Comment:
according to Gandhi & Zarucchi, Harv Pap Bot 14:1. 2009, Duncan & Pullen failed to correctly cite the basionym, citing only "R. chapmanii A. Gray" (1876). Because Gray had cited "R. punctatum var. Chapm. Fl. 266", Gandhi & Zarucchi interpreted this to be an explicit citation of the validly published R. punctatum var. chapmanii Alph. Wood (1870) and applied Melbourne ICN Art. 41.8a and its Ex. 20 to conclude that Duncan & Pullen's citation of the later basionym cannot be corrected and their proposed new combination was not validly published. However, what Gray cited was clearly Chapman's (Fl. South. U.S. 266. 1860) mention of an unnamed variety of R. punctatum; there was no "explicit reference to Wood's varietal name" as Gandhi & Zarucchi have asserted, so their conclusion on the invalidity of Duncan & Pullen's name is unsupported. However, whether or not their combination should be cited with authorship "(A. Gray) W. H. Duncan & Pullen" or "(Alph. Wood) W. H. Duncan & Pullen" (i.e. corrected under Art. 41.8) requires some interpretation of the intent of 41.8(a), since it was not "the name cited as the basionym" but rather "the final epithet of the name cited as the basionym" that was validly published earlier in this case. The wording of Ex. 20 suggests that reference to an epithet validly published earlier than what was cited would have been correctable as long as there was no reference to the place of valid publication of this epithet in the place that was cited. Because Gray (1876) provided no reference to Alph. Wood's (1870) earlier publication of the final epithet adopted by Duncan & Pullen, by this extension of Art. 41.8(a) we consider their basionym citation of Gray to be correctable to that of Alph. Wood.