ALLIUM 2016

[Maggi Young]

Why is it them that some noted suppliers and members of this forum are using A. bodeanum?

 Habit?

[fermi de Sousa]

Why is it them that some noted suppliers and members of this forum are using A. bodeanum?

Surely not just to sell more bulbs to unsuspecting bulb collectors  
cheers
fermi

[Chris Johnson]

Habit?

Could be, Maggi.

When I was gardening, several years ago, in the Midlands, we grew Allium cristophii. It wasn't until I started a new garden up here that I became aware of A. bodeanum as a synonym. It must have been some time ago for it to take hold so I wonder when it reverted back to its original name?

[Diane Clement]

Allium bodeanum was distributed under that name by Jim Archibald, who listed it thus:

Allium bodeanum (Sect. Acanthoprason) No data but originally from an Anne Ala coll. A splendid endemic of Khorasan, in NE Iran, & adjacent Turkmenistan. Related to A. cristophii but with fewer, shorter, wider, falcate, blue-grey  leaves & a shorter, fatter scape carrying a huge, spherical umbel of large, starry, violet-purple flowers with whitish perigonia. Rated as highly garden-worthy by Per Wendelbo & “certainly one of the more remarkable species of its genus.”

I suppose some people and nurseries may hang on to that name if the original source of their material was Archibald. 

[Chris Johnson]

Thanks, Diane.

So Jim saw it as sufficiently distinct to give it a new species name, but later wisdom has synonymised them. With Jim's keep eye, perhaps a sub-specific rank would have been more appropriate?

[Lori S.]

That is what I have found on several sites, Lori. Most confusing is:
http://www.eu-nomen.eu/portal/taxon.php?GUID=A9137916-9B04-4ED2-9783-CB963E2752C5#
where they call A. bodeanum a 'heterotypic synonym', which I don't pretend to fully understand.

Why is it them that some noted suppliers and members of this forum are using A. bodeanum?

So it's saying the same thing as The Catalogue of Life, namely that A. christophii is the accepted name and A. bodeanum is a synonym.  (Note that I have no opinion on this - I'm just reporting what a taxonomic nomenclature site says.)

[Diane Clement]

Thanks, Diane.

So Jim saw it as sufficiently distinct to give it a new species name, but later wisdom has synonymised them. With Jim's keep eye, perhaps a sub-specific rank would have been more appropriate?

Jim didn't name it, it was named in 1875
http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do?id=527693-1
There must be some taxonomy issues to have combined them.

[Chris Johnson]

Jim didn't name it, it was named in 1875
http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do?id=527693-1
There must be some taxonomy issues to have combined them.

So A. cristophii must predate 1875 to take precedence.

[Matt T]

It may be that A.bodeanum, collected from a discrete geographical region was thought to be/described as a new species but later has been reviewed and decided that it either falls within the range of natural variability for A.christophii or is insufficiently distinct from it and so demoted to a synonym? I'm sure we all have plants under incorrect names that preserve their association with collectors or their locations.

[Maggi Young]

From the Kew Plant List ......


Allium bodeanum Regel is a synonym of Allium cristophii Trautv.

This name is a synonym of Allium cristophii Trautv..

The record derives from WCSP (data supplied on 2012-03-23) which reports it as a synonym (record 295146) with original publication details: Trudy Imp. S.-Peterburgsk. Bot. Sada 3(2): 238 1875.

Allium cristophii Trautv. is an accepted name

This name is the accepted name of a species in the genus Allium (family Amaryllidaceae).

The record derives from WCSP (data supplied on 2012-03-23) which reports it as an accepted name (record 295301) with original publication details: Trudy Imp. S.-Peterburgsk. Bot. Sada 9: 268 1884.

So A. bodeanum was the earlier description - no understanding these taxonomists, I reckon!     

(It's not that I  consider the Kew Plant List to be infallible)

[Diane Clement]

So A. bodeanum was the earlier description - no understanding these taxonomists, I reckon!

I think Matt's theory is the correct one   

[Maggi Young]

I think Matt's theory is the correct one   

Very likely, but it doesn't "square" with the accepted  info we're given about  earliest  names  getting precedence, does it?

[Gabriela]

The priority principle applies only if the name was 'validly and legitimately' published. So, there can be many reasons, it doesn't suffice only to look at the publication year. A quick look on http://www.tropicos.org/Name/18400012 reveals that
A. christophii is an invalid name.; A. bodeanum is nom. rej. against Allium christophii Trautv. (nom. cons.)

It seems that there was some misspelling since a first publication gives Allium cristophii, which was an ann. of Allium cristophi.
The first collector of the species was Cristoph.

Fritsch, R. M. 1999. (1419) Proposal to conserve the name Allium cristophii, preferably with the spelling A. christophii, against A. bodeanum (Liliaceae). Taxon 48(3): 577–579.

[Matt T]

There are some exceptions to the rule, where a name that actually has precedence is rejected in favour of another, i.e. because its usage is so well established. There's an example I was reading about recently but can't recall right now, a Galanthus species maybe. It'll come back to me.

[Matt T]

Super sleuthing, well done Gabriela.