竹叶青冈学名评注

杨舒婷<sup>1</sup>; 曹 明<sup>2</sup>; 邓 敏<sup>1*</sup>

引用本文:	杨舒婷, 曹明, 邓敏.竹叶青冈学名评注[J].广西植物,2015,35(1):15-19.[点击复制]
	YANG Shu-Ting, CAO Ming, DENG Min.The comments on the scientific name changes of Quercus neglecta(Schott.)Koidz.[J].Guihaia,2015,35(1):15-19.[点击复制]

【打印本页】【下载PDF全文】【查看/发表评论】【下载PDF阅读器】【关闭】

←前一篇|后一篇→

过刊浏览高级检索

本文已被：浏览 8915次下载 2663次	码上扫一扫！
分享到：微信更多字体:加大+\|默认\|缩小-
竹叶青冈学名评注
杨舒婷¹, 曹明², 邓敏^1*
1. 中国科学院上海辰山植物科学研究中心/上海辰山植物园, 上海 201602;2. 广西壮族自治区中国科学院广西植物研究所, 广西桂林 541006

摘要:

竹叶青冈为我国南方及中南半岛常绿阔叶林常见树种,为该区域的重要材用树种。中国植物志中文版采用Cyclobalanopsis bambusifolia(Hance)Chun ex Y.C. Hsu & H. W. Jen作为其学名,但是基源名Quercus bambusifolia Hance由于错误鉴定1857年并未合格发表,随后基于同一模式和不同的模式,这一种加词先后多次被发表,其中涉及多个裸名、晚出同名、新名称、新组合,学名变化复杂,但其正确学名在国际权威植物分类数据库中并未采纳,正确学名在生态学等研究中亦未采用。因此,对竹叶青冈而言,其学名还存在众多疑问。为了澄清该种的学名,作者通过文献考证和标本核实查阅,对竹叶青冈学名变更历史进行追溯并根据最新的《藻类、真菌、植物国际命名法规》(简称墨尔本法规)对各变更学名进行了评述。本研究结果支持Q. neglecta(Schott.)Koidz作为竹叶青冈正确的学名。但由于国内植物学名仍以中国植物志为主要依据,而中国植物志仍采用狭义栎属Quercus s.s.的概念,为避免造成更多学名混乱,竹叶青冈的学名可沿用中国植物志英文版中学名Cyclobalanopsis neglecta,但中文版所采用C. bambusifolia为错误学名,应该弃用。

关键词: 竹叶青冈分类栎属青冈属

DOI：10.11931/guihaia.gxzw201311016

分类号:Q949.71

基金项目:

The comments on the scientific name changes of Quercus neglecta(Schott.)Koidz.

YANG Shu-Ting¹, CAO Ming², DENG Min^1*

1. Shanghai Chenshan Plant Sciences Research Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences/ Shanghai Chenshan Botanical Garden, Shanghai 201602, China;2. Guangxi Institute of Botany, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guilin 541006, China 1. Shanghai Chenshan Plant Sciences Research Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences/ Shanghai Chenshan Botanical Garden, Shanghai 201602, China; 2. Guangxi Institute of Botany, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guilin 541006, China

Abstract:

Quercus neglecta(Schottky)Koidz. is native to southern China and northern Indo-china. It is an important timber woods and key tree species in this region. Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae used Cyclobalanopsis bambusifolia(Hance)Chun ex Y.C. Hsu & H. W. Jen as its scientific name. However,based on our study on the original prologue and herbarium collections,this name was not correct,because its basionym Quercus bambusifolia Hances(1875)was not valid published,due to the misidentification and it was put as a synonym. Over the following years,the species epithet “bambusifolia” was published several times based on the same and different type specimens,then later transferred to genus Cyclobalanopsis at different times to establish several new combinations. As a result,the scientific name changes of this species were extremely complicated. Currently,the correct scientific name is still not adopted by the key plant taxonomic database,nor properly used in current ecological and forestry studies. Great confusion over the scientific names are still exists on this species. In order to clarify its scientific name confusion,we traced the name changes of this species in this study,and evaluated and clarified each name even applied to the taxa according to the latest “International Code of Nomenclature for algae,fungi,and plants(Melbourne Code)”. Our study demonstrated Q. neglecta (Schott.)Koidz should be the correct scientific name. However,most researchers in China are generally adapted to the narrow genus definition of Quercus(as Quercus s.s.)and Cyclobalanopsis was recognized as an independent genus in Flora of China and Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae. In order to avoid the confusion in the future,the name C. neglecta applied in Flora of China should be served as its formal scientific name,but the name C. bambusifolia in Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae is illegal,and should be abandoned.

Key words: Quercus neglecta Taxonomy Quercus Cyclobalanopsis