Place of publication:
Man. bot. San Francisco 93. 1894
Comment:
there is some question as to whether the spelling should be corrected to reflect the classical Latin termination (Melbourne ICN Art. 32.2) for the masculine form of this adjectival epithet (see also W. T. Stearn, Botanical Latin ed. 4:91. 1992), but lacking explicit guidance in the Code for this case we retain the original spelling