Monolophus, Delafosse, Guillemin, & Kuhn, 1831

Singh, Sushil Kumar & Patil, Sameer, 2025, Clarifying the Caulokaempferia vs. Monolophus Nomenclature Dilemma, Phytotaxa 693 (1), pp. 107-111 : 108

Establishment of Monolophus

Until recently, there was widespread belief that the generic name Monolophus was formally established by Endlicher (1837), through validation of a nomen nudum published by Wallich (1830), (https://www.ipni.org/n/37324-1). However, a recent review of 19 th century literature has brought to light that shortly after Wallich (1830), Guillemin (1830), in an article critiquing Wallich's (1830) work, essentially reiterated his characterization of the unnamed “section” of Kaempferia and his provisional view of “ Monolophus ”. However, in an anonymous index to the next volume of the same journal, editors Delafosse, Guillemin, & Kuhn (1831) validly published the name Monolophus through the entry “ Monolophus . Genre nouveau de Scitaminées, XXII, 43”, accepting the generic name and providing indirect reference to Guillemin’s (1830) earlier work, where a diagnosis of Wallich’s “section” (“caractérisée par sa caulescence, l’absence de tubercules et la crête de ses anthères qui est entière” [“characterized by its caulescence, the absence of tubercles, and the crest of its anthers which is entire”]) is found. According to Art. 38 of the International Code of Nomenclature (ICN) outlined by Turland et al. (2018), the name is considered validly published and the scenario here precisely corresponds to the one presented in Art. 38, Ex. 22. Consequently, the notion that the generic name Monolophus was validly published by Endlicher (1837) is dismissed. Indeed, prior to Endlicher's work, an entry for this generic name appeared in von Froriep (1836) (refer to Evenhuis, 2015), ascribed to Wallich, providing his diagnosis and listing the three included Kaempferia species. Nevertheless, it was Endlicher (1837) who first cited only a single species, K. elegans , under Monolophus . This, however, cannot be considered as effective typification of the genus. Contrary to popular belief, it was not Endlicher (1837) but Delafosse, Guillemin, & Kuhn (1831) who validated the generic name Monolophus .

At the time of this validation, the genus Monolophus contained three Kaempferia species. Meanwhile, Wallich (1832) published three new combinations in Monolophus , viz. M. secundus (1832: no. 6591), M. linearis (1832: no. 6592), and M. elegans (1832: no. 6593), based on names in Kaempferia . Since the genus Monolophus was validly published beforehand, the new combinations are also validly published. For unspecified reasons, Wallich (1832) published “ Monolophus? elegans ”, suggesting a degree of uncertainty about whether the species belonged to the genus. Nevertheless, he evidently acknowledged and accepted the name. Hence, by 1832, the genus Monolophus had been established and comprised three species, although the type of the genus had not been specified.

Mood et al. (2014), in reinstating Monolophus , argued that Wallich validly published it in his Numerical list of dried specimens in 1832. They justified their actions by stating that Art. 35.1 and Ex. 1 do not apply in this case. This is plainly incorrect, as Wallich (1832) provided neither a generic description or diagnosis nor a reference to one under the generic name. Due to the valid publication of Monolophus in 1831, Wallich’s actions can be treated as new combinations.