|
Notes
:
Delprete in his study of Rustia (1999: 85-86) regarded this name published only invalidly by both Cham. & Schltdl. and Candolle. The reason for this is unclear, however, because Cham. & Schltdl. cited this name as a new variety they intended to publish and presented a full description and typification for it. Candolle's work was thus just a citation of Cham. & Schltdl.'s name.
|