Home
**Manihot carthaginensis (Jacq.) Müll. Arg. Search in The Plant ListSearch in IPNISearch in Australian Plant Name IndexSearch in NYBG Virtual HerbariumSearch in Muséum national d'Histoire naturelleSearch in Type Specimen Register of the U.S. National HerbariumSearch in Virtual Herbaria AustriaSearch in JSTOR Plant ScienceSearch in SEINetSearch in African Plants Database at Geneva Botanical GardenAfrican Plants, Senckenberg Photo GallerySearch in Flora do Brasil 2020Search in Reflora - Virtual HerbariumSearch in Living Collections Decrease font Increase font Restore font
Group: Dicot Rank: species Kind: Name with Basionym Herbarium Placement: Bayer, 2nd, A, 147

Authors: Published In: Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis 15(2): 1073. 1866. (Prodr.) Name publication detailView in BotanicusView in Biodiversity Heritage Library
Annotation: From Roy Gereau, email, 26 April 2011: "It's not a question of Latin arguments or nomenclatural priority, it’s simply a matter of orthography, so it falls under ICBN Art. 60: 60.1. The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors and the standardizations imposed by Art. 60.5 (u/v or i/j used interchangeably), 60.6 (diacritical signs and ligatures), 60.8 (compounding forms), 60.9 (hyphens), 60.10 (apostrophes), 60.11 (terminations; see also Art. 32.7 ), and 60.12 (fungal epithets). None of the standardizations mentioned apply here, so we have to retain the original spelling carthagenensis unless we can conclude that it’s a typographical or orthographical error. I see from Botanicus that Jacquin did indeed spell it this way and that Müller Argoviensis accepted that spelling, so that was clearly the intent of the original and combining authors. Stearn gives “Carthagena” as the Latinized form of Cartagena and “carthaginensis” as its adjectival form, so perhaps “carthaginensis” is philologically preferable, but so what? I don’t see an exact parallel to this case in Art. 60.1 Ex. 1 (examples in which the original spelling is to be retained), but in general it’s close enough, and I say that we don’t have reasonable grounds to call this a typographical or orthographical error, so the epithet should be returned to its original spelling, not changed as on TROPICOS and IPNI."
Nomenclature Reason: orth. var.

Basionym:
!Jatropha carthagenensis Jacq. 
Nomenclaturally Correct Name:
!Manihot carthagenensis (Jacq.) Müll. Arg. 
Higher Taxa:     Taxonomy Browser
Concept:    details
Other names with  !Jatropha carthagenensis Jacq.  as basionym:
!Manihot carthagenensis (Jacq.) Müll. Arg.
Projects: VPA


 
© 2024 Missouri Botanical Garden - 4344 Shaw Boulevard - Saint Louis, Missouri 63110