Advertisement

Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 155–179 | Cite as

New names inPhanerogamae 2

  • Josef Holub
Article

Abstract

New nomenclatural combinations are proposed, necessitated mostly by the adoption of a narrower concept of the generic classificatory unit or, in some cases, by necessary changes of the taxonomic rank in several taxa. Explanatory comments on the taxonomic and nomenclatural problems are provided in the following genera:Aegonychon S. F. Gray (Lithospermum L. p.p.),Anemonastrum Holub andAnemonoides Mill. (Anemone L. p.p.),Bromopsis Fourr. (=Bromus L. p.p.),Calathiana Delarbre (Gentiana L. p.p.),Calcitrapoides Fabr. (Centaurea L. p.p.),Ciminalis Adans. (Gentiana L. p.p.),Pistolochia Bernh. (Corydalis Vent. p.p.),Psyllium Mill. (Plantago L. p.p.) andTephroseris (Reichenb.)Reichenb. (Senecio L. p.p.). In all 300 new combinations are proposed, including 17 inAnemonastrum, 32 inAnemonoides, 70 inBromopsis, 13 inCalathiana, 13 inCalcitrapoides, 29 inPistolochia, 40 inTephroseris and 25 inXanthoxalis.

Keywords

Taxonomic Rank Folia GEOBOTANICA Psyllium Involucral Bract Narrow Concept 
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. Baumberger, H. (1970): Chromosomenzahlbestimmungen und Karyotypanalysen bei den GattungenAnemone, Hepatica undPulsatilla.—Ber. Schweiz. Bot. Ges., Wabern, 80: 17–96.Google Scholar
  2. Britton, N. L. etBrown, H. A. (1913): An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British possessions. 2.—New York.Google Scholar
  3. Cronquist, A. (1943): The separation ofErigeron fromConyza.—Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, New York, 70: 629–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dandy, J. E. (1967): Index of generic names of vascular plants 1753–1774.— Regnum Vegetab., Utrecht, 51.Google Scholar
  5. Hitchcock, A. S. etGreen, M. L. (1929): Standard-species of Linnean genera of Phanerogamae (1753–54).—Intern. Bot. Congress, Cambridge (England), 1930, Nomenclature, Proposals Brit. Bot., p. 111–199.—London.Google Scholar
  6. Holub, J. (1964): 121.Colobium saxatile (Lam.) Holub.—In:Soják, J. [ed.]: Plantae Čechoslovacae exsiccatae, Cent. 2, No. 101–200.—Acta Mus. Nation. Pragae, Praha,19 B, (1963): 142–143.Google Scholar
  7. Holub, J. (1967): Neue Namen innerhalb den GattungenGentianella Moench,Gentianopsis Ma unComastoma (Wettst.)Tokoyuni.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 2; 115–120.Google Scholar
  8. Holub, J. (1968): Einige neue nomenklatorische Kombinationen innerhalb derGentianinae.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 2: 217–218.Google Scholar
  9. Holub, J. (1970a):Lamiastrum versusGaleobdolon and comments on problems of unitary designations inFabricius's work “Enumeratio methodica plantarum horti medici, helmstadiensis”.— Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 5: 61–88.Google Scholar
  10. Holub, J. (1970b): New names inPhanerogamae. 1.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 5: 435–441.Google Scholar
  11. Holub, J., Měsíček J. etJavůrková, V. (1972): Annotated chromosome counts of Czechoslovak plants (31–60). (Materials for “Flóra ČSSR”—3).—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 7: 167–202.Google Scholar
  12. Holub, J. etPouzar, Z. (1967): A nomenclatural analysis of the generic names of Phanerogams proposed byF. M. Opiz in his Seznam rostlin květeny české.—Folia Geobot. Phytotax., Praha, 2: 397–428.Google Scholar
  13. Lessing, C. F. (1832): Synopsis generumCompositarum earumque dispositionis novae tentamen monographiis multarum Capensium interjectis.—Berolini 1832.Google Scholar
  14. Linnaeus, C. (1753): Species plantarum. 1. et 2.—Holmiae.Google Scholar
  15. Löve, Á. etLöve, D. (1961): Some nomenclatural changes in the European flora I. Species and supraspecific categories.—Bot. Notiser, Lund, 114: 33–47.Google Scholar
  16. Moench, C. (1794): Methodus plantas horti botanici et agri marburgensis.—Marburgi Cattorum.Google Scholar
  17. Pilger, R. (1936):Plantaginaceae.—In:Engler, A. [ed.]: Das Pflanzenreich IV., 269, H. 102, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  18. Pouzar, Z. (1964): Nomenclatural remarks on some generic names of Phanerogams validly published by Filip Maximilian Opiz.—Preslia, Praha, 36: 337–342.Google Scholar
  19. Rauschert, S. (1969): Zur Nomenklatur der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands (II.).— Feddes Repert., Berlin, 79: 409–421.Google Scholar
  20. Rostockij, B. K. etGubanov, I. A. (1971): Nekotoryje voprosy alkaloidnosti vidovCorydalis.— Herba Polon., Poznań, 17: 396–403.Google Scholar
  21. Soják, J. (1962): Bemerkungen zu einigen Compositen. II.—Novit. Bot. Hort. Bot. Univ. Carol. Prag., Praha, (1962): 41–50.Google Scholar
  22. Soják, J. (1972): Nomenklatorické poznámky (Phanerogamae).—Čas. Národ. Muz., Ser. Natur., Praha, 140: 127–134.Google Scholar
  23. Soltoković, M. (1901): Die perennen Arten der GattungGentiana aus der SectionCyclostigma.— Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr., Wien, 51: 161–172, 204–217, 258–266 et 304–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tournay, R. (1961): La nomenclature des sections du genreBromus (Gramineae).—Bull. Jard. Bot. État Bruxelles, 31: 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academia 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josef Holub
    • 1
  1. 1.Botanical InstituteCzechoslovak Academy of SciencesPrůhonice near Praha

Personalised recommendations