Leobordea
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/phytotaxa.184.5.6 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/1F4A87C0-FFD2-FFF8-FF31-F856FBB3FE4A |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Leobordea |
| status |
|
Boatwright et al. (2011), using morphologic and phylogenetic analysis, expanded the concept of Leobordea with the inclusion of Lotononis sect. Digitatae B-E. Van Wyk (1991: 107), Leptis (E. Meyer ex Ecklon & Zeyher) Bentham (1843: 597) , Lipozygis (E. Meyer) Bentham (1843: 597) and Synclistus B-E. Van Wyk (1991: 157). Amongst the new combinations proposed for the genus, Leobordea furcata (Merxmüller & Schreiber) B.-E. van Wyk & Boatwright (in Boatwright et al., 2011: 173) is invalid and Leobordea diffusa (Thunberg) B.-E. van Wyk & Boatwright (2011: 176) is illegitimate.
The basionym of Leobordea furcata was cited as being Lotononis furcata (Merxmüller & Schreiber) Schreiber (1960: 613) , however, the earliest name is, in fact, Amphinomia furcata Merxmüller & Schreiber (1957: 272) .According to the Article 41.8 (see also Ex. 20) of the Code ( McNeill et al. 2012), this combination is invalid. A new combination of Amphinomia furcata Merxmüller & Schreiber in Leobordea is proposed here:
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.