Place of publication:
Brittonia 14:297. 1962
Comment:
according to Gandhi & Zarucchi, Harvard Pap. Bot. 14:1. 2009, Duncan & Pullen failed to correctly cite the basionym, citing only "Rhododendron chapmanii A. Gray" (1876). Because Gray had cited "R. punctatum var. Chapm. Fl. 266", Gandhi & Zarucchi interpreted this to be an explicit citation of the validly published R. punctatum var. chapmanii Alph. Wood (1870) and applied Shanzhen ICN Art. 41.8a and its Ex. 25 to conclude that Duncan & Pullen's citation of the later basionym cannot be corrected and their proposed new combination was not validly published. However, what Gray cited was clearly Chapman's (Fl. South. U.S. 266. 1860) mention of an unnamed variety of R. punctatum; there was no "explicit reference to Wood's varietal name" as Gandhi & Zarucchi have asserted, so their conclusion on the invalidity of Duncan & Pullen's name is unsupported. Because Gray (1876) provided no reference to Alph. Wood's (1870) earlier publication of the basionym whose final epithet was adopted by Duncan & Pullen, under Shenzhen ICN 41.8a and its Ex. 25 to conclude that Duncan & Pullen's citation of the later basionym cannot be corrected and their proposed new combination was not validly published. However, what Gray cited was clearly Chapman's (Fl. South. U.S. 266. 1860) mention of an unnamed variety of R. punctatum; there was no "explicit reference to Wood's varietal name" as Gandhi & Zarucchi have asserted, so their conclusion on the invalidity of Duncan & Pullen's name is unsupported. Because Gray (1876) provided no reference to Alph. Wood's (1870) earlier publication of the basionym whose final epithet was adopted by Duncan & Pullen, under Shenzhen ICN Art. 41.8a we consider Duncan & Pullen's basionym citation of Gray to be correctable to that of Alph. Wood.
Verified:
12/08/2010
ARS Systematic Botanists.