CSIRO Publishing blank image blank image blank image blank imageBooksblank image blank image blank image blank imageJournalsblank image blank image blank image blank imageAbout Usblank image blank image blank image blank imageShopping Cartblank image blank image blank image You are here: Journals > Australian Systematic Botany   
Australian Systematic Botany
Journal Banner
  Taxonomy, Biogeography & Evolution of Plants
 
blank image Search
 
blank image blank image
blank image
 
  Advanced Search
   

Journal Home
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Contacts
Content
Current Issue
Just Accepted
All Issues
Special Issues
LAS Johnson Review Series
Sample Issue
For Authors
General Information
Notice to Authors
Submit Article
Open Access
For Referees
Referee Guidelines
Review an Article
Annual Referee Index
For Subscribers
Subscription Prices
Customer Service
Print Publication Dates

blue arrow e-Alerts
blank image
Subscribe to our Email Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

red arrow Connect with us
blank image
facebook twitter youtube

red arrow Brunonia
blank image
Brunonia, the predecessor journal to Australian Systematic Botany, is available online.

 

Article     |     Next >>   Contents Vol 15(5)

Leptophytum (Corallinaceae, Rhodophyta): To be or not to be?—That is the question, but what is the answer?

W. J. Woelkerling, G. Furnari and M. Cormaci

Australian Systematic Botany 15(5) 597 - 618
Published: 31 October 2002

Abstract

The question of whether or not Leptophytum (Corallinaceae, Rhodophyta) should be recognised as a distinct genus has been addressed using new data generated from type and other specimens combined with analyses of previously published data from various authors. The results have shown that none of the criteria proposed to separate Leptophytum from Phymatolithon are reliable at generic level. Some lead to the exclusion of type species from genera, others are impossible to assess because information is lacking for virtually all included species, others have character states that intergrade and thus are unsuitable and still others appear to be useful for separating species but not genera. Most of the character states proposed as diagnostic of Leptophytum are unknown or are not present in most of the species that were explicitly included in the recent proposed re-instatement of the genus and, in some cases, species included in Leptophytum show the opposing character state for Phymatolithon. No serious conflict occurs between the holotype fragments of Leptophytum laeve (the type species of Leptophytum) and the designated epitype and the designation of an epitype is fully justified because all of the characters evident in the holotype are demonstrably ambiguous and could apply to more than one species. Moreover, new evidence supports the probable conspecificity of the holotype and the designated epitype and reinforces the conclusion that Leptophytum should not be recognised as a genus distinct from Phymatolithon. Nomenclaturally, the correct authorship of the name of the type species of Leptophytum is L. laeve Adey and not L. laeve (Strömfelt) Adey or L. laeve (Foslie in Rosenvinge) Adey, and for purposes of priority, the name Leptophytum laeve dates from 1966.



Full text doi:10.1071/SB02002

© CSIRO 2002

blank image
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

 
PDF (3 MB) $40
 Export Citation
 Print
  
    
Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2014