identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03CE87DCFFB0FFDEFF66C028925FFD47.text	03CE87DCFFB0FFDEFF66C028925FFD47.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Kalanchoe marmorata Baker, Gardn. Chronicle 1892	<div><p>How Kalanchoe marmorata got its name</p> <p>Baker (1892: 300) correctly recorded that the name K. grandiflora that Richard (1847: 310) published for an African species had been predated by K. grandiflora Wight &amp; Arnot-Walker (1834: 359), which had been published 13 years earlier for an Indian species. Kalanchoe grandiflora of Richard was therefore an illegitimate later homonym. This prompted Baker (1892: 300) to state: “The Abyssinian plant will therefore require another name, and I would suggest K. macrantha. [emphasis on ‘ suggest ’ here and further on by the present author]”. In the same paper, Baker (1892: 300) validly published K. marmorata as a replacement name for K. grandiflora A.Rich. (1847) non Wight &amp; Arn. (1834). The name K. marmorata was soon—the following year—interpreted by Baker himself (Baker 1893: 458) as being applicable to material for which Richard (1847: 310) had earlier published the illegitimate name K. grandiflora, and for which Baker (1892: 300) had suggested the designation ‘ K. macrantha ’. When coming to this conclusion, Baker (1893: 458) stated: “I described the Abyssinian plant [K. grandiflora A.Rich., nom. illeg.] not long ago in these columns under the name of Kalanchoe marmorata.” It is therefore clear that Baker (1892: 300) did not accept his own ‘ K. macrantha ’ given that, in his own words, he only suggested it as a replacement name (for Kalanchoe grandiflora A.Rich.) and stopped short of explicitly accepting it. Article 33.1 of Turland et al. (2018: 82) makes it clear that as one condition for a name to be validly published, that name “…must always be explicitly accepted in the place of its valid publication [emphasis on ‘ explicitly ’ here by the present author]”. Turland et al. [2018: Art. 36.1(a)] also specifically states that a name is not validly published when it is not accepted by its author in the original publication, for example when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the future acceptance of the taxon concerned. Furthermore, the designation ‘ K. macrantha ’ was not indexed in the volume of Gardeners’ Chronicle where it first appeared as a suggestion (Anonymous 1892: v), whereas, in contrast, the name K. marmorata was indexed.</p> <p>Nowhere in Baker (1893: 458), where he recorded that he described the Abyssinian plant as K. marmorata, is the designation ‘ K. macrantha ’ mentioned. This is further evidence that Baker himself did not accept his “suggest[-ed]” ‘ K. macrantha ’ as a replacement name for K. grandiflora A.Rich., nom. illeg.</p> <p>Similarly, the designation ‘ K. macrantha ’ was not mentioned in the text that accompanied the plate of K. marmorata that appeared in Curtis’s Botanical Magazine (Hooker 1894: t. 7333). Note though that one year earlier, Sprenger (1893: 513) still used the illegitimate name K. grandiflora A.Rich. for this species.</p> <p>If Baker (1892: 300) had indeed validly published the name K. macrantha as a replacement name for K. grandiflora A.Rich. non Wight &amp; Arn. and therefore had not “merely propose[-d] [‘ K. macrantha ’] in anticipation of the future acceptance of the taxon concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of the taxon […]” (Turland et al. 2018: Art. 36.1), then K. macrantha (under such circumstances as a name, not a designation) and K. marmorata would have had equal priority.</p> <p>The acceptance by Baker (1893: 458) of the name K. marmorata for a species that would have included the type of the name K. macrantha, i.e., that of K. grandiflora A.Rich. non Wight &amp; Arn., would have established the precedence of K. marmorata over K. macrantha (Turland et al. 2018: Art. 11.5). Under Article 11.5, the first choice to be effectively published establishes the priority of the chosen name. Article 11.5 Note 3 further provides that such a choice is exercised when one of the competing names (or its final epithet) is adopted and the other name(s) or their homotypic synonyms are simultaneously rejected or relegated to synonymy. The unambiguous expression by Baker (1893: 458) of the view that the name K. marmorata is to be used, would have sufficed as “simultaneously rejecting or relegating to synonymy the other(s) or their homotypic (nomenclatural) synonyms” (Turland et al. 2018: Art. 11.5 Note 3).</p> <p>A well-known example of just such a situation had developed some 20 years earlier when Aloidendron barberae (Thiselton Dyer 1874a: 566) Klopper &amp; Gideon F.Sm. in Grace et al. (2013: 9), the iconic tree aloe of South Africa’s eastern seaboard, was first described in the same paper as both Aloe barberae Thiselton Dyer (1874a: 566) and as A. bainesii Thiselton Dyer (1874a: 567). However, seven months later in December of the same year, Thiselton Dyer (1874b) noted that he then believed the two species to be identical, and he explicitly placed the name A. bainesii as a synonym under A. barberae. Shortly afterwards Thiselton Dyer (1874c) repeated his preference for the name A. barberae as opposed to Aloe bainesii (see also Walker et al. 2019 and Figueiredo &amp; Smith 2020). In expressing this preference, Thiselton Dyer determined which epithet must be applied to the tree aloe, which would become known as Aloe barberae (Smith et al. 1994), now Aloidendron barberae. This would also have applied to K. marmorata, with K. macrantha having been effectively synonymised by Baker (1893: 458), even though in typical 19 th century courteous fashion he did not use the word “reject” nor even “synonymy”, but Thiselton Dyer (1874b: 91) was clearer and deliberately stated: “The name A. [Aloe] Bainesii must therefore be merged as a synonym in A. Barberae.”</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CE87DCFFB0FFDEFF66C028925FFD47	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	Smith, Gideon F.	Smith, Gideon F. (2021): How Kalanchoe marmorata (Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae), a distinctive central and east African species, received its name, and the later, valid publication of K. macrantha by Maire. Phytotaxa 502 (1): 93-100, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.502.1.7, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.502.1.7
03CE87DCFFB5FFD8FF66C3C295CCF7BA.text	03CE87DCFFB5FFD8FF66C3C295CCF7BA.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Kalanchoe marmorata Baker, Gardn. Chronicle 1892	<div><p>Kalanchoe marmorata Baker (1892: 300)</p> <p>Type:— Abyssinia [ETHIOPIA], Choa [Shewa], Ifat, s.d., Richard Quartin-Dillon &amp; Antoine Petit s.n., (holotype P! MNHN-P-P00374095, https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/p/item/p00374095?listIndex=9075&amp;listCount=16502; isotypes P! MNHN-P- P00374096 https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/p/item/p00374096?listIndex=9076&amp;listCount=16502, and MNHN- P-P00374097 https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/p/item/p00374097?listIndex=9077&amp;listCount=16502).</p> <p>Homotypic synonyms:— Kalanchoe macrantha Baker ex Maire (1976: 254) var. marmorata (Baker) Maire (1976: 255); K. macrantha var. richardiana Maire (1976: 255).</p> <p>Heterotypic synonyms:— Kalanchoe somaliensis Baker (1895: 214) in Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1895(105). Hooker: t. 7831 (1902); Also treated in: Jacobsen (1986: 629). Kalanchoe macrantha Baker ex Maire (1976: 254) var. somaliensis (Baker 1895: 214) Maire (1976: 255). Type:—Somali Land [SOMALIA], Wardie, 22 February [presumably] 1895, received [presumably at Herb. K] in “5/95” [May 1895], [Miss] Edith Cole s.n. [Herb. K accession number H 608/68 41], (lectotype, K! K 000232777, https://apps.kew.org/herbcat/ getImage.do?imageBarcode= K 000232777), here designated.</p> <p>Nomenclatural notes on the type of Kalanchoe marmorata:— Raadts (1977: 106), Wickens (1987: 33), and Descoings (2003:165) variously cited Penzig s.n., a specimen held at Herb. K, as the holotype of the name K. marmorata, as follows: “Type: ETHIOPIA, Eritrea, Mt Lalamba near Keren, Penzig s.n., collected in 1891, cultivated at La Mortola [Hanbury Gardens], Ventimiglia, Italy, in August 1892 (K holo-!, K 000232779, http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/ K 000232779”.</p> <p>However, under Turland et al. (2018: Art. 7.4) a replacement name is typified by the type of the replaced synonym. Since Baker (1893: 458) effectively published the name K. marmorata as a replacement name for K. grandiflora A.Rich. non Wight &amp; Arn., an illegitimate homonym of K. grandiflora Wight. &amp; Arn., the type of the name K. marmorata is the type of the name K. grandiflora A.Rich. non Wight &amp; Arn.</p> <p>In volume 1 of Tentamen florae abyssinicae, Richard (1847) especially credited Drs Richard Quartin-Dillon and Antonio Petit for, inter alia, their collecting activities in the region from 1839 to 1843 that enabled production of this Flora (Stafleu &amp; Cowan 1983: 763–764). In the text (Richard 1847: 310) “Ant. [Antoine] Petit” is mentioned as the sole collector of the type specimen of the name K. grandiflora A.Rich. non Wight &amp; Arn., as noted by Wickens (1987: 34). However, on a handwritten note attached to the bottom left-hand corner of the type specimen it is stated that “Quartin Dillon et Petit” gathered the specimen. Both Quartin-Dillon and Petit are therefore here listed as the collectors of the holotype. Note that in Richard (1847) Quartin-Dillon’s surname is variously written with (on p. v) or without (also on p. v) a hyphen.</p> <p>The type specimen, Richard Quartin-Dillon &amp; Antoine Petit s.n., itself is distinctly labelled as having been collected in Abyssinia [Ethiopia], Choa [Shewa]. Wickens (1987: 34) further listed the locality as “Ifat”, an ancient Kingdom in the Horn of Africa that covered parts of Ethiopia, Somalia, and Djibouti.</p> <p>The publication date of volume 1 of Tentamen florae abyssinicae was given as “1848” by Wickens (1987: 34), but it was published one year earlier, in 1847 (see also Stafleu &amp; Cowan 1983: 763).</p> <p>Nomenclatural notes on the type of Kalanchoe somaliensis:—In the Herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, two specimens of K. somaliensis that were collected by two different collectors, Miss Edith Cole and Mrs E. Lort Phillips, apparently on different dates, are mounted on a single sheet. The specimens are separated by a near-vertical pencil line drawn on the mounting board. These specimens can be identified as follows:</p> <p>1. Kalanchoe somaliensis Baker, Mrs E. Lort Phillips s.n., Herb K. accession number H5014 / 61 34, received [presumably at Herb. K] in “6/95” [June 1895], collecting date not stated. The affixed label headed “ Somali Land” states: “Very curious qualities of speckled leaves like oyster shells [illegible] down flowers white on tall [illegible]”. Barcode K K000232776.</p> <p>2. Kalanchoe somaliensis Baker, Miss Edith Cole s.n., Herb K. accession number H608 / 68 41, received [presumably at Herb. K] in “5/95” [May 1895], collecting date given as “Feb. 22” [year not stated; probably 1895]. The affixed label headed “ Somali Land” states: “ Kalanchoe somaliensis Baker in Kew Bullet.” and the locality is given as “Wardie”. Barcode K K000232777.</p> <p>The Lort Phillips specimen has a red label “ HOLOTYPE ” affixed to it. However, this is not correct as Baker (1895: 214) clearly cited two specimens, i.e., both the Lort Phillips specimen as well as the Cole specimen, resulting in the name K. somaliensis not having a holotype. For both specimens the locality was given as “Somali-land, Golis range, near Wardie” (Baker 1895: 214), even though the origin of the Lort Phillips specimen itself is devoid of a collecting location. The Lort Phillips and Cole specimens are syntypes as they represent two independent specimens, even though they were mounted on a single sheet. There is no evidence that they were collected jointly by Lort Phillips and Cole on the same date—the one has “no date” and the other one is dated “Feb. 22” [year not stated; probably 1895]—and at the same time. The Edith Cole specimen, which has a collecting date and locality, is here designated as lectotype.</p> <p>The statement “ K. somaliensis BAKER, Bull. Misc. Inform. 1895: 214, 1895.— Type: COLE, LORT PHILLIPS s. n., 1895, Somalia, Golis range (K holotype!)” as included in Raadts (1977: 106) is not correct and not correctable under Turland et al. (2018: Art. 9.10) as Raadts clearly cited two specimens [Miss Edith Cole s.n. and Mrs E. Lort Phillips s.n.] as holotype. these specimens can also not be narrowed down to a single one (under Turland et al. 2018: Art. 9.17) as the two specimens do not refer to a single gathering.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CE87DCFFB5FFD8FF66C3C295CCF7BA	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	Smith, Gideon F.	Smith, Gideon F. (2021): How Kalanchoe marmorata (Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae), a distinctive central and east African species, received its name, and the later, valid publication of K. macrantha by Maire. Phytotaxa 502 (1): 93-100, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.502.1.7, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.502.1.7
