Compositae taxon details
Lepidophorum Neck. ex Cass.
- Species Lepidophorum repandum (L.) DC.
- Species Lepidophorum grisleyi (Samp.) Samp. accepted as Lepidophorum repandum (L.) DC.
- Species Lepidophorum grisleyi g.sampato ex Pereira (uncertain > unassessed)
Dict. Sci. Nat. 29: 180, 186
page(s): 180, 186 [details]
page(s): 180, 186 [details]
LSID urn:lsid:compositae.org:names:AE8C117A-1DF5-4B97-B4A1-D258337DBAF9
Taxonomy Notes from Flann et al. 2010 Taxon 59: Type - Anthemis repanda L., L. repandum (L.) DC.) Notes: Lepidophorum is frequently...
LSID urn:lsid:compositae.org:names:AE8C117A-1DF5-4B97-B4A1-D258337DBAF9 [details]
Taxonomy Notes from Flann et al. 2010 Taxon 59: Type - Anthemis repanda L., L. repandum (L.) DC.) Notes: Lepidophorum is frequently...
Taxonomy Notes from Flann et al. 2010 Taxon 59: Type - Anthemis repanda L., L. repandum (L.) DC.) Notes: Lepidophorum is frequently given as published by Candolle (1838), but Cassini is much earlier. The name is based on Necker’s (1790) ‘species naturalis Lepidophorum’. Not only are the various issues of Necker’s Elementa botanica now listed among the oppressed works unavailable as sources of generic names, but his ‘species naturales’ are to be considered as species, so that reference to their descriptions cannot effect the valid publication of subsequent generic names (ICBN, Art. 41.2, Art. 20 Note 2, App. VI). Therefore, Cassini’s mention of ‘Lepidophorum. Neck.’ in a list of genera (l.c., p. 180, where the type element is specified) does not by itself establish the name; but on a later page (p. 186) descriptive matter is present, so that it is validly published there. Some may perhaps have regarded Lepidophorum Cass. as a provisional name (ICBN, Art. 34.1(b)) on account of Cassini’s statement ‘ce genre... n’appartient peut-être pas à la tribu des anthémidées, dans laquelle pourtant nous l’admettons provisoirement et avec doute’. The ‘provisional and doubtful acceptance’ does not, however, refer to the genus as such but to its tribal placement. [details]
Compositae Working Group (CWG) (2021). Global Compositae Database. Lepidophorum Neck. ex Cass.. Accessed at: https://www.compositae.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1076773 on 2024-05-01
Date
action
by
original description
Dict. Sci. Nat. 29: 180, 186
page(s): 180, 186 [details]
page(s): 180, 186 [details]
Present Inaccurate Introduced: alien Containing type locality
From other sources
Contributed data: Authors Data only shown for fields conflicting with the consensus taxon recordDC. [Euro+Med]
Neck. ex DC. [Funk et al. 2009]
Neck. ex DC. [Kadereit & Jeffrey 2007]
Necker ex DC. [Tropicos] [details]
Contributed data: Full Name Data only shown for fields conflicting with the consensus taxon record
Lepidophorum [New Zealand Plant Name Database]
Lepidophorum DC. [Euro+Med]
Lepidophorum Neck. ex DC. [Funk et al. 2009]
Lepidophorum Neck. ex DC. [Kadereit & Jeffrey 2007]
Lepidophorum Necker ex DC. [Tropicos] [details]
Contributed data: Published Data only shown for fields conflicting with the consensus taxon record
DC., Prodr. 6. 1838. [Euro+Med]
Prodr. 6 [Kadereit & Jeffrey 2007]
Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis 6: [Tropicos] [details]
LSID urn:lsid:compositae.org:names:AE8C117A-1DF5-4B97-B4A1-D258337DBAF9 [details]
Taxonomy Notes from Flann et al. 2010 Taxon 59: Type - Anthemis repanda L., L. repandum (L.) DC.) Notes: Lepidophorum is frequently given as published by Candolle (1838), but Cassini is much earlier. The name is based on Necker’s (1790) ‘species naturalis Lepidophorum’. Not only are the various issues of Necker’s Elementa botanica now listed among the oppressed works unavailable as sources of generic names, but his ‘species naturales’ are to be considered as species, so that reference to their descriptions cannot effect the valid publication of subsequent generic names (ICBN, Art. 41.2, Art. 20 Note 2, App. VI). Therefore, Cassini’s mention of ‘Lepidophorum. Neck.’ in a list of genera (l.c., p. 180, where the type element is specified) does not by itself establish the name; but on a later page (p. 186) descriptive matter is present, so that it is validly published there. Some may perhaps have regarded Lepidophorum Cass. as a provisional name (ICBN, Art. 34.1(b)) on account of Cassini’s statement ‘ce genre... n’appartient peut-être pas à la tribu des anthémidées, dans laquelle pourtant nous l’admettons provisoirement et avec doute’. The ‘provisional and doubtful acceptance’ does not, however, refer to the genus as such but to its tribal placement. [details]
