Flag for Taxon: Psyllocarpus itakangapyra
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sbrobeson | kai_schablewski | Psyllocarpus itakangapyra |
it is unclear what the standing of this taxon is |
Mar. 24, 2024 21:36:03 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
Proposal to conserve the name Psyllocarpus against Tapanhuacanga (Rubiaceae: Spermacoceae): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tax.12109
Despite this proposal POWO currently accepts the species of Psyllocarpus as Tapanhuacanga: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:35432-1
On Reflora - Flora do Brasil the genus name Psyllocarpus is accepted, but Psyllocarpus itakangapyra does not appear, neither as an accepted species nor as a synonym.
Was the proposal to conserve Psyllocarpus actually accepted?
@sbrobeson @kai_schablewski :
Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 73 (07 February 2023)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tax.12871
Vote counts for proposals are given, in order, as votes for the proposal–votes against the proposal–abstentions (if any).
(2707) To conserve Psyllocarpus against Tapanhuacanga (Rubiaceae: Spermacoceae). Proposed by J.A.M. Carmo, R.M. Salas, S.V. Sobrado & A.O. Simões in Taxon 68: 869–871. 2019. Votes: 2–12–3 (not recommended).
Tapanhuacanga Vand. was published based on one of a group of drawings sent to Portugal by Joaquim Vellozo de Miranda. Vandelli did not name a species; the binomial T. brasiliensis Steud. was later published without description, but with reference to Vandelli. These names were rarely used in literature. Psyllocarpus Mart. & Zucc. is the name in use for a Brazilian genus of about a dozen species. Moraes (in Feddes Repert. 130: 19–64. 2019) identified Miranda's drawing as P. laricoides Mart. & Zucc. Carmo & al. disagree with that identification, but agree that the illustration represents some species of Psyllocarpus. Since Tapanhuacanga was an older name, Moraes published 12 new combinations and attempted to designate T. laricoides (Mart. & Zucc.) P.L.R. Moraes as type (however, T. brasiliensis had already been so designated elsewhere). Carmo & al. seek to conserve Psyllocarpus to avoid adopting an unfamiliar generic name. They also note that they believe Psyllocarpus is not monophyletic, so that some of the species should be transferred elsewhere in future; this argument does not help their case. Most of the Committee were not convinced that the generally used name is used widely enough to merit protection from the rule of priority.
Report of the General Committee: 27 (27 October 2023)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tax.13068
GC voting figures are shown after each proposal and request in the order: For the proposal – Against the proposal – Abstain – More discussion/refer back to the relevant specialist Committee.
(2707) Conserve Psyllocarpus against Tapanhuacanga (Rubiaceae: Spermacoceae) [not recommended] – rejected (1–23–1–0), i.e., the name is not conserved.
Thank you for tracking it down!
It appears that Tapanhuacanga is the accepted name then. The problem for this species therefore is that the combination was never made ("Tapanhuacanga itakangapyra" does not exist). POWO should be correct in listing this as unplaced.
I propose:
Establish Tapanhuacanga on iNaturalist. Only Psyllocarpus is currently added, but it has no documented deviation, and if that generic name was rejected for conservation then it shouldn't be used here either unless there is some other pressing reason.
Swap other species of Psyllocarpus to Tapanhuacanga.
Re-graft P. itakangapyra to Tapanhuacanga directly. Normally I would advise deactivating such an unplaced name, but it has an established observation, so should remain in use even if the correct combination is pending.
I have added the genus Tapanhuacanga and transferred the species from Psyllocarpus to this genus (incl. Psyllocarpus itakangapyra). The genus Psyllocarpus is now synonymized with Tapanhuacanga: https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1542236-Tapanhuacanga
looks good, thanks for your work. I propose leaving this flag open until the combination is made or this taxon is otherwise placed, but I guess there's nothing else to immediately do.
unplaced in POWO. there is a deviation, but it only cites the first description of this putative taxon, not a viable secondary source.
@kai_schablewski