NOMENCLATURAL NOTE ON SOME NEW COMBINATIONS IN ARAUCARIOXYLON KRAUS AND PODOCARPOXYLON GOTHAN (FOSSILS)

It should be noted that Meyer's R. sect. Operculatae included R. carolina L. and has priority over the better known R. sect. Carolinae Crepin. Moreover, when Crepin (1876: 82) published his sectional name, he stated: "Enfin les especes americaines des Rosae operculatae, c'est-A-dire les R. lucida, R. carolina, R. nitida et R. parviflora, constituent la nouvelle section des Carolinae". Meyer did not indicate a type for R. sect. Operculatae, and therefore a lectotype must be selected from the species names listed by him. They were: "Rosa rubrifolia Vill.!--R. lucida Ehrh.!-R. carolina L.!-R. nitida W.! (ex Lindl. t.2)-R. Silverhielmii Schrenk!-R. glandulosa Bell.-R. microcarpa Lindl.? (t.18)-R. laxa Lindl.? (t.3)-R. parvifolia Ehrh.?-R. Rapa Bosc?-R. turbinata Ait.?-Ultimae tres species sectionem forsitan distinctam constituunt." It would appear that the last three names must be eliminated, and, indeed, that Meyer placed the more typical species first. This supposition is supported by another comment: "Rosa rubrifolia, R. lucida, R. nitida und einige andere Arten bilden, meiner Eintheilung, eine besondere Gruppe". Once again R. rubrifolia was placed first, and thus it seems probable that Meyer regarded it as the type. Hence R. rubrifolia Villars is hereby selected as lectotype of R. sect. Operculatae, which is consequently reduced to synonymy under R. sect. Caninae Seringe. The correct name for R. rubrifolia is probably R. glauca Pourret, but this does not affect the typification of R. sect. Operculatae.