Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blake (1918:53-54) notes that Azalea nudiflorum L. (1762:214) includes the full protologue of A. lutea L. (1753:150), and so is illegitimate (as a superfluous renaming of A. lutea L.), and further, that the action of Pursh (1816:120), in synonymizing A. nudiflora L. under A. periclymenoides Michx. (1803:151), effectively lectotypified A. nudiflora L., and by extension also A. lutea L. Thus, these Linnaean names are no longer referable to the other two species represented by specimens in the protologue (namely, Rhododendron canescens (Michx.) Sweet and R. calendulaceum (Michx.) Torr.). A. lutea L. cannot be recombined as Rhododendron luteum (L.) C.K. Schneid., due to the presence of R. luteum Sweet, so R. periclymenoides (Michx.) Shinners is the correct name in this genus. This view is fully consistent with more recent works (e.g., Shinners 1962; Wilbur 1976; Kron 1993) |
|
|
|
|
|
|