Many names sooner or later end in citing Bauhin's Pinax theatri botanici or the Prodromos. To properly lectotypify, however, it would be very helpful to know, which books Bauhin actually referred to. I know that there's a list in the beginning of the PTB but it does not reveal the exact edition or book. Is there any source or paper on that?
Please follow the following link : http://botanicus.org/title/b11921328.
You can get further information about old references, include Bauhin and other authors.Good luck...
Thanks for your answer but I already have the PTB, and I know about the list in the beginning as I wrote. The question is, which exact books (author, edition, publication year) Bauhin had at hand. When Bauhin cites e.g., "Brunfels", it is not clear which of Brunsfels' books and which edition is meant. However, for lectotypification, one needs to typify with what the author had actually seen.
Bauhin's works are from before Linnaeus and thus the names are invalid. Types can only be chosen based on the material cited in the earliest publications. If Bauhin is cited, then this is only a diagnosis, not a type, and there is no original material present, as you cannot assume that when Linnaeus cited Bauhin, he actually saw Brunfels's specimen or illustration. If Linnaeus did, he would have cited Brunfels's plate or specimen as well. Hope this helps.
Yes Maarten is perfectly correct. If a name is not validly published, there is no question of type or original material.
Thanks for your reply. The name is validly published, it was rather the question of typification, which Maarten answered.
You should also keep in mind that in Species Plantarum 1753 on page viii Linnaeus wrote: "I ignored unseen plants having been mislead so many times by [other] authors, I did not mix doubtful [plants] with certain ones, and if it really sometimes happened that I had insufficiently examined a plant or had had an imperfect specimen, I marked the one with a † sign, let the others study it closer." Forgive my English translation from Latin.
@Maarten,
You wrote: "he would have cited Brunfels's plate or specimen". Did you mean that any Brunfels' original material existed apart of plates?
Maarten, isn't your answer in contradiction to Art. 7.7, Ex. 10?
"Ex.10. Echium lycopsis L. (Fl. Angl.: 12. 1754) was published without a description or diagnosis but with reference to Ray (Syn. Meth. Stirp. Brit., ed. 3: 227. 1724), in which a “Lycopsis” species was discussed with no description or diagnosis but with citation of earlier references, including Bauhin (Pinax: 255. 1623). The accepted validating description of E. lycopsis is that of Bauhin, and the type must be chosen from the context of his work. [...] The first acceptable choice is that of the illustration, cited by both Ray and Bauhin, of “Echii altera species” in Dodonaeus (Stirp. Hist. Pempt.: 620. 1583), suggested by Gibbs (in Lagascalia 1: 60–61. 1971) and formally made by Stearn (in Ray Soc. Publ. 148, Introd.: 65. 1973)."
So, a post-1792 name without description but with a reference to a pre-Linnean work with a description (e.g., Bauhin) is valid. It is to be typified with what is mentioned in that earlier book's (e.g., Bauhin's) context. This includes figures in the direct citations of the validating publication, even if the final describer did not see these.
Hi, many of these books are digitised, and most of them are available in Biodiversity Heritage Library, Internet Archive, Hathi Trust, etc.
And yes, you can (must) go back in time following Linnaeus's (or anyone's) references / polynomials until you find an icon, and that is suitable as a lectotype, like in the example.
And sometimes there are specimens from pre-Linnean times, remember Burser's herbarium, from which many types have been designated. The Bauhin brothers left a herbarium as well.