Compositae name details
Niebuhria Neck. ex Britten
1078419 (urn:lsid:marinespecies.org:taxname:1078419)
unaccepted
Genus
- Species Niebuhria biflora Britten (uncertain > unassessed)
(1901). The Journal of Botany 39 [details]
LSID urn:lsid:compositae.org:names:67EEC74F-FA2E-4A81-97FF-ACDDEA9393BD
Status Necker's names are not acceptable (see Code Art. 20) thus the Genus must date from the next use. Nom. illeg. non Scop. (1777).
Taxonomy Britten noted that Niebuhria Scop. (1777) and Niebuhria DC. (1824) had become synonyms. He thought that Niebuhria Neck....
LSID urn:lsid:compositae.org:names:67EEC74F-FA2E-4A81-97FF-ACDDEA9393BD [details]
Status Necker's names are not acceptable (see Code Art. 20) thus the Genus must date from the next use. Nom. illeg. non Scop. (1777).
Status Necker's names are not acceptable (see Code Art. 20) thus the Genus must date from the next use. Nom. illeg. non Scop. (1777). [details]
Taxonomy Britten noted that Niebuhria Scop. (1777) and Niebuhria DC. (1824) had become synonyms. He thought that Niebuhria Neck....
Taxonomy Britten noted that Niebuhria Scop. (1777) and Niebuhria DC. (1824) had become synonyms. He thought that Niebuhria Neck. (1790) therefore had become available again. If such a reasoning was acceptable under the Rules current then, it certainly is not now. However, the name and the combinations under it were validly published by Britten as he gave a reference to the generic description of Wedelia Jacq. (1760), nom. cons. contra Loefl. (1758) and references to the specific basionyms of the two species he included. While Niebuhria Britten is illegitimate as it is a later homonym of Scopoli's, the the specific combinations are legitimate. As Britten intended his new name to replace that of Jacquin, it is homotypic with that. He did not make the necessary combination for its type, Wedelia fructicosa Jacq., although he was familiar with the concept (p. 68), as he was concerned with Australian species, only. [details]
Compositae Working Group (CWG) (2021). Global Compositae Database. Niebuhria Neck. ex Britten. Accessed at: https://www.compositae.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1078419 on 2024-11-22
Date
action
by
original description
(1901). The Journal of Botany 39 [details]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
Unreviewed
Contributed data: Authors Data only shown for fields conflicting with the consensus taxon recordNeck. ex Britt. [Kadereit & Jeffrey 2007]
Necker ex J. Britten [CONABIO] [details]
Contributed data: Full Name Data only shown for fields conflicting with the consensus taxon record
Niebuhria Neck. ex Britt. [Kadereit & Jeffrey 2007]
Niebuhria Necker ex J. Britten [CONABIO] [details]
Contributed data: Published Data only shown for fields conflicting with the consensus taxon record
J. Bot. 39 [Flora Malesiana]
J. Bot. 39: [Tropicos] [details]
LSID urn:lsid:compositae.org:names:67EEC74F-FA2E-4A81-97FF-ACDDEA9393BD [details]
Status Necker's names are not acceptable (see Code Art. 20) thus the Genus must date from the next use. Nom. illeg. non Scop. (1777). [details]
Taxonomy Britten noted that Niebuhria Scop. (1777) and Niebuhria DC. (1824) had become synonyms. He thought that Niebuhria Neck. (1790) therefore had become available again. If such a reasoning was acceptable under the Rules current then, it certainly is not now. However, the name and the combinations under it were validly published by Britten as he gave a reference to the generic description of Wedelia Jacq. (1760), nom. cons. contra Loefl. (1758) and references to the specific basionyms of the two species he included. While Niebuhria Britten is illegitimate as it is a later homonym of Scopoli's, the the specific combinations are legitimate. As Britten intended his new name to replace that of Jacquin, it is homotypic with that. He did not make the necessary combination for its type, Wedelia fructicosa Jacq., although he was familiar with the concept (p. 68), as he was concerned with Australian species, only. [details]
