Carex remota L., 1755

Jarvis, Charlie, 2007, Chapter 7: Linnaean Plant Names and their Types (part C), Order out of Chaos. Linnaean Plant Types and their Types, London: Linnaean Society of London in association with the Natural History Museum, pp. 370-473 : 388-389

publication ID	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.291971
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5641294
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/AE85E0E0-0DF4-BBA3-F8C3-2F75A55E8436
treatment provided by	Admin
scientific name	Carex remota L.
status

Treatment

Carex remota Linnaeus View in CoL , Flora Anglica: 24. 1754.

"Habitat [in Anglia.]" RCN: 7068.

Replaced synonym of: Carex axillaris L. (1759) , nom. illeg.

Type not designated.

Original material: [icon] in Plukenet, Phytographia: t. 34, f. 3. 1691; Almag. Bot.: 178. 1696; [icon] in Morison, Pl. Hist. Univ. 3: 243, s. 8, t. 12, f. 17. 1699.

Current name: Carex remota L. View in CoL ( Cyperaceae ).

Note: In 1754, Linnaeus described C. remota in Fl. Anglica where it is validated by a reference to Ray’s Syn. Meth. Stirp. Brit. (1724: 424). The latter account includes, among other elements, synonyms from Morison (Pl. Hist. Univ. 3: 243, s. 8, t. 12, f. 17. 1699) and Plukenet (Almag. Bot.: 178. 1696; Phytogr.: t. 34, f. 3. 1691). A year later, in another thesis (Cent. I Pl.: 31. 1755), Linnaeus gave a second account of C. remota , this time with a new diagnosis and with synonyms taken from works by Guettard, Dalibard, Scheuchzer and Ray, as well as the Morison and Plukenet accounts cited previously in 1754. In Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 2: 1262 ( May–Jun 1759), Linnaeus recognised a single C. remota (cited as from 1755), but in a later edition of Fl. Anglica (in Amoen. Acad. 4: 107. Nov 1759), he substituted C. axillaris for C. remota (1754). Perhaps most significantly, in Sp. Pl., ed. 2. 1763), Linnaeus recognised both C. axillaris (p. 1382) and C. remota (p. 1383). Despite Linnaeus later (Syst. Nat., ed. 12, 2: 617. 1767) explicitly uniting C. remota and C. axillaris under the former name, C. remota (1754) and C. remota (1755) must be treated as independent names, with the latter an illegitimate homonym of the former. Although some authors (e.g. Chater in Tutin & al., Fl. Europaea 5: 300. 1980) regard the name as dating from 1754, others (e.g. Egorova, Sedges of Russia: 539. 1999) treat it as appearing first in 1755. Egorova also typified C. remota (1755), using the Morison illustration.