Notes
:
Delprete in his study of Rustia (1999: 85-86) regarded this name as first published validly by Candolle in 1830, and he explicitly regarded the publication of Exostema formosum by Cham. & Schltdl. to be an invalid nom. nud. The reason for this is unclear, however, because Cham. & Schltdl. cited this name as a new species they intended to publish and presented full descriptions of the two varieties of it that they also named, along with typification for each. Candolle's work was thus just a citation of Cham. & Schltdl.'s name. Delprete also chose Exostema formosum var. laeve as the typical variety of Exostema formosum.
|