首页>
外文期刊>Nordic Journal of Botany
>Identification and typification of Nepenthes blancoi, with N. abalata sp. nov. from the western Visayas, Philippines
【24h】
Identification and typification of Nepenthes blancoi, with N. abalata sp. nov. from the western Visayas, Philippines
展开▼
机译：识别和典型化的猪笼草blancoi, n . abalata sp. 11月的西方维萨亚斯,菲律宾
Nepenthes blancoi Blume (1852) has long been an enigmatic name. It has variously been treated as "non satis notae" (Hooker 1873), resurrected (Macfarlane 1908, 1927) or made a synonym of N. alata (Danser 1928, Jebb and Cheek 1997, Cheek and Jebb 2001).Blume appears to have based N. blancoi purely on some notes made by Blanco after he described N. alata Blanco and N. ventricosa Blanco in the first edition of his 'Flora de Filipinas' (Blanco 1837). There is no evidence that Blanco made any specimens ofNepenthes or, if he did, that they survived. We have checked for his specimens with the curators of the Madrid herbarium (MA) without success, although collections of Blanco are cited there in Lanjouw and Stafleu (1954). However, elsewhere it is stated that Blanco did not make permanent specimens (Merrill 1918, 1923a), and that no authentic Blanco material is known (Veldkamp 1989). As Macfarlane (1927) points out, Hooker informally rejected N. blancoi as "non satis notae". It is notable that N. blancoiis not maintained, but treated as a synonym of N. melamphora Blume in the 'Novissima appendix' to the third edition of Blanco's 'Flora de Filipinas' (Fernandez-Villar 1880, p. 173). This suggests that Blanco's successors as authors of that work acceptedthat N. blancoi did not merit recognition. The name N. blancoi was then dropped until Macfarlane (1908) attempted to revive it. We argue in this paper that Macfarlane mistakenly applied the name N. blancoi to a different taxon. First, we must look in detail at Blumes protologue of 1852 and Blanco's note of 1837 on which it was based.
展开▼
机译：猪笼草blancoi布鲁姆(1852)一直是神秘的名字。麦克法兰(1908、1927)或N的同义词。和杰布2001)。后由布兰科blancoi纯粹一些笔记他描述了n alata布兰科和n .紫布兰科的第一版的弗洛拉·德·菲律宾(1837年布兰科)。布兰科ofNepenthes或做出任何标本,如果他所做的,他们活了下来。他的标本的策展人马德里植物标本(MA)没有成功,尽管布兰科在Lanjouw引用的集合和Stafleu(1954)。表示,布兰科没有永久性的标本(美林1918年,1923年),和没有真实的布兰科材料(Veldkamp而闻名1989)。非正式地拒绝了联合国blancoi作为“不满意notae”。维护,但视为同义词的N。melamphora布鲁姆“Novissima附录”布兰科的植物de的第三版菲律宾的(Fernandez-Villar 1880, p . 173)。作者表明,布兰科的继任者工作acceptedthat n blancoi没有价值识别。直到麦克法兰(1908)试图恢复它。在本文中,我们认为,麦克法兰误应用n . blancoi到不同的分类单元的名称。首先,我们必须详细看布卢姆protologue 1852年和1837年布兰科的注意它的基础。
展开▼
