Abstract: The pantropical fruticose lichen Roccella montagnei Bel. emend. Awas. is typified and the new species Roccella belangeriana Awas. is described based on material from southern India.

Abstract: The distribution of pre-publication copies of The Report of the Committee on Generic Typification (Taxon 30: 200-207. 1981) had generated extensive debate and raised issues that seem relevant to the decisions that must be made on this subject at the Nomenclature Section of the XIII International Botanical Congress to be held in Sydney in August 1981. Two aspects seem of sufficient import to deserve published comment prior to the Congress. In the first place, disappointment has been expressed that the Committee has made no proposals that would retain "a species" as the type of a generic name; secondly the practical implications of the various proposals were not spelled out in the Committee Report and as Wilbur (1977) has said "a unified treatment . . . will not come from repeated polemics on a few overworked nomenclatural uncertainties but by an intensive study of a much larger number of cases." It seems to me that the implications of the present wording of Art. 10, "the type of a name of a genus . . . is a species" are best summarized by Bullock and Hunt (1966) who wrote: "There is thus a fundamental difference between the typification of specific names and the typification of generic names in that the type in the former case is objective and may be a specimen, figure, or published description whilst in the latter it is a more subjectively circumscribed species to which a name is applied." The problem with the present wording, then, rests on this matter of subjective circumscription. The problem exists, in theory, with all generic names but only becomes important when the original author's circumscription includes material that contemporary taxonomists would place in different genera. Principle II of the ICBN establishes that "the application of names is determined by means of nomenclatural types" and Art. 7.2 states that "a nomenclatural type is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached" (my italics). How can something which depends on "subjective circumscription" be a single element? Obviously it cannot, unless the subjectivity is tempered by the belief that there are "true species" that have an objective reality outside of taxonomy and taxonomists. Many taxonomists do believe this, but not all of us have such faith; moreover contemporary evidence from studies in

Abstract: — The type of Salvia dorrii is shown to represent the Great Basin phase of the species (currently called subsp. argentea) rather than the Mojave Desert expression as implied by Epling and others. The Mojave Desert phase is hereby renamed S. dorrii var. pilosa (A. Gray) Strachan & Reveal. In the Intermountain Region, three phases of Salvia dorrii (Kellogg) Abrams (Lamiaceae) are reported. The northern var. carnosa (Dougl. ex Greene) Cronq. of Washington and Oregon barely enters the Region along the Snake River on the Oregon-Idaho border. The widespread Great Basin plant has been called subsp. argentea (Rydb.) Munz, but the Mojave Desert element, long referred to as subsp. dorrii, was not considered to be in the Region even though the type was collected in west central Nevada. An examination of the variation in the S. dorrii complex throughout its range (by Strachan), and specifically that in the Intermountain Region (by Reveal), has shown some minor problems that can be resolved at this time. When Salvia dorrii was originally proposed, it was placed in the genus Audibertia Benth. in Lindl., a homonym of Audibertia Benth., a synonym of Mentha L., and apparently was based on a C. Herbert Dorr collection supposedly gathered near Virginia City, Nevada (Epling 1938, Ewan 1967). This original collection has been lost (Epling 1938). Kellogg (1863) mentioned Dorr collections for three new species. Under Lilium parvum he thanked \"Mr. C. H. Dorr for specimens from Nevada Territory.\" The type of Viola aurea was found by \"Mr. C. W.[sic] Dorr from Nevada Territory,\" but in his description of Spraguea paniculata Kellogg wrote that the type was found by Dorr \"in a ravine extending to the west, about six miles from Virginia City, Nevada Territory, at an altitude of 3,000 feet.\" It was this latter information that probably led to the assumption that the type of A. dorrii came from near Virginia City. In his description of A. dorrii, Kellogg gives no indication at all as to the collector or the place of collection. The specific epithet is our only link with Dorr. Interestingly, there is a series of subsequent species found in western Nevada and along the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada in California proposed by Kellogg (1863) without any reference to collector or exact location (except one). These are Lupinus confertus (p. 192), L. calcaratus (p. 195), L. caudatus (p. 197), Oenothera nevadensis (p. 224—his next paper), O. cruciformis (p. 227), and Viola chrysantha var. nevadensis (p. 229). Only O. cruciformis has a location cited for it, this being \"Steamboat Springs, Nevada Territory.\" Raven (1962) did not find a type specimen of O. cruciformis and proposed a neotype for this narrowly endemic species. Only a fragment of a specimen, without any information, was found for O. nevadensis (Raven 1969). This specimen was taken by Raven to represent Kellogg's original material. As for the three lupines, we can find recently published information on two. Hess and Dunn (1970) cite a Carson Valley collection of Kellogg's as the type of L. caudatus. Although Greene (1887) indicated that Kellogg did some collecting and illustrating of plants, both Ewan (1955) and Greene insist that Kellogg did not begin active botanizing until his Alaskan trip in 1867. Neither Reifschneider (1964) nor Ewan (1967) report Kellogg as a Nevada collector. There is no indication on 'Supported, in part, by National Science Foundation Grant BMS75-13063 (Reveal). This is Scientific Article A2991, Contribution No. 6053 of the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Botany. 'Department of Botany, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742.

Abstract: It is pointed out that the name sect. Pelargium DC. must be replaced by sect. Pelargonium , and Pelargonium cardiophyllum Harv. (1860) by P. setulosum Turcz. (1858); P. mossambicense Engl, is reported as a new record for the Transvaal; a new name P. ternifolium Vorster is given to P. trifolia turn Harv., nom. illeg.; and the typification of P. multificlum Harv., P. plurisectum Salter, P. dolomiticum Knuth and P. dasyphyllum E. Mey. ex Knuth is discussed.

Abstract: . 1978. The correct name for the Hawaiian Gossypium. Taxon 27: 131-132. Hillebrand, W. F. 1888. Flora of the Hawaiian Islands. Heidelberg. xcvi + 673 pp. (see pp. 50 & 51). Hutchinson, J. B., R. S. Silow, and S. G. Stephens. 1947. The evolution of Gossypium. Oxford Univ. Press. xi + 160 pp. Parlatore, F. 1866. Le specie dei cotoni. Firenze. 64 pp. Seemann, B. 1865. Flora Vitiensis. London. xxxiii + 453 pp. Watt, G. 1907. The wild and cultivated cotton plants of the world. London, xvi + 406 pp. Wilbur, R. L. 1964. The correct name for the Hawaiian Gossypium. Pac. Sci. 18: 101-103. . 1977. The correct name for the Hawaiian Gossypium: G. sandvicense. Taxon 26: 140.

Abstract: Rhynchosia flava (Forsk.) Thulin comb. nov. (=Ononis flava Forsk.) is a narrowly endemic species in Yemen. Since it was originally collected by Forskal in 1763 it has apparently not been recollected until a few years ago. Description, typification and distribution map are provided for this species as well as for the closely related Ethiopian species R. erythraeae Schweinf. and R. erlangeri Harms. R. malacotricha Harms, another little–known Ethiopian species, is shown to be closely related to R. subiobata (Schumach.) Meikle. R. verdcourtii Thulin sp. nov., occurring in S Ethiopia, N Uganda, Kenya and N Tanzania, is described, illustrated and mapped.

Abstract: Summary Article 10.1 of the ICBN is discussed in reference to the typification of the generic names Diamorpha Nuttall (Crassulaceae), Leucaena Benth. (Leguminosae), Odontonema Nees (Acanthaceae), Picrodendron Planchon (Euphorbiaceae), and Pseudolarix Gordon (Pinaceae). It is argued that the nomenclatural type of each of these genera is the species described by their respective authors and not the binomial cited in each case in which the genus was thought to be monotypic when described or, in the case of Leucaena, its lectotype is the first species chosen in spite of its alleged binomial belonging to another genus. Often nomenclatural progress seems even slower and less certain than taxonomic progress. Perhaps this is to be expected for systematists ought to be better biologists than lawyers and nomenclature is clearly more legalistic than biologic. For about two decades the apparently straightforward requirement of Article 10.1 of the ICBN has been the subject of a surprising number of articles debating its meaning. The disputed passage is very brief and seemingly the essence of simplicity; consequently it seems a most unlikely basis for interpretational disputes. The pas