Advertisement

Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 261–275 | Cite as

New names inPhanerogamae 3

  • Josef Holub
Article

Abstract

New nomenclatural combinations are proposed, resulting from the adoption of a narrower concept of the generic classification unit or from necessary changes of the taxonomic rank in several taxa. A new genus—Anemonidium (Spach)Holub—is proposed inRanunculaceae. Four genera are accepted, includingChamaepitys Hill (Ajuga L. p. p.),Cota J. Gay (Anthemis L. p. p.),Euchiton Cass. (Gnaphalium L. p. p.) andRostraria Trin. (Koeleria Pers. p. p.+Trisetum Pers. p. p.).Genistella Ortega is preferred toChamaespartium Adans. In all 95 new combinations are proposed (83 for species, 11 for subspecies, 1 for a variety), including 21 inCota, 13 inRostraria, 11 inChamaepitys and 10 inEuchiton.

Keywords

Cola Folia GEOBOTANICA Infraspecific Taxon Partial Inflorescence Modern Author 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Airy Shaw, H. K. (1966): [J. C. Willis:] A dictionary of the flowering plants and ferns. Ed. 7—Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, P. W. (1972): 1.Ajuga L.—In: Flora Europaea, 3: 128–129.—Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Böcher, T. W. etLarsen, K. (1957): Cytotaxonomical studies in theChrysanthemum leucanthemum complex.—Watsonia, London, 4: 11–16.Google Scholar
  4. Briquet, J. (1913-1914): Decades plantarum novarum vel minus cognitarum. Décades 8–16.— Annuaire Conserv. Jard. Bot. Genéve, 17: 326–402.Google Scholar
  5. Čupov, V. S. (1973): Immunoelektroforetičeskije issledovanija v rodachAnemone L.,Pulsatilla Mill. iHepatica Mill.—Bot. Žurn., Leningrad, 58: 189–199.Google Scholar
  6. Cvelev, N. N. (1971): Zametki o nekotorych rodach zlakov (Gramineae) flory SSSR.—Novosti Sist. Vysšich Rast., Leningrad, 7 (1970): 42–59.Google Scholar
  7. Drury, D. G. (1970): A fresh approach to the classification of the genusGnaphalium with particular reference to the species present in New Zealand (Inuleae—Compositae).—New Zealand Journ. Bot., Wellington, 8: 222–248.Google Scholar
  8. Drury, D. G. (1972): The cluster and solitary-headed cudweeds native to New Zealand, (Gnaphalium sectionEuchiton—Compositae).—New Zealand Journ. Bot., Wellington, 10: 112–179.Google Scholar
  9. Ehrendorfer, F. [ed.] (1973): Liste der Gefässpflanzen Mitteleuropas. Ed. 2.—Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  10. Greger, H. (1970): Flavonoide und Systematik derAnthemideae (Asteraceae).—Diss. Univ. Graz.Google Scholar
  11. Holub, J. (1973a): New names in Phanerogamae 2.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 8: 155–179.Google Scholar
  12. Holub, J. (1973b): Contribution to the taxonomy and nomenclature ofLeuzea DC. andRhaponticum auct.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 8: 377–395.Google Scholar
  13. Horvatić, S. (1963): GenusLeucanthemum in flora Jugoslaviae.—Acta Bot. Croat., Zagreb, 22: 203–218.Google Scholar
  14. Ikonnikov, S. S. (1973): Zametki o gvozdiěnych (Caryophyllaceae), 1.—Novosti Sist. Vysšich Rast., Leningrad, 10: 136–142.Google Scholar
  15. Krčíková, N. (1969): Srovnávací morfologie květních nektárií některých rodů čelediLamiaceae. —Ms., [Comparative morphology of floral nectaries in some genera ofLamiaceae]. (Dipl. Práce; Katedra Bot. Přírod. Fak. Univ. Karlovy, Praha.)Google Scholar
  16. Kynčlová, M. (1970): Comparative morphology of achenes of the tribeAnthemideae Cass. (familyAsteraceae) and its taxonomic significance.—Preslia, Praha, 42: 33–53.Google Scholar
  17. Mitsuoka, S. etEhrendorfer, F. (1972): Cytogenetics and evolution ofMatricaria and related genera (Asteraceae—Anthemideae).—Österr. Bot. Zeitschr., Wien, 120: 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rechinger, K. H. (1960): Zur Flora von Syrien, Libanon und der angrenzenden türkischen Gebieten. Reliquiae Samuelssonianae VI.—Ark. Bot., Ser. 2, Stockholm, 5: 1–488.Google Scholar
  19. Schultz, C. H. (1854): Zweites Sendschreiben.—Oesterr. Bot. Wochenbl., Wien, 4: 154–156, 162–166.Google Scholar
  20. Schwarz, O. (1949): Beiträge zur Nomenklatur und Systematik der mitteleuropäischen Flora.— Mitt. Thüring. Bot. Ges., Weimar, 1/1: 82–119.Google Scholar
  21. Shinners, L. (1962): New names inArenaria (Caryophyllaceae).—Sida, Dallas, 1: 49–52.Google Scholar
  22. Smejkal, M. (1961): Taxonomická studie druhuAjuga chamaepitys (L.)Schreb. ampl.Briq. v Československu. Taxonomisches Studium der ArtAjuga chamaepitys (L.)Schreb. ampl.Briq. in der Tschechoslowakei.—Preslia, Praha, 33: 386–398.Google Scholar
  23. Soják, J. (1973): Doplňky k nomenklatuře některých rodů (Phanerogamae).—Čas. Národ. Muz., Sect. Natur., Praha, 141 (1972): 61–63.Google Scholar
  24. Soó, R. (1972): Systematisch-nomenklatorische Bemerkungen zur Flora Mitteleuropas mit Beziehungen zur südosteuropäischen Flora.—Feddes Repert., Berlin, 83: 129–212.Google Scholar
  25. Spach, E. (1845): Revisio generisGenista.—Annal. Sci. Natur., Ser. 3, Bot., Paris, 3: 102–158.Google Scholar
  26. Stafleu, F. A. et al. (1972): International Code of botanical nomenclature.—Regnum Vegetab., Utrecht, 82.Google Scholar
  27. Villard, M. (1970): Contribution á l'étude cytotaxonomique et cytogénétique du genreLeucanthemum Adans. emend.Briq. etCav.—Bull. Soc. Bot. Suisse, Wabern, 80: 96–187.Google Scholar
  28. Wagenitz, G. (1965): Zur Systematik und Nomenklatur, einiger Arten vonFilago L. emend.Gaertn. subgen.Filago (“Filago germanica”-Gruppe).—Willdenovia, Berlin-Dahlem, 4: 37–59.Google Scholar
  29. Zelený, V. (1972): No 250.Leucanthemum maximum (Ram.) DC. subsp.pannonicum Zelený, nom. provis.—Sborn. Národ. Mus., Ser. B. Natur., Praha, 27 (1971): 36–37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josef Holub
    • 1
  1. 1.Botanical InstituteCzechoslovak Academy of SciencesPr⫲honice near Praha

Personalised recommendations