Taxonomic Swap 99052
(Committed on 2021-10-01)
|
|
replaced with |
|
Comments
@jdmore could potentially elaborate further, but POWO and Jepson eFLORA both recognize microtheca as the preferred spelling of the epithet.
If you go to https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/codes-proposals/index.cfm, put "Eriogonum microthec" in the Scientific Name box, click the radio button next to "b) Proposals/Requests", and hit submit, you will get a report on the proposal to conserve. In this case, the minus signs (-) next to the "Special. Comm." and "Gen. Comm." citations indicate that both committees recommended against conservation of the spelling. So it looks like we are left with microtheca.
Thanks for the link, Jim. Oh well, it doesn't sound right to me, but of course, "sound" is subjective, so it can't be a criterion in ICBN.
For sure, I may never get used to saying it that way.
There was a proposal to conserve the long-accepted (since 1858) spelling of microthecum in TAXON 63 (1), February 2014: 194 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263726678_2264_Proposal_to_conserve_the_name_Eriogonum_microthecum_Polygonaceae_with_that_spelling). I suppose that was rejected or overlooked by POWO?