Heteromeles arbutifolia http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?Heteromeles+arbutifolia or Heteromeles salicifolia http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?414959 Which is correct?
I like the former, used by the USDA PLANTS database as well. No slight intended, but when it comes to North American plants and cultivars, we rarely follow the RHS.
I have a few of these growing and seem best when left alone. They are fine in our quick draining rocky, sandy soil. Cheers, LPN.
Hi Daniel, It isn't just the RHS, it's the USDA as well, or at least one branch of it (GRIN). And they usually seem to be up-to-date on their nomenclature (more so than the Plants Profile pages). Of the respective basionyms, Photinia arbutifolia has priority (1821 vs 1851 for Photinia salicifolia) so if GRIN are right, there must be some other reason for the change. Unfortunately, they don't explain their reasons.
Hence the query ;-)) Any chance you could access this and see what it says?: Phipps, J. B. (1992). Heteromeles and Photinia (Rosaceae, subfam. Maloideae) of Mexico and Central America. Canad. J. Bot. 70:2140
Believe it or not, I don't have access to the 1992 journals through the UBC online ejournals. The vendor for pre-1996 doesn't seem to have much of it available - bizarre. Our library here only has issues 1995+. I'll drop a note to the former editor of CJB who I'm sure has this issue - he works in this building, but he's not around this week.
The former editor of CJB disposed of all his old journals the week before he went away, in a strange coincidence! I'll see if I can get it by other means.
I was at the Miller Hort. Library today, searched UW collections in computer for this periodical. They have it going back past 1992, although database listing said a few issues were missing and the way it was presented it wasn't apparent to me which ones were missing. Anyway, odds are pretty good they have the Phipps article there at UW Natural Sciences. Maybe if somebody sends me a box of chocolates I'll go look it up.
Yes, but it's an hour-plus out of my day to go fetch it, and that's an hour I don't seem to have these days. I'll request it through the UBC Interlibrary Loan system and have it delivered to me.
Beginning to look like there is some deity out there who doesn't want the information to be known Thanks for trying so hard!
Just figured out how to check the status of the request. It's listed as "Status: Other". I've sent an email to find out what the hold-up is.
Puzzle solved. Heteromeles salicifolia is correct. From the paper: So, I interpret that as: Aiton published it as Crataegus arbutifolia, which was an invalid name because C. arbutifolia had already been published to denote another species. Since the original name fails, all names based on it are similarly illegitimate.
Many thanks! That would only work if Lindley cited Aiton, as Photinia arbutifolia published without any reference to Aiton's Crataegus arbutifolia would not be illegitimate. I should have a chance to look at Lindley and Aiton soon (off to RBG E for a day next week) Odd that GRIN don't cite Aiton in the authorship of Photinia arbutifolia http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?28071
Time to revisit this one . . . Found this correspondance on the Jepson Flora website, and it seems they conclude Heteromeles arbutifolia is correct after all, as Lindley's Photinia arbutifolia is a valid nom. nov. excluding Crataegus arbutifolia W.T.Aiton. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_cpn.pl?28072&expand=1 Are they correct, or not??
