Flag for Taxon: American field pansy (Viola bicolor)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bouteloua | American field pansy (Viola bicolor) |
not in POWO, unclear why |
Sep. 1, 2018 19:09:52 +0000 | kai_schablewski |
resolved, see my comment |
Comments
any reason to deviate or can we go with Viola rafinesquei?
Is rafinesquei an allowable correction for rafinesquii?
https://beta.ipni.org/n/266911-2
More nomenclatural history here https://www.jstor.org/stable/23306571 (no mention of rafinesquei though)
Based on usage in the scientific literature, Viola rafinesquii is used far more frequently than rafinesquei. But bicolor is used equally.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2015&q=Viola+rafinesquii&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44
Now in POWO (as a synonym): https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:60440710-2
Detailed notes in Ballard's Violets (Violaceae) of the Great Plains and Eastern North America https://people.ohio.edu/ballardh/vgpena/taxa/violarafinesquei.htm:
Early in the last century, the name V. bicolor Gilib. (Fl. Lit. Inch. 2: 123. 1782) was believed to invalidate the later use of the name by Pursh (Fl. Amer. Sept. 1: 175. 1813), and the use of Greene's replacement name V. rafinesquii came into vogue. Later, the International Botanical Congress placed Gilibert's publication on the list of sanctioned works, leading to rejection of the name V. bicolor Gilib. and allowing for application of the name V. bicolor Pursh for the present species. An earlier validly published use of the name Viola bicolor by Hoffman in 1804, predating V. bicolor Pursh, was recently brought to light by my friend, colleague and violet specialist Thomas Marcussen (pers. comm.) for a European violet, forcing us to return to the next available name, V. rafinesquei Greene
And, not sure which rule is being referenced, but Weakley notes "Under the ICN, the spelling of the epithet is corrected to 'rafinesquei"."
Sounds like we should go ahead with the update to V. rafinesquei. Sound good?
Sounds good to me. I'm still not being notified when other people close flags I've made, though.
I think everything has already been said. Here is another synopsis that I found on the web page http://floraofalabama.org:
"Historically this taxon has been treated as Viola bicolor Pursh (1813) which turns out to be illegitimate due to being a later homonym of V. bicolor Hoffm. (1804). Thus the oldest correct name is Viola rafinesquei Greene. Greene used the spelling "rafinesquii" but an allowable correction (according to the Code) to more closely match the honoree, Rafinesque, is used here.--B.R. Keener"
In my opinion, there is nothing to be said against this change. I have therefore decided to finally commit the taxonomic swap:
They use Viola rafinesquei Greene for this species.