Mammillaria Forum

Discussion Forum about Mammillaria, Coryphantha and Escobaria
 
HomeHome  GalleryGallery  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share
 

 v. zacatecasensis

Go down 
AuthorMessage
maurillio



Number of posts : 2614
Age : 65
Location : Modena - Italia
Registration date : 2009-12-20

v. zacatecasensis Empty
PostSubject: v. zacatecasensis   v. zacatecasensis Icon_minitimeSun Jan 18, 2015 11:08 am

Is really strange that the same ephitet was used for two different plants...
N.#1
SB 342 - Mammillaria jaliscana ssp. zacatecasensis

v. zacatecasensis Jalisc10



N.#2
REP 973 - Mammillaria verticealba v. zacatecasensis

v. zacatecasensis Vertic10


Last edited by maurillio on Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris43
Moderator
Moderator
Chris43

Number of posts : 1718
Age : 76
Location : Chinnor, UK
Registration date : 2008-07-16

v. zacatecasensis Empty
PostSubject: Re: v. zacatecasensis   v. zacatecasensis Icon_minitimeSun Jan 18, 2015 4:16 pm

I think you'll find that in the plant world, there are many varietal or subspecies names, even forma names, which relate to the place where the plant was found. I don't know whether in these two cases, the zacatecasensis refers to the city or the state.
The code that defines what is allowed and not allowed in plant naming, the ICBN, doesn't prohibit the use of the same epithet in this case.

_________________
Chris43, moderator
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.woodedge.me.uk/index.html
delandmo



Number of posts : 282
Age : 73
Location : Sutton, Surrey.
Registration date : 2011-06-05

v. zacatecasensis Empty
PostSubject: Re: v. zacatecasensis   v. zacatecasensis Icon_minitimeMon Jan 19, 2015 3:10 pm

jaliscana subsp. zacatecasensis. According to Pilbeam this variant was reported from the State of Zacatecas at 1,400 to 2,600m altitude, specifically from the mountains near the city of Zacatecas and surrounding areas.

M. verticealba var. zacatecasensis. Now more commonly know as rhodantha subsp. mccartenii. seems to originate from the states of Michoacan and Zacatecas at 1,800 to 2,000m alitude.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
maurillio



Number of posts : 2614
Age : 65
Location : Modena - Italia
Registration date : 2009-12-20

v. zacatecasensis Empty
PostSubject: Re: v. zacatecasensis   v. zacatecasensis Icon_minitimeFri Jan 23, 2015 6:34 pm

Chris says that "the ICBN, doesn't prohibit the use of the same epithet in this case."
Are there other similar examples?
I do not remember other....
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris43
Moderator
Moderator
Chris43

Number of posts : 1718
Age : 76
Location : Chinnor, UK
Registration date : 2008-07-16

v. zacatecasensis Empty
PostSubject: Re: v. zacatecasensis   v. zacatecasensis Icon_minitimeFri Jan 23, 2015 6:55 pm

The specific rule in the ICBN is below, and it is Note 1 at the end which is the key phrase:

24.4.  The use of a binary combination instead of an infraspecific epithet is not admissible. Art. 32.1(c) notwithstanding, names so constructed are validly published but are to be altered to the proper form without change of the author citation or date. Ex.5.  Salvia grandiflora subsp. “S. willeana” (Holmboe in Bergens Mus. Skr., ser. 2, 1(2): 157. 1914) is to be cited as S. grandiflora subsp. willeana Holmboe.
Ex.6.  Phyllerpa prolifera var. “Ph. firma” (Kützing, Sp. Alg.: 495. 1849) is to be altered to P. prolifera var. firma Kütz.
Note 1.  Infraspecific taxa within different species may bear names with the same final epithet; those within one species may bear names with the same final epithet as the names of other species (but see Rec. 24B.1).


However, I cannot think of another example within Mammillaria.

_________________
Chris43, moderator
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.woodedge.me.uk/index.html
maurillio



Number of posts : 2614
Age : 65
Location : Modena - Italia
Registration date : 2009-12-20

v. zacatecasensis Empty
PostSubject: Re: v. zacatecasensis   v. zacatecasensis Icon_minitimeThu Nov 26, 2015 8:16 pm

Another case can be the use of the epithet papasquiarensis.

Field number: LAU 1073
Collector: Alfred Bernhard Lau
Species: Mammillaria tesopacensis v. papasquiarensis
Locality: Penon Blanco, South of Nazas, Durango, Mexico

Field number: ROG 305
Collector: Helmut Rogozinski
Species: Mammillaria aff. papasquiarensis
Locality: San Juan del Rio, Durango, Mexico

Field number: ROG 307
Collector: Helmut Rogozinski
Species: Mammillaria papasquiarensis
Locality: Cerro Blanco, Durango, Mexico


ROG 305 and ROG 307 are not v. of M. tesopacensis i think........




Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris43
Moderator
Moderator
Chris43

Number of posts : 1718
Age : 76
Location : Chinnor, UK
Registration date : 2008-07-16

v. zacatecasensis Empty
PostSubject: Re: v. zacatecasensis   v. zacatecasensis Icon_minitimeThu Nov 26, 2015 9:13 pm

I've always thought of M. tesopacensis as a plant from Tesopaco in Sonora, and papasquiarensis as a form of M. grusonii.

I don't have a plant of Lau 1073, but if the documented location is right, then I don't think it can be related to tesopacensis. Since the location Penon Blanco and Rogo's Caeero Blanco are the same place, and also south of Nazas, these must all be the same plant, regardless of given name, but not tesopacensis of any form!. Does anyone have a photo of Lau 1073, ideally with flower?

_________________
Chris43, moderator
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.woodedge.me.uk/index.html
maurillio



Number of posts : 2614
Age : 65
Location : Modena - Italia
Registration date : 2009-12-20

v. zacatecasensis Empty
PostSubject: Re: v. zacatecasensis   v. zacatecasensis Icon_minitimeThu Nov 26, 2015 9:32 pm

From the "Journal":



COMMENTS ON "FIRST IMPRESSIONS" BY PETER NANCE
by R.C. Stanley
In the above article, (Mamm. Soc. J. Aug, 1984), Peter mentions Lau 1073 - M.tesopacensis v. papasquiarensis which has a rather confusing history". J.Pilbeam listed it in his Lau field number articles as M.'zeyeriana and I grew plants from Kohres seed as M.wagneriana back in 1978. Nurseries in more recent times have offered the plant as M.tesopacensis v, papasquiarensis.
Dr. Lau cleared up the true identity of this species in a letter to me:
I quote, "Lau 1073 is M.tesopacensis v. Papasquiarensis, published by Dr. Helia Bravo. However, the plant has nothing to do with M.tesopacensis but rather with M.zeyeriana. The idea of M.zeyeriana came from Dr. Schreier and M.wagneriana from Mr. Reppenhagen. Then Charles Glass reminded me of the article that Dr.Bravo had written with a publication that fits Lau 1073".
I also enjoy growing the so called Sp. Nova and have "discovered" many interesting highly attractive forms of well known species. It gives added variety to the collection and is such a delight to see see grown plants, completely "unknown" plants, grow large Enough to enable one to play the game of identifying them.



My LAU 1073

v. zacatecasensis 4008-210


v. zacatecasensis 4008-211

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris43
Moderator
Moderator
Chris43

Number of posts : 1718
Age : 76
Location : Chinnor, UK
Registration date : 2008-07-16

v. zacatecasensis Empty
PostSubject: Re: v. zacatecasensis   v. zacatecasensis Icon_minitimeSat Nov 28, 2015 1:57 pm

Well found! its certain that they aren't tesopacensis anything!

_________________
Chris43, moderator
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.woodedge.me.uk/index.html
Sponsored content




v. zacatecasensis Empty
PostSubject: Re: v. zacatecasensis   v. zacatecasensis Icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
v. zacatecasensis
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Mammillaria Forum :: MAIN SECTION :: Comments-
Jump to: