Helianthus angustifolius L., 1753
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.291971 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4363602 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/AE34FFED-656C-CD9A-66A6-5BE20E9B0CDB |
treatment provided by |
Admin |
scientific name |
Helianthus angustifolius L. |
status |
|
Helianthus angustifolius Linnaeus View in CoL , Species Plantarum 2: 906. 1753.
"Habitat in Virginia." RCN: 6547.
Lectotype (Heiser & al. in Mem. Torrey Bot. Club 22(3): 183. 1969): Clayton 13 (BM-000032582).
Current name: Helianthus angustifolius L. View in CoL ( Asteraceae ).
Note: Watson (in Pap. Michigan Acad. Sci. 9: 336. 1929) referred to material at LINN as the type, though it is unclear which sheet was intended. There is no suitably annotated sheet under Helianthus , though there is sheet 1025.9 (under Rudbeckia). However, this material came from David van Royen, certainly after 1753, and it cannot be original material for the name. Fernald (in Rhodora 49: 190. 1947) regarded a Clayton specimen as the type. However, from his illustration (pl. 1084, f. 1) it is clear that he intended Clayton 667 (which is original material for Coreopsis angustifolia L. but not for this), and not Clayton 13 (which is original material for H. angustifolius ). Heiser & al. (in Mem. Torrey Bot. Club 22(3): 183. 1969) stated "(T: Virginia, Clayton)", adding (p. 186) that the photo they had seen from BM "bearing the annotation as the type of H. angustifolius shows a plant with much broader leaves [than Clayton 667]". It seems clear they regarded Clayton 13 as the type. See Reveal & al. (in Huntia 7: 223. 1987), who recognised Fernald’s error.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Helianthus angustifolius L.
Jarvis, Charlie 2007 |
Helianthus angustifolius
Linnaeus 1753: 906 |