17 species names.

Taxon
Bryophyllum triangularee0
Outcome
recommended for rejectione0

Verbatim

e0

“The following 17 species names are recommended for rejection: Bryophyllum triangulare , Callitriche foliosa , Callitriche spuria , Commelina nimmoniana , Cuscuta aggregata , Dendrobium brownii , Eriostemon trinervis , Genista multicaulis , Grewia oppositifolia , Kalanchoe aleurodes , Marcgravia jacquinii , Narcissus flavus , Pereskia glomerata , Salsola coquimbana , Taxodium huegelii , Tulipa urumiensis , and Ulostoma filamentosum .”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2747–3183 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee advises against rejecting Thymus marschallianus.

Taxon
Thymus marschallianusThymus marschallianuse0
Outcome
not recommended for rejectione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Thymus marschallianus
Thymus marschallianus · TaxonDegoleX · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The species name Thymus marschallianus is not recommended for rejection.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3184–3256 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee recommends treating Parisia and Parrisia as distinct rather than homonyms.

Taxon
ParisiaParisiae0
Outcome
not be treated as homonymse0

Verbatim

e0

“It is recommended that the names Parisia and Parrisia not be treated as homonyms.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3257–3338 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee recommends against a binding homonym decision for Silene dicolor and Silene discolor.

Taxon
Silene dicolore0
Outcome
against making a binding decisione0

Verbatim

e0

“The Committee recommends against making a binding decision on whether Silene dicolor and Silene discolor should be treated as homonyms, since they clearly should not be.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3339–3508 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee recommends treating Aethionema kopetdaghi as validly published.

Taxon
Aethionema kopetdaghiAethionema kopetdaghie0
Outcome
validly publishede0

Verbatim

e0

“It is recommended that Aethionema kopetdaghi be treated as validly published”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3509–3585 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee recommends treating Anthurium ×macrolobum as validly published.

Taxon
Anthurium ×macrolobume0
Outcome
validly publishede0

Verbatim

e0

“Anthurium ×macrolobum be treated as validly published by W. Bull ex T. Moore & Mast. (or Anon.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3595–3690 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The committee recommends against a binding decision about the description of Rhododendron humicola.

Taxon
Rhododendron humicolae0
Outcome
against making a binding decisione0

Verbatim

e0

“The Committee recommends against making a binding decision regarding the adequacy of the descriptive statement of Rhododendron humicola .”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3692–3829 · show in text ↑