中国丝盖伞属Inocybe(Fr.)Fr.名录(英文)

我国记载的丝盖伞属Inocybe(Fr.)Fr.共有98个分类单位,包括90种5变种3变型。根据CABI数据库和《国际植物命名法规》(维也纳法规)订正了文献中的部分拉丁学名,将曾经报道的、但应作为属内异名的名称列在其正名之后,错误拼写和错误引用均在相应名称后有所说明;已组合到其他属和不合格发表的名称补充于名录之后。在以往报道的名称中有16个为属内异名,1个已被组合到其他属,5个拉丁学名存在错误拼写,1个为错误引用,4个为不合格发表名称。订正后的名录含丝盖伞属88个名称,包括78种7变种3变型,并记载了各分类群的地理分布。     

卫矛科沟瓣属一新名称

印度支那植物志中有一个假卫矛属植物名称Microtropis poilanei。据其模式标本来看,该种显然不是假卫矛属Microtropis Wallich植物,而是沟瓣属Glyptopetalum Thwaites一新成员。由于种名Glyptope-talumpoilanei Tardieu已经合法发表,笔者根据其模式标本叶全缘的特点,提出新名称为全缘叶沟瓣Glypto-petalum integrifolium Q.W.Lin,Z.X.Zhang & Q.R.Liu。此外由于Microtro pispoilanei未合格发表,作者补充了新名称的拉丁描述。     

桃儿七属的命名学考订

桃儿七属（SinopodophyUum）是中国一喜马拉雅地区特有的单型属,仅桃儿七（S．hexandrum）一种。桃儿七的根茎和果实均具有较高的药用价值,人类的过度采挖和种群恢复较慢使其种群数量急剧下降,现已被列入《中国物种红色名录》。在近年来的一些研究论文中,学名S．hexandrum和S．emodi常被}昆用,这使得有必要考证桃儿七学名的命名学历史,确认正确的学名使用。查阅原始文献发现．S．hexandrum的基名Podophyllum hexandrum Royle发表于1834年．而S．emodi的基名PodophyUum emodiWall．ex Honigberger到1852年才合格发表（大多数学者认为是Hooker和Thomson在1855年合格发表）．因此,名称S．hexandrum比名称S．emodi具有优先权。名称的混乱起于1979年应俊生建立桃儿七属时,他提出组合“S．emodi（Wall．）Ying”作为桃儿七的学名。另外,由于他未引证Honigberger或Hooker和Thomson的文献信息,所以组合“S．emodi”没有被合格发表（规则41．5）。随后,1985年出版的《西藏植物志》桃儿七属中,应俊生发现之前的错误并采用名称“S．hexandrum”取代了“S．emodi”。遗憾的是他虽然意识到该名称是新组合,但未引证基名P．hexandrum合格发表的文献信息,使得组合“S．hexandrum（Rolye）Ying”没有被合格发表。近年来出版的《云南植物志》、《青海植物志》、《中国植物》和《Flora of China〉〉均未发现该错误,一直认为“S．hexandrum（Rolye）Ying”合格发表时间是1985。实际上．在1993年由于编写格式要求,应俊生在王文采和武素功主编的《横断山区维管束植物》中引证了基名合格发表的文献信息。因此,该名称的合格发表时间是1993年,而不是常认为的1985年。     

桃儿七属的命名学考订

桃儿七属（Sinopodophyllum）是中国-喜马拉雅地区特有的单型属,仅桃儿七（Shexandrum）一种。桃儿七的根茎和果实均具有较高的药用价值,人类的过度采挖和种群恢复较慢使其种群数量急剧下降,现已被列入《中国物种红色名录》。在近年来的一些研究论文中,学名Shexandrum和Semodi常被混用,这使得有必要考证桃儿七学名的命名学历史,确认正确的学名使用。查阅原始文献发现,Shexandrum的基名Podophyllum hexandrum Royle发表于1834年,而Semodi的基名Podophyllum emodi Wall. ex Honigberger到1852年才合格发表（大多数学者认为是Hooker和Thomson在1855年合格发表）,因此,名称Shexandrum比名称Semodi具有优先权。名称的混乱起于1979年应俊生建立桃儿七属时,他提出组合“Semodi (Wall.) Ying”作为桃儿七的学名。另外,由于他未引证Honigberger或Hooker和Thomson的文献信息,所以组合“Semodi”没有被合格发表（规则415）。随后,1985年出版的《西藏植物志》桃儿七属中,应俊生发现之前的错误并采用名称“Shexandrum”取代了“Semodi”。遗憾的是他虽然意识到该名称是新组合,但未引证基名Phexandrum合格发表的文献信息,使得组合“Shexandrum (Rolye) Ying”没有被合格发表。近年来出版的《云南植物志》、《青海植物志》、《中国植物》和《Flora of China》均未发现该错误,一直认为“Shexandrum (Rolye) Ying”合格发表时间是1985。实际上,在1993年由于编写格式要求,应俊生在王文采和武素功主编的《横断山区维管束植物》中引证了基名合格发表的文献信息。因此,该名称的合格发表时间是1993年,而不是常认为的1985年。     

几种虫草属真菌的学名订正

本文合格发表虫草属两个变型的名称,即Cordyceps militaris f.albina(蛹虫草白化变型)和C.ophioglossoides f.alba(大团囊虫草白化变型),并提出新名称C.shimizui(清水虫草)以代替非法的晚出同名C.chichibuensis Kobayasi & Shimizu,同时也证实C.shanxiensis(山西虫草)的合格发表地位。Cordyceps purpureostramata f.recurvata是一个不合格名称,其模式标定可以从原白中提供的照片得到线索。虫草属下分类单元作者的准确引证和一些种或种下分类单元拉丁名加词的正确拼法也在此作了讨论。     

冬虫夏草无性型研究概况*

文献调查结果表明与冬虫夏草有关的无性型菌种已报道有22个学名,涉及13个属。针对这些名称上存在的命名问题本文展开了讨论,并评述了不同名称与冬虫夏草的关系及其有关菌种的研究进展。在已报道的分离菌种中,作为新种正式描述的名称有8个,其中6个为合格发表,其余2个未能满足名称合格发表的条件;还有4个名称在文献中作为新种提到,但没有合格发表的出处,也有一例只提到名称而无其他要素;另有5个名称则只有属名,尚未鉴定到种的水平。中国被毛孢为多个独立的研究证明为冬虫夏草的无性型,还有3个无性型名称已被证明不可能是冬虫夏草的无性型。其他无性型名称与冬虫夏草的关系有待进一步验证。文中对与冬虫夏草有关的菌种定名、无性型分离和验证方法、复无性型现象,以及有关学名问题作了讨论。     

世界及中国菌物新命名发表概况(2020年)

菌物是全球生物多样性最丰富的生物类群之一, 每年有大量新物种被描述和发现, 统计和分析菌物新名称发表数据, 可实时展示菌物分类学的研究热点, 并为学科的未来发展提供参考数据。根据世界菌物名称信息库Fungal Names、Index Fungorum和MycoBank所收录的数据, 2020年全球共发表了4,996个菌物新名称, 包括652个新高阶分类单元、2,905个新种及种下单元、1,342个新组合和97个其他名称, 是历史上发表菌物新名称数量最多的一年。这些新名称隶属于12门44纲173目469科1,386属, 盘菌、小型子囊菌、地衣和伞菌是本年度最受关注的类群。来自全球的1,978位学者将上述菌物新名称发表在133个期刊的885篇论文和9部专著中, 其中669位作者是首次参与新名称发表, 是历年来新作者最多的一年。本年度发表的菌物新物种的模式标本来自世界103个国家和地区, 东亚和东南亚是新物种发现的最热点地区, 而中国是发现新物种最多的国家, 共发现663种, 占全球的23%, 是排名第二位的泰国的2.28倍。西南地区是我国新物种发现的热点地区, 云南、贵州、西藏三省区本年度发现的新物种数量占全国的44.80%。除了新物种来源, 中国学者在本年度的菌物分类学研究中取得了令人瞩目的成果, 333位中国学者参与发表了1,271个菌物新名称, 占全球新名称总数的1/4。这些菌物新名称隶属于8门24纲87目209科440属, 发表在45个期刊的258篇研究论文和1部专著中。通过上述研究发现, 全球菌物新物种发现的速度仍在加快, 命名作者和新名称发表数量在逐步增加, 研究类群规模在逐渐扩大。但菌物物种描述率仍处于较低水平, 持续、高效地发现菌物新物种将是菌物学者的重点研究方向之一。     

中国毛莨科植物小志（廿一）

（１）对Ｐ．Ａ．Ｍｕｎｚ１９６７～１９６８年发表的关于亚洲翠雀属一文中的多数错误鉴定逐一加以改正;（２）从Ｍｕｎｚ鉴定错误的标本中发现了４新种和１新变种;（３）在发同了浅裂菟葵的具有花标本之后,补充了该种花的描述;（４）在研究了ＴｈａｌｉｃｔｒｕｍｌａｘｕｍＵｌｂｒ．的等模式之后,认为该种不能成立,应是Ｔ．ｒｏｂｕｓｔｕｍＭａｘｉｍ,的异名。（５）描述了１铁线莲属新种。     

中国银杏目植物化石的几个命名问题

依据《国际植物命名法规》（维也纳法规）第6.4条, 我国两种银杏目植物化石具有不合法的形态种名。Sphenobaiera biloba S. N. Feng （1977）和S. rugata Z. Q. Wang （1984, Dec.） 分别为S. biloba Prynada （1938）和S.？ rugata Z. Y. Zhou （1984, Mar.）的晚出同名。兹遵照国际植物命名法规（第7.3和53.1条）为上述两种植物分别建立新名称。另两个形态种名Ginkgoites elegans S. Yang, B. N. Sun ＆ G. L. Shen （1988）和Baiera ziguiensis F. S. Meng （1987）在发表时都未曾明确指定模式标本, 因而是不合格发表的名称（法规第12和37条）。本文为之分别指定主模式, 并建立新种。Ginkgoites elegans Z. Y. Cao （1992）一名虽然被Ginkgoites elegans S. Yang, B. N. Sun ＆ G. L. Shen （1988）先期占用, 因其为合格发表名称, 仍可应用, 而后一名称不是合格发表的, 并不具备命名上的优先权。     

冬虫夏草无性型研究概况

文献调查结果表明与冬虫夏草有关的无性型菌种已报道有22个学名,涉及13个属。针对些命名称上存在的命名问题本文展开了讨论,并评述了不同名称与冬虫夏草的关系及其有关菌种的研究进展。在已报道的分离菌种中,作为新种正式描述的名称有8个,其中6个为合格发表,其余2个未能满足名称合格发表的条件;还有4个名称在文献中作为新种提到,但没有合格发表的出处,也有一例只提到名称而无其他要素;另有5个名称则只有属名,尚未鉴定到种的水平。中国被毛孢为多个独立的研究证明为冬虫夏草的无性型,还有3个无性型名称已被证明不可能是冬虫夏草的无性型。其他无性型名称与冬虫夏草的关系有待进一步验证。文中对与冬虫夏草有关的菌种定名、无性型分离和验证方法、复无性型现象,以及有关学名问题作了讨论。     

Correction: Early evolution of the biotin-dependent carboxylase family

ABSTRACT: After publication of our work (Lombard et al, BMC Evol Biol, 2011, 11:232), we noticed several major mistakes in the figure images provided for final publication: although the main text and the legends are correct, Figure 3 has been replaced by an image present in the Addition File 1 and Figures 4, 5 and 6 are displaced with regard to their correct numbers and legends. Please, accept our apologies and refer to the correct corresponding Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 that we provide in this erratum. Legends are the same as in the original article.     

苦苣苔科植物学名种加词的问题

苦苣苔科植物是个研究活跃的类群,近年来随着新类群的报道和分类系统的变动,在该科的分类学研究中,出现了不少学名的种加词的性和属名不一致或出现拼写错误的情况,虽然这些错误不影响该名称的合格发表,但还是有必要根据《国际藻类、菌物和植物命名法规》进行改正。该文就苦苣苔科植物中属名以-stigma结尾的学名、属名以-cheilos结尾的学名、根据属名词尾不容易判断出性别的学名、拼写错误的名称等问题进行了分析,并对13个不符合法规的名称予以改正。此外,还就苦苣苔科植物学名的合格发表和规范使用进行了讨论。     

Zoological nomenclature in the digital era

Creation and use of the scientific names of animals are ruled by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Until recently, publication of new names in a work produced with ink on paper was required for their availability. A long awaited amendment to the Code issued in September 2012 by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature now allows publication of new names in online-only works, provided that the latter are registered with ZooBank, the Official Register of Animal Names. With this amendment, the rules of zoological nomenclature have been aligned with the opportunities (and needs) of our digital era. However, possible causes for nomenclatural instability remain. These could be completely removed if the Code-compliant publication of new names will be identified with their online registration, under suitable technological and formal (legal) conditions. Future developments of the ZooBank may provide the tool required to make this definitive leap ahead in zoological nomenclature.     

New Phytologist 141 (1999), 99–108

In the January 1999 issue of New Phytologist , we published the research paper entitled 'The effect of light on the growth and reproduction of Floerkea proserpinacoides ' by Margaret F. McKenna and Gilles Houle ( New Phytol . (1999) 141 , 99–108). Since its publication, the authors have identified two important errors in the text. First, values given for leaf area ratio (LAR) and specific leaf area (SLA) have been given erroneously in units of cm² g⁻¹; the correct units are cm² mg⁻¹. Second, the values for unit leaf rate (ULR) have been given incorrectly as tenfold lower than they should be; these should be multiplied by ten to give the correct values in mg m⁻² d⁻¹.
We apologise to our readers for these mistakes.     

A nomenclatural analysis of the generic names of phanerogams proposed byF. M. Opiz in his Seznam rostlin květeny české

The authors have examined the nomenclatural status of the generic names proposed byF. M. Opiz in his work “Seznam Rostlin Květeny ?eské” (A list of Bohemian plants) and of names which have been regarded in later literature as first published in that book. Many of the generic names proposed byOpiz in his Seznam were not in fact validly published in that book; on the other hand the valid publication of several names is conditioned by various types of indirect indication of an earlier effectively published diagnosis. Of the 80 generic names analysed 36 were validly published byOpiz in various works (not all in the Seznam), but only 13 to 15 are legitimate in the sense of the International Code 1966. The legitimate names are:Cenekia, Ceranthe, Duschekia, Euacer, Jovibarba, Kablikia, Lamiopsis, Liebichia, Plethiosphace, Pseudolysimachion, Spirocarpus, Swida, Weitenwebera and perhapsMargarospermum andNenningia. Of these legitimate names four are considered by the authors as correct i.e.Duschekia, Jovibarba, Pseudolysimachion andSwida; in the Appendix some new combinations with these generic names are proposed. In the text some mistakes concerningOpiz's generic names in Index Kewensis are corrected. For 14 ofOpiz's generic names the lectotypes are seleced. A special notice is given to the nomenclatural problems of the group “Avenastrum”.     

Index nominum familiarum plantarum vascularium

A list of 2510 vascular plant family names is provided, valid and not validly published as well as legitimate and not legitimate. Each entry has a full bibliographic reference, nomenclatural status, generic type (when based on a generic name), means of validation, original place of publication for pre-1789 works, isonyms, invalid names proposed prior to a name’s validation, first use of correct orthography (if not given in the original publication), first uses of other orthographic variations, divisional placements of typified names, indication of acceptance in the botanical literature after 1960, and a four-letter abbreviation for the legitimate family name. In addition, nomenclaturally correct, typified names are listed for the ranks of order, superorder, subclass, class, subdivision, division/phylum, and subkingdom (for a total of 753 names), with full bibliographic citations. A similar list of 1569 currently available extant vascular plant family names is also given, of which 960 are considered to be in “current use.” A starting date for all names is assumed to be 4 August 1789 (Jussieu,Generaplantarum). Current difficulties with family nomenclature, and potential changes to bibliographic citations as a result of recently proposed changes to theInternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature, are noted.     

Nomenclatural revision of 36 species of plants in the Chinese herbae 《Zhi Wu Ming Shi Tu Kao》

The “Iconographia Plantarum” written by Wu Chi-Tseng in the Qing Dynasty (A. D. 1848) is a classical monumental work in the literature of botany. 1714 species of plants widely-spread all over 19 provinces of our country, especeally in Jiangxi, Hunan and Yunnan Provinces, were described in this book. nan and Yunnan Provinces, were described try, especeally in Jiangxi, Hunan and Yun. In order to make the plant names coincide with the original material as possible, the author had commented upon chinese herbal in considerable detail. Most of the plants were illustrated after their habitual appearence in somewhat clear manner. As a means for identifying certain species of the plant, this work has been playing an important role in development of modern botanical science in China. In modern taxonomical books a great deal of chinese name of plants are originated from this book, and they were available for reference to numerous researchers both at home and abroad. On account of inadequate observation, a lot of mistakes or misleadings occured in this book, and often been overlooked by the later botanists. Some of the modern authors still adhere to the work “Iconographia Plantarum”and even quoting the erroneous statement from it, thus we have to correct. This paper annotates and commentates the misleading items of 36 species of plant, and calls for the attention to the future readers.