Forsellesia

Forsellesia vs. Glossopetalon

In much of the literature, Glossopetalon is the name employed, based on Asa Gray (in Plantae Wrightianae Texano-neo-mexicanae 2: 29, 1853 [Pl. Wright., an account of plants collected by Charles Wright]); however, this is not a legitimate name according to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), because Glossopetalon (A. Gray, ) was considered a homonym of Glossopetalum (J. Schreber 1789, Genera Plantarum ed. 8, I: 205; Goupiaceae or Celastraceae ) by Edward L. Greene (in Erythea 1:206, 1893,) who provided a substitute name, Forsellesia (in honor of a Swedish botanist). Article 53.3 of the ICBN states that “when two or more generic or specific names based on different types are so similar that they are likely to be confused (because they are applied to related taxa or for any other reason) they are to be treated as homonyms.” The slightly different endings for the generic name relate to Greek vs. Latin spellings (N. Holmgren in Intermountain Flora 3A Pt. 1: 160, 1997).

Margaret Ensign (a student of Phillip Munz,), in a revision of the genus Forsellesia (American Midland Naturalist 27(2), 1942), upheld Greene's name (Forsellesia). However, St. John (in Proceedings Biological Society of Washington 55: 109–12, 1942) disagreed. Nevertheless, Munz and Keck, in A California Flora (1959) continued to use Forsellesia.

Thus, the question on whether or not Glossopetalon and Glossopetalum are homonyms remains confusing as to which genus name is correct, Forsellesia or Glossopetalon? The ICBN provides examples of homonyms such as Asterostemma Decne, (1838) and Astrostemma Benth. (1880), Acanthoica Lohmann (1902) and Acanthoeca W. MN. Ellis (1930), and others.

A similar argument was made by Gerhard Follmann in Philippia 1976: 85–89 for the lichen genus Desmazieria Montagne (1852) that he found similar to the grass genus name Desmazeria Dumortier (1822). Follmann (1976, abstract) stated that the names for the two genera “do not sound sufficiently similar that they are likely to be confused. Therefore, the genus name Desmazieria Mont. can be retained.” This was followed by reassignment of species in Ramalina to Desmazieria (new name combinations). But Phillip Rundel and Peter Bowler disagreed (in Mycotaxon 6: 497–99, 1978) with Follmann (1976). They (Rundel & Bowler 1978) provided a substitute name, Niebla, and in so doing they transferred some of Follmann's names and others that they had earlier described in Desmazieria to the genus Niebla, e.g., Niebla pulchribarbara (Rundel & Bowler) Rundel & Bowler, which Bowler and Marsh later placed in synonymy (in Lichen Flora of the Greater Sonoran Desert Region 2, 2004 ) under Niebla josecuervoi (Rundel & Bowler) Rundel & Bowler. Spjut in Flechten Follmann 1995: 337-351 upheld the substitute genus name Niebla.

The Code (ICBN) also cites species epithets as examples of homonyms such as chinensis and sinensis, which certainly do not sound alike. Moreover, when a species name gets transferred from one genus name to another, the endings may change for grammatical reasons, such as with Chrysothamnus nauseousus and Ericameria nauseosa.

Brummitt, in reference to his unpublished submission for review by the Nomenclatural Committee (Taxon 42: 696-97, 1993), indicated that the Nomenclatural Committee found the names Glossopetalon and Glossopetalum not confusable, an issue that was also raised by Holmgren in which he argued that the spellings of the names were sufficiently different; however, this decision is contradicted by history of application in the literature for the substitute name Forsellesia and its synonym Glossopetalon; both had been used equally (50:50) as reported by Brummitt (1993). Thus, for anyone to say that Glossopetalon and Glossopetalum were not confusing after they had already been confused for the past 108 years is contradictory.

If a substitute name (Forsellesia) had never appeared, the Committee's decision would appear reasonable in accordance with Art. 53.5. However, since a substitute name was provided, it would then seem necessary—that for Glossopetalon to be retained—it must be conserved as suggested by Ensign (1942), in regard to Articles 53.1, 53.3 and 53.5.

Although the Nomenclatural Committee may arbitrarily decide on whether two generic names are similar such as with the case of Glossopetalon (Art. 53.5; Brummitt, Taxon 43(3): 460, 1994), these decisions are not included in the appendix of the ICBN as in cases with names that are conserved and rejected, nor do all controversial names get reviewed by the Committee (e.g., Desmazieria). Art. 53.5 of the ICBN does not mandate that problematic names must be reviewed, but rather they are presented as a subjective issue stated as follows: “When it is doubtful whether names of their epithets are sufficiently alike to be confused, a request for a decision may be submitted to the General Committee...A recommendation may then be put forward” (emphasis added). Thus, the ICBN does not specify that when two or more similar names have been confused that they have to be reviewed.

The conclusion here is that because Glossopetalon has not been conserved, Forsellesia remains as the correct name to be applied.

Richard Spjut, Oct 2011