The name Kamettia malabarica Kostel. is illegitimate because the name is based on the type of earlier described species - Echites caryophyllata Roxb. (1814).

Well, there is nothing in the description by Kosteletzky that would indicate that this name was based on Echtites caryophyllata.  He just refers to Rheede [Hortus Malabaricus], vol. 9, plate 14, and also there is no reference to any earlier validly published name.  Therefore, my conclusion would be that the name is not illegitimate.

Kamettia caryophyllata (Roxb.) Nicolson & Suresh (1986) is the only accepted species name of the genus Kamettia (family Apocynaceae).

What is an Accepted Name?: This is the name which should be used to refer to the species (or to a subspecies, variety or forma).

For details about Accepted Name, please visit: http://www.theplantlist.org/about/#accepted

I fully agree with the answer of Jens Rohwer.

Echites caryophyllata Roxb. (1814) and Kamettia malabarica Kostel. (1834) are both based on Kametti-valli Rheede, Hort, Malab. 9: t. 14 (1689), and the latter is therefore superfluous (Art. 52.1).

Kamettia malabarica Kostel. = Kamettia caryophyllata (Roxb.) Nicolson & Suresh (1986)- reference of original publication is needed before conclusion- ASOK

Thanks a lot, to all, for valuable comments

Dear Rajeev,

The answer to your query is given in the attachment.

Zigmantas and Jan-Frits have given the correct answer but  the wordings of Zigmantas "type of earlier described species" are not correct.

Kindly see the mail from Dr. Gerry Moore pasted below:

Dear Dr. Bandyopadhyay

Yes, you are correct. The title should have read “Lectotypification of ten names in Andryala (Asteraceae)”. I have covered this point a number of times in publications. For example I wrote in 1998 (in Taxon 47: 56. 1998): “It is this device of nomenclatural types that allows nomenclature to remain distinct from taxonomy (Ride, 1998, 1991). This was best summarized by Dr. Luella Weresub (in Nicolson, 1977) who stated in effect: ‘Taxa have circumscriptions but no types while names have types but no circumscriptions.’” Of course, a taxon’s circumscription must always include its name’s type; however, this is the only association a type has with a taxon.

I will send a note along to the editors of Taxon reminding them of this distinction (I resigned early in 2015; my name continues to appear on the column heading as I finish a slight backlog of MSS). However, don’t be shocked if you see this error in print again, as it is a common error, and even editors who maintain the distinction can get numb to the error. The problem I had as editor was that I would get so immersed in the text that I sometimes would not pay attention to the title!

Cheers, Gerry

Gerry Moore

Team Leader, National Plant Data Team

East National Technology Support Center

Natural Resources Conservation Service

United States Department of Agriculture

2901 East Gate City Blvd.

Suite 2100

Greensboro, North Carolina 27401

336-370-3337 (o)

336-314-5667 (c)

The PDF of the attached paper has been provided by Shuvadeep Majumdar.

With best wishes,

Subir Bandyopadhyay.

Thanks Zigmantas, Jan-Frits Veldkemp, Jens Rower, Subir Daa and others,

As per my opinion, Echtites caryophyllata was not validly published, as mentioned earlier (Robinson, 1912: 413; Suresh & Nicolson, 1986: 354) because Rheede's element is not the sole basis of Echites caryophyllata Roxb. (cited as "H.M. 9. t. 14"). Roxburgh provided one binomial for plant that grows at that time in botanical garden, Calcutta. When we see Hortus Benghalensis page no. 1 & 20, Roxburgh clearly cited  as -  and  as – . He mentioned  as -  and . This means Rheede's element is not the sole basis of Echites caryophyllata, he cited Rheede's element and local name “Malutee” as synonym. The herbarium specimens (syntypes) of Roxburgh at BR (2 specimens) and one at K (Wall. cat. n. 1651 [E] of herbarium Roxb.) clears the confusion. The Roxburgh’s specimens of Malutee are now validity - Aganosma heynei (Spreng.) I.M. Turner (2013: 56). Roxburgh, later (2: 11. 1832) provided the description of the same plant and that is now - Aganosma heynei.

Roxburgh misinterpreted "H.M. 9. t. 14" and created a lot of confusion, - in naming the Roxburgh element/plant and Rheede's element with different names (Hooker, 1882: 641 & 663) later by Roth, Wight, G.Don, Spreng., Blume and others.   

So, for Rheede's element (9. t. 14) the valid name is - Kamettia malabarica Kostel.

Please comments, my observation/opinion is correct or not as per ICN 2012 ?

Thanks Zigmantas, Jan-Frits Veldkemp, Jens Rower, Subir Daa and others,

As per my opinion, Echtites caryophyllata was not validly published, as mentioned earlier (Robinson, 1912: 413; Suresh & Nicolson, 1986: 354) because Rheede's element is not the sole basis of Echites caryophyllata Roxb. (cited as "H.M. 9. t. 14"). Roxburgh provided one binomial for plant that grows at that time in botanical garden, Calcutta. When we see Hortus Benghalensis page no. 1 & 20, Roxburgh clearly cited Native Place as - India and Donors and time, & c. as – 1802. He mentioned Synonyma & Remarks as – S. B. Malutee. 5 and 5 H. M. 9. t. 14. This means Rheede's element is not the sole basis of Echites caryophyllata, he cited Rheede's element and local name “Malutee” as synonym. The herbarium specimens (syntypes) of Roxburgh at BR (2 specimens) and one at K (Wall. cat. n. 1651 [E] of herbarium Roxb.) clears the confusion. The Roxburgh’s specimens of Malutee are now validity - Aganosma heynei (Spreng.) I.M. Turner (2013: 56). Roxburgh, later (2: 11. 1832) provided the description of the same plant and that is now - Aganosma heynei.

Roxburgh misinterpreted "H.M. 9. t. 14" and created a lot of confusion, - in naming the Roxburgh element/plant and Rheede's element with different names (Hooker, 1882: 641 & 663) later by Roth, Wight, G.Don, Spreng., Blume and others.   

So, for Rheede's element (9. t. 14) the valid name is - Kamettia malabarica Kostel.

Dear Rajeev Kumar Singh,

As far as I see, the fact that Roxburgh had more than one element in mind, does not make his Echites caryophyllata invalid. Actually, the reference to "H.M. 9. t. 14" is to only element in Hortus Bengalensis, that fulfills the requirement of Art. 38.1 of the Melbourne Code: "In order to be validly published, a name of a new taxon ... must (a) be accompanied by a description or diagnosis of the taxon or, if none is provided in the protologue, by a reference to a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis ..." (http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art38 ) Whereas "H.M. 9. t. 14" is clearly a reference to a previously published description, the mentioning of the native name "Malutee" is not. Anyway, if Roxburgh in Hortus Bengalensis cites two elements, (1) a native name which refers to his herbarium specimens and (2) the Rheede element which provides the validating description, an uncertainty or ambiguity can be fixed by the choice of a lectotype. If the Tropicos entry of Echites caryophyllatus (http://www.tropicos.org/Name/1800906 ) is correct, Turner (2013) has selected the Rheede illustration in Hortus Malabaricus as the lectotype. As far as I see, this choice is fully in accordance with Art. 9.2-3 (http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art9 ). So, any herbarium specimens, which were the base of neither the validating description nor of the illustration chosen as the lectotype, seem to be out of considerations. Echites caryophyllata being lectotypified, it is a secondary question, if Kamettia malabarica is illegitimate by being based on the same illustration and description, as anyway according to Art. 11.4. (http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php?page=art11 ) the correct name is Kamettia caryophyllata, as this is the "combination of the final epithet of the earliest legitimate name ..."

Regards

Franz Starlinger

Dear Franz Starlinger,

Thanks a lot for your detail analysis on my problem, but still one problem exist in this case. Please analyse -

Ok, as per code the name Echites caryophyllata Roxb. is validly published, but the combination Kamettia caryophyllata  (Roxb.) Nicolson & Suresh is invalid, because it does not fulfills the requirement of Art. 35.5 (b) of the Melbourne Code 38.5:

"The names of a genus and a species may be validly published simultaneously by provision of a single description (descriptio generico-specifica) or diagnosis, even though this may have been intended as only generic or specific, if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the genus is at that time monotypic (see Art. 38.6); (b) no other names (at any rank) have previously been validly published based on the same type; and (c) the names of the genus and species otherwise fulfil the requirements for valid publication. Reference to an earlier description or diagnosis is not acceptable in place of a descriptio generico-specifica."

So, according to article 38.5, the genus Kamettia Kostel. is invalid, not fulfilling the requirement (b) of the code, because the name Echites caryophyllata Roxb. have previously been validly published based on the same type. Then the combination Kamettia caryophyllata (Roxb.) Nicolson & Suresh also becomes invalid.

Thanks and with regards,

R. Kr. Singh

Hello Rajeev,

when discussing nomenclature, always bear in mind some basic rules: confine yourself to the published facts an the relevant rules (not omitting any); and use clear, nomenclaturally correct language (e.g., the ICN does not deal wit "valid genera" but with validly published generic names).

Analysing the three relevant names in sequence, you will find:

Echites caryophyllatus [Art. 62.4] ('coryophyllata') Roxb. 1814 is a legitimate name [Art. 6.5] of a new species [Art. 6.9], validly published through reference, in a footnote 5, to "H.M. 9. t.14" (i.e. Rheede, Hortus malabaricus vol. 9, plate 14, and associated text [Art. 38.1(a)]). No (holo)type was mentioned, therefore the type must be selected from among "elements associated with [Roxburgh'] validating description [Art. 7.7]. According to available sources, the lectotype was designated by Turner in 2013. That designation, if it fulfils the requirements [e.g. Art. 7.10], stands.

Kamettia Kostel. 1834 is a legitimate name [Art. 6.5] of a new genus [Art. 6.9], validly published through provision of descriptive matter referring to the genus [Art. 38.1(a), 38.11(b)]. Its type is the type of the single included species name, K. malabarica Kostel. (see below) [Art. 10.2]. As Kosteletzky provided separate descriptions for the genus and its single species (see below), Art. 38.5 (indeed not applicable) is irrelevant.

Kamettia malabarica Kostel. 1834  is a legitimate name [Art. 6.5] of a new species [Art. 6.9], validly published through its own description and, in addition, a reference to Rheede, Hortus malabaricus vol. 9, plate 14. Its type as far as is known has not been designated so far; however, Rheede's cited plate, the lectotype of Echites caryophyllatus Roxb., is likely to be the only extant element. The reason why the species name is legitimate is that Art. 52.1 is not applicable: Kosteletzky does not mention the name Echites caryophyllatus [Art. 52.2(e)], and that name had neither a holotype [Art. 9.1], nor any syntypes [Art. 9.5], nor had its lectotype [Art. 9.2] been designated in 1834 [Art. 52.2(a-c)].

Back to the original question: Kamettia malabarica Kostel. is a legitimate name, but in all likelihood, once typified, will become a later homotypic synonym of Kamettia caryophyllata (Kostel.) Nicolson & Suresh -- as Starfinger, essentially correctly, had already concluded.

Now I got the answer for my question. Thanks to all for answering.