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

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