THE NAMES OF TWO COMMON CALIFORNIAN RAMALINA SPECIES

A Doctor Noehden published Lichen reticulatus in Schrader's Journal fur die Botanik, 1800, Band I, Stuck 2, p. 238 (published April 1801, fide Stafleu, 1967). In his preliminary discussion (p. 236-237) he stated: "Der passendste Trivialname fur diese ausgezeichnete niedliche Flechte wiirde L. reticulatus seyn. Wulfen fiihrt zwar schon einen L. reticulatus auf (Jacq., Collectan., T. II, p. 187, t. 13, f. 6). Dieser ist aber vermuthlich nichts weiter als Lichen laneus Ehrh. und wird also seine Stelle im System verlieren. Lichen reticulatus (Acharius, Lichenographiae Sueciae prodromus, p. 144) kann auch nicht wohl damit verwechselt werden, da er zu Endocarpon gehirt.. ." In other words, although the name Lichen reticulatus had two earlier applications, Noehden rejected them because they were synonyms of other taxa. Despite the fact that Noehden's Lichen reticulatus was preoccupied by two separate earlier uses of the same name, the binomial stands today as the basionym of Ramalina reticulata (Noedh.) Kremp. In his revision of the North American species of Ramalina, R. Heber Howe, Jr. (1914, p. 23) firmly established the current usage of the name but in citing Noehden's name as the basionym he evidently did not consult the original source in which the existence of earlier homonyms was shown. Unfortunately the peculiarly apt epithet reticulata must be rejected in favour of the next available name, which is Ramalina menziesii Taylor. According to the Note to Article 72 of the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, it would be possible to continue to use the name Ramalina reticulata if the authorship were attributed to Krempelhuber alone, provided no other obstacle in the rules prevented this. However, the name would then take, for purposes of priority, the date of Krempelhuber. In this instance, however. Ramalina menziesii Taylor (1847) has priority over R. reticulata Kremp. (1867) and the latter must be rejected. To adopt Ramalina menziesii Tayl. for R. reticulata (Noedh.) Kremp. further necessitates the rejection of Ramalina menziesii Tuckerman, the currently-accepted name for another common Californian species. Howe adopted this name, despite the fact that according to Tuckerman's own recognizance it was preoccupied by Ramalina menziesii Taylor. Presumably he did this because R. menziesii Taylor was in synonymy under R. reticulata. an insufficient reason under the present Rules. For the plant currently called Ramalina menziesii Tuck., the next available name is Ramalina leptocarpha Tuck. While Tuckerman seemed quite certain that the Taylor epithet was earlier than his own menziesii, it is desirable to determine the actual dates of publication. Through the kindness of Dr. Victor Marx, Librarian of the Gray Herbarium, I learned that the pages of the Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 1, containing Tuckerman's article, appeared between December 1847 and February 1848, or most probably early in 1848. With reference to Taylor's article, Dr. Frans Stafleu kindly informed me that "Volume 6 of the London Journal of Botany came out in regular monthly issues of 48-56 pages between January and December. Since I do