|
Notes
:
This was long considered the place of publication of this name, because Bentham said here that Exostema australe is a species of Bathysa. However Hooker here did not explicitly state the combination there "Bathysa australis", which is required by the Code of Nomenclature for valid publication of a new combination. Therefore this name was not validly published here, but later by Schumann in the Flora Brasiliensis. In the Melbourne Code see Art. 35.2, and the explanation in its Ex. 6.
|