On Sep 16, 2004, at 3:19 PM, Mary Sue Ittner wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Some time ago I asked on this list whether the name on the wiki should
> be Worsleya procera or Worsleya rayneri? I looked it up in IPNI and
> both were recorded names and there was no mention of synonyms. W.
> procera does have an earlier date.
>
> No one responded to my question. So I'll ask it again after I offer
> congratulations to Lee on his blooming plant. Is there just one
> species of this genus and should we have it listed as Worsleya procera
> (syn. Worselya rayneri) instead of the other way around?
>
> We'd like to be giving out the most current information on the wiki
> and this is not a plant I follow so appreciate help from those of you
> who do. Thanks.
>
> Mary Sue
>
>
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Glenn Callcott" <gcallcott@bigpond.com>
> Date: May 3, 2002 5:34:25 AM PDT
> To: <Worsleya_rayneri_growers@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Worsleya_rayneri_growers] Worsleya procera
>
> This essay was written by David Mabberley who belongs to the
> International Society of Plant Taxonomists (it may have another name)
> and who has recently renamed the Worsleya.
>
> THE NAME OF THE BLUE AMARYLLIS, OR
> WOSLEYA PROCERA RIDES AGAIN
>
> The blue amaryllis was first described as Amaryllis procera Duch. in
> 1863. The generic name Worsleya was proposed for it by William Watson
> in 1912, but not validly published then, though it was later used as a
> subgeneric name in Amaryllis L. and first validly published as subg.
> Worsleya Traub. Traub subsequently raised his subgenus to generic rank
> as Worsleya (Traub) Traub (in Herbertia 10: 89, t. 246, 1944).
>
> In 1944, Traub also transferred Amaryllis procera Duch. to the new
> genus making the name W. procera ('Duch.') Traub, the name first
> suggested informally in 1912 and widely used since 1944.
>
> Subsequently, in 1949, Traub and Moldenke realised that Amaryllis
> procera Duch. had been antedated by A. procera Salisb. (1796), the
> name [actually a superfluous one!] for a completely unrelated plant
> (apparently a species of Crinum). This meant that A. procera Duch. was
> 'still-born', being a 'later homonym' and therefore an illegitimate
> name. They therefore cast about for another name for the Worsleya and
> chose the next-published in Amaryllis, A. rayneri Hook.f.., and made
> the new name W. rayneri (Hook.f.) Traub and Moldenke, which has since
> been followed by many.
>
> But they were wrong, as W. rayneri is an illegitimate substitution for
> the original W. procera, which has therefore been restored by
> Mabberley, Plant-book ed. 2, corr. reprint (1998), because they
> overlooked the fact that the earliest validly published name is
> Hippeastrum procerum Lem. (Ill. Horticole: t. 408, 1864), which
> antedates A. rayneri, even though they included it in the synonyms.
>
> Hippeastrum procerum Lem. is based on A. procera Duch., not A. procera
> Salisb., but as the first was illegitimate, it is considered a nomen
> novum with just 'Lem.' [= Lemaire] as authority and therefore a
> validly published name. As it is based on the same plant as W. procera
> ('Duch.') Traub, it can act as the base-name for the latter, which is
> (with a minor authority change), correctly [once more!]:
>
> *Worsleya procera* (Lem.) Traub
> (syn. Amaryllis procera Duch., nom. illegit. [non A. procera
> Salisb.]; Hippeastrum procerum Lem. [nom. nov. pro. A. procera Duch.
> non Salisb.]; A. rayneri Hook.f.; W. rayneri (Hook.f.) Traub &
> Moldenke, nom. illegit.)
>
>
> (Whether Worsleya deserves generic rank or not is another matter and
> resolution must await the results of DNA studies in this tight-knit
> group of
> Amaryllidaceae).
> David Mabberley
>
>
> From: "Alan Meerow" <bulbman@hotmail.com>
> Date: May 5, 2002 5:15:43 PM PDT
> To: <Worsleya_rayneri_growers@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Worsleya_rayneri_growers] Worsleya procera
>
> Mabberly also needs to read Systematic Botany where the issue of
> whether Worsleya is closely related to Hippeastrum was (hopefully) put
> to rest by my and co-workers DNA studies!
>
> Does anyone know where he published this note?
>
> Alan Meerow