identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
621B3003DF23FFDA97AEEC07FB799175.text	621B3003DF23FFDA97AEEC07FB799175.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Notoceras bicorne Aiton 1789	<div><p>Notoceras bicorne Aiton (1789: 394)</p> <p>Aiton’s protologue (1789: 394) of Erysimum bicorne consisted of a short diagnosis (“6. E. [Erysimum] lanceolatis pilosis, siliquis apice bicornibus”) followed by six annotations: 1) “Horned Hedge-mustard”; 2) “ Nat. of the Canary Islands. Mr. Francis Masson.”; 3) “ Introd. 1779”; 4) “ Fl. August and September”; 5) “G. H.” [indicating that this species is cultivated in the Green House at Kew (see Aiton, 1789: page xxx, abreviations)]; and 6) “ʘ” [indicating that this species is annual [ʘ] (see Aiton, 1789: page xxx, abreviations)], and a complete description of the plant: “Descr. Flores parvi, flavi. Calyx flavescens, extus pilosus. Siliquae approximatae, adpressae, ex ancipiti tetragonae, pilosae, tri-vel quadrilineares, apice bicornes. Stylus persistens, capillaris, longitudine cornuum. Stigma capitatum, integrum”. William Aiton set to work in the 1780s to catalogue every plant being grown at Kew. The result, published in 1789, was called Hortus kewensis and included information on the country of origin of every plant, and who first cultivated it in Britain. The botanical descriptions in the Hortus kewensis were not made by the Aitons (William Aiton [1731–1793] and William Townsend Aiton [1766–1849]), but by Daniel Carl Solander, Jonas Carlsson Dryander and Robert Brown, based on material from Kew. On the other hand, some of the new taxa described in the first edition of the Hortus kewensis, published in 1789, originated from L’Héritier (so indicated) and the types of those taxa are in the L’Héritier herbarium at G-DC. Concretely, as indicated by Britten (1912) and Krok (1925), the diagnoses in Hortus kewensis vols. 1 &amp; 2 were largely written by Dryander, who used a manuscript left by Solander, and this manuscript is present at the Botany Library at BM. Accordingly, in the Art. 46.8 Ex. 43 of the Shenzhen Code (ICN; Turland et al. 2018) is indicated “Although the descriptions in Aiton’s Hortus kewensis (1789) are generally considered to have been written by Solander or Dryander, the names of new taxa published there are attributed to Aiton, the stated author of the work, except where a name and description were both ascribed in that work to somebody else” (see Turland et al. 2018).</p> <p>Concretely, Erysimum bicorne was offered to the Kew Gardens by Francis Masson, it was brought from the Canary Islands in 1778. Francis Masson (1741–1805) was a British plant collector and gardener at Kew. 1760s he travelled to London where he got a gardening job at Kew which was the directed by Sir Joseph Banks, i.e., as plant collector for Kew and working for Banks (Fry 2013).</p> <p>Masson’s living plants went to Kew and his herbarium specimens (mainly) to Banks and now are preserved at BM, and duplicates of Masson’s collections are in several herbaria, e.g., BR, CGE, DBN, HAL, LD, LINN, MO, PH, UPS (incl. Thunberg herbarium) (Stafleu &amp; Cowan 1981: 361). No such specimen of this species from Masson’s collections and collected in Canary Islands, however, is present at K. The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew had no herbarium in the 18th century. In addition, as indicated by Stafleu &amp; Cowan (1976: 25) almost all types of both editions of the Hortus kewensis are in the Banksian herbarium at BM (Banks herbarium).</p> <p>Fortunately, in the herbarium BM there is a relevant specimen of this author collected in Canary Islands in 1778, with barcode BM000583715. The sheet bears a well preserved specimen, four complete plants, with leaves, flowers and fruits, and a handwritten label: “Insula Canaria. Fr. Masson 1778”. The geographical locality “Insula Canaria” and the author “Fr. Masson” agrees with the locality and author given in the protologue. Therefore, this specimen is undoubtedly original material of E. bicorne and it was used by Aiton for its description. We have not been able to locate any further original material in other herbaria (e.g., BR, CGE, DBN, G, HAL, LD, LINN, MO, PH, UPS) and possibly the specimen at BM is the only original material used by Aiton in the description of N. bicorne. However, as we cannot exclude that there were more than one specimen of this taxon, we consider the specimen as the lectotype of the name, admitting that the specimen might well be the holotype (see McNeill 2014). The specimen BM000583715 is well preserved and complete, and represents the traditional concept and current use of the name (see e.g., Ball 1964, Galán Cela 1993). This specimen was indicated as “type” of N. bicorne by Jafri (1973: 194) “Type: Canary Island, Masson (BM) (see http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=5&amp;taxon_id=250063814).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/621B3003DF23FFDA97AEEC07FB799175	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo;Laguna, Emilio	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo, Laguna, Emilio (2021): Notes on the nomenclatural types of Notoceras bicorne (Cruciferae) and its heterotypic synonyms. Phytotaxa 496 (2): 195-200, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9
621B3003DF22FFDC97AEE9B2FDE69AB2.text	621B3003DF22FFDC97AEE9B2FDE69AB2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Diceratium prostratum Lagasca 1816	<div><p>Diceratium prostratum Lagasca (1816: 20)</p> <p>The protologue of Diceratium prostratum (Lagasca 1816: 20) consists of a complete description “257. Dic. [Diceratium]. prostratum: Planta herbacea, parvula, prostrata, pilis albis, adpresis scabriusculis undique obsita. Folia lanceolata, integra, extrorsum latiora, sparsa. Spicae solitariae, extraaxillares breves; primaria radicalis. Calycis foliola iutus sub apice fornicata ut in Hemiaria. Petala lutea, exteriora duo calyce longiora subemarginata. Siliquae adpressae, pedicello brevissimo, ferè turbinato, compresso-tetragono sustentatae” followed by a name and the question mark: “¿ Erysimum bicorne. Willd. sp. pl.?”, and the provenance “Venit locis ruderatis arenoso-calcareis, Orcelis juxta Coenobium Sancti Francisci, alibique; et Murciae in tuguriorum Lazareto del Llano de la Luz dicto. D. D. Simon de Rojas Clemente eamdem plantam in Granatensi Regno offendidit”, and finally the comment “Floret toto anno”.</p> <p>We have not found any original material of Lagasca in the herbaria consulted (e.g., BM, K, MA, MPU, P, SE). In the Candolle herbarium at G (collection G-DC) there are a relevant herbarium sheet, with two complete plants collected by Lagasca, with barcodes G00149933 and G00149955, with leaves and fruits. The plant with barcode G00149955 was collected by Mariano Lagasca in 1819 in Orcelis -latin ancient name of Orihuela, province of Alicante, Spain-, this plant is accompanied by a label, annotated as “n. 7 / Diceratium prostratum / Lag. Gen. et Spec. / Orceli / Lagasca 1819” and handwritten by Lagasca. On the other hand, the plant identified with barcode G00149933 is accompanied by a label, annotated as “ Diceratium prostratum / Lag. Gen. et Spec. / rota” handwritten by Lagasca, and “m. Lagasca / 1819” handwritten by Candolle. The sheet bears also a label handwritten by Candolle “ Notoceras hispanicum DC. ” (Fig. 2).</p> <p>Unfortunately, these two plants were collected after 1816, and therefore are post-protologue. However, the date collected in the label that accompanied the plant G00149933 was handwritten by Candolle, and not by Lagasca, and maybe this plant was used by Lagasca to describe Diceratium prostratum. Nevertheless, this hypothesis cannot be demonstrated and at the moment it cannot be considered as original material.</p> <p>In conclusion, we designate as the neotype of the name Diceratium prostratum the specimen with barcode G00149955 (Fig. 2). The information annotated on the label that accompanied the plant match with the protologue “Venit locis ruderatis arenoso-calcareis, Orcelis […]”, and the plant match with the current use of the name, treated in this work as a synonym of N. bicorne.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/621B3003DF22FFDC97AEE9B2FDE69AB2	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo;Laguna, Emilio	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo, Laguna, Emilio (2021): Notes on the nomenclatural types of Notoceras bicorne (Cruciferae) and its heterotypic synonyms. Phytotaxa 496 (2): 195-200, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9
621B3003DF25FFDC97AEE82CFBEC914E.text	621B3003DF25FFDC97AEE82CFBEC914E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Notoceras bicorne (Aiton) Amo 1873	<div><p>Notoceras bicorne (Aiton) Amo (1873: 536)</p> <p>≡ Erysimum bicorne Aiton (1789: 394) [basionym]</p> <p>Type (lectotype [or perhaps holotype], indicated by Jafri (1973: 194) as “type”):— Spain, Canary Islands, Francis Masson s.n., 1778 (BM, barcode BM000583715) (Fig. 1).</p> <p>= Diceratium prostratum Lagasca (1816: 20)</p> <p>≡ Notoceras hispanicum Candolle (1821: 204), nom. illeg. (Art. 52.2 (e) of the ICN, see Turland et al. 2018)</p> <p>≡ Notoceras bicorne β [var.] hispanicum Willkomm (1880: 827) (see ICN Art. 58.1)</p> <p>≡ Notoceras bicorne var. prostratum (Lag.) Pau (1931: 148), nom. illeg. (ICN Art. 52.1) 1</p> <p>Type (neotype, designated here):— Spain, Orcelis [Orihuela, Alicante province], 1819, Lagasca 7 (G-DC, barcode G00149955) (Fig. 2).</p> <p>1 Notoceras bicorne var. hispanicum is not illegitimate under ICN Art. 58.1 (see Ex. 3) (Turland et al. 2018). Furthermore, it makes illegitimate the homotypic combination N. bicorne var. prostratum (Lag.) Pau (1931: 148) published 51 years after Willkomm’s one that takes priority at varietal rank being a replacement name.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/621B3003DF25FFDC97AEE82CFBEC914E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo;Laguna, Emilio	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo, Laguna, Emilio (2021): Notes on the nomenclatural types of Notoceras bicorne (Cruciferae) and its heterotypic synonyms. Phytotaxa 496 (2): 195-200, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9
621B3003DF25FFDC97AEEDECFDA69F72.text	621B3003DF25FFDC97AEEDECFDA69F72.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Notoceras hispanicum Candolle 1821	<div><p>Notoceras hispanicum Candolle (1821: 204)</p> <p>Candolle (1821: 204) published the name Notoceras hispanicum included a description “N. [Notoceras] siliquis bicornibus, petalis inaequalibus, foliis integris, pilis strigosis centro adfixis bipartitis confertissimis”, followed by the name “ Diceratium prostratum Lag ! el. hort. madr. 1815. p. 20.*”, the provenance “Hab. locis ruderatis arenosocalcareis Orcelis Murciae et Granatensis regni (Lag.). fl. per. totum annum (v. s. sp.)”, and the comment “Priori nimis affinis. Differre tamen videtur habitu minore rigidiore magis prostrato; superficie totâ pilis multó magis confertis canescente; foliis angustioribus ferè linearibus; petalis (ex cl. Lagasca) duobus exterioribus calyce undè corolla irregularis evadit.”</p> <p>As Candolle cited “ Diceratium prostratum. Lag! el. [Elenchus] hort. madr. 1815. p. 20”, this phrase is a citation of the previously validated name by Lagasca (1816: 20) supplied with a direct reference to a place of its validation since “ Elenchus plantarum ” includes complete text of simultaneously published “ Genera et species plantarum ” with the same pagination (see Stafleu &amp; Cowan 1979: 721, available at https://www.sil.si.edu/DigitalCollections/tl-2/browse. cfm?vol=2#page/747). Therefore, the name N. hispanicum is an illegitimate superfluous name for D. prostratum (Art. 52.2 (e) of the ICN, see Turland et al. 2018).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/621B3003DF25FFDC97AEEDECFDA69F72	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo;Laguna, Emilio	Ferrer-Gallego, P. Pablo, Laguna, Emilio (2021): Notes on the nomenclatural types of Notoceras bicorne (Cruciferae) and its heterotypic synonyms. Phytotaxa 496 (2): 195-200, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.496.2.9
