EXERCISE I
(ON ARTICLE 7)
Rosa alba Smith and Farquart, sp. nov. Amer. J. Bot. 83: 44. 1989.
[Latin diagnosis here]
[Optional English circumscription here]
[Optional discussion here]
SPECIMENS EXAMINED: ALBANIA: Zagreb, 10.vi.43, no. 43678 (MICH); BULGARIA: Sofia, 11.vii.57, no. 998113 (F); CZECHOSLOVAKIA: vic. Prague, 7.v.11, s.n. (PR, K, type); GERMANY (west): Bavaria, Regensburg, 13.vi.64, no. 663302 (MUN); GERMANY (east): Leipzig, 12.iv.44, s.n. (LPZ, type); SWITZERLAND: Zurich, 23.vii.1899, no. 120349 (ZH).
1. What title can be given to the two specimens designated as types?
2. What title can be given to the two parts of the Czech type?
3. What title can be given to the other specimens?
4. What action is necessary according to the ICBN?
5. What is the title of the sole surviving type?
6. If the Czech specimen is selected as "type," what action is required for its other part?
7. What is the title of other part AFTER appropriate action is taken?
8. After appropriate action is taken for typification, who is the author of the name Rosa alba?
It is subsequently considered that R. alba is taxonomically the same as Rosa nivea, the nomenclator of which is as follows:
Rosa nivea Henning and Baird. 1934. Flora Tatrensis, p. 429.
= Delphinium niveum (Henning & Baird) Rosen. 1955. J. Berlin Bot. Gard. 109: 669.
HT: POLAND: Krakow, 14.viii.33, no. 8822355 (WAR).
= Rosa incarnata Ray. 1935. Kew Bull. 1935: 11.
HT: UNITED KINGDOM: Nottingham, 21.vii.23, s.n. (K).
8. What is the taxonomic type of the species?
9. What is the nomenclatural type of the species?