(2735) Kyphocarpa (Fenzl) Lopr. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 27: 42. 7 Apr 1899 (‘Cyphocarpa ’) (Sericocoma subg. Kyphocarpa Fenzl in Linnaea 17: 324. Jan 1844) [Amaranth .], nom. et orth. cons. prop.

Typus: Sericocoma trichinioides Fenzl (K. trichinioides (Fenzl) Lopr.).

In November 2019, an issue arose on Wikispecies (https://w.wiki/G3c) regarding the correct spelling and authorship of a genus known as either Kyphocarpa (Fenzl) Lopr. or Cyphocarpa Lopr. (Amaranthaceae : Amaranthoideae ). Investigation revealed that while the literature at large almost universally used Kyphocarpa (Fenzl) Lopr., nomenclatural databases (e.g., ING, http://botany.si.edu/ING/; IPNI, http://www.ipni.org/; TROPICOS, http://www.tropicos.org; GBIF, https://www.gbif.org/, etc.) preferred Cyphocarpa Lopr., a spelling that is now beginning to spread into the literature (e.g., Hernández‐Ledesma & al. in Willdenowia 45: 304. 2015).

The name Cyphocarpa was coined by Lopriore (in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 27: 42. 1899), ascribing authorship in the form “(Fenzl) Lopr.”. He cited in synonymy Fenzl's name Sericocoma subg. Kyphocarpa (in Linnaea 17: 324. 1844) that Fenzl indicated was a correction of his “sphalmate”, “Sericocoma a. Hypocarpha ” (in Endlicher, Gen. Pl., Suppl. 2: 33. 1842). In citing Fenzl, Lopriore erroneously referred to the taxon as a section and cited the page as 323. Lopriore noted, “For the sake of uniformity, I have changed Kyphocarpa to Cyphocarpa ” (“Der Gleichförmigkeit wegen habe ich Kyphocarpa in Cyphocarpa abgeändert.”). He made no similar comments when citing the epithet of the type as “trichinoides ” rather than Fenzl's trichinioides (the epithet is based off Trichinium R. Br.); this is a correctable error.

It appears that Schinz (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam., ed. 2, 16c: 43. 1934) was the first author to argue in favor of reverting to the spelling Kyphocarpa . In this, he has been largely followed by others throughout most of the 20th century (e.g., Süssenguth in Mitt. Bot. Staatssamml. München 1: 146. 1952; Cavaco in Mém. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., B, Bot. 13: 70. 1962; Townsend in Fl. Zambes. 9: 64. 1988; Lebrun & Stork, Publ. Hors‐Sér. Conserv. Jard. Bot. Genève 7: 103. 1991; Arnold & de Wet in Mem. Bot. Surv. South Africa 62: 246–247. 1993; Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 129: 598. 1993; Townsend in Kubitzki & al., Fam. Gen. Vasc. Pl. 2: 83. 1993; Jordaan in Strelitzia 10: 51. 2000; Herman & al. in Strelitzia 14: 114. 2003; Mabberley, Pl.‐Book, ed. 3: 248, 360. 2008, ed. 4: 268, 496. 2017; Christenhusz & al., Pl. World Ill. Encycl. Vasc. Pl.: 450. 2017; Hyde & al., Fl. Mozambique [online], https://www.mozambiqueflora.com. 2020, etc.). None of the few independent uses of Cyphocarpa that could be found (e.g., Cufodontis in Bull. Jard. Bot. État Bruxelles 23(3–4): 63. 1953; Goldblatt in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 65: 434. 1978; Hernández‐Ledesma & al., l.c.) were in the context of a revisionary work.

This schism originates in differing interpretation of the application of Art. 60.3 of the Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) (“The liberty of correcting a name is to be used with reserve, especially if the change affects the first syllable and, above all, the first letter of the name ,” emphasis by the authors) to Lopriore's protologue. If it is taken to be an entirely new name (i.e., nom. et stat. nov., or gen. nov. as Lopriore provided an extensive description), then it must be spelled with a C and doing otherwise violates Art. 60.3. Fenzl's name is legitimate, and Art. 58.1 does not apply here. If, however (and the arguments in favor of this interpretation are not so easily ignored), it is merely an elevation of Fenzl's name to generic status (i.e., merely a stat. nov.), then it is Lopriore who violates the Code (Art. 6.10) by altering Fenzl's spelling, now the original spelling, and “Cyphocarpa ” must then be corrected to Kyphocarpa (Art. 61.1, 61.4).

Communications with IPNI (K. Gandhi, pers. comm.) and ING (G. Zijlstra, pers. comm.) have not brought to light specific arguments in favor of “Cyphocarpa Lopr.”—with Kyphocarpa treated as an orthographic variant and attributed to Schinz (l.c.) in these databases. Whereas Names in current use for extant plant genera (Greuter & al., l.c.) adopted Fenzl's spelling, Farr & al., in the original printed volumes of ING (in Regnum Veg. 100: 480; 101: 922. 1979), favored Lopriore's—albeit erroneously ascribing the name to “(Fenzl) Lopriore”, as did Hernández‐Ledesma & al. (l.c.). Our proposal is to conserve the name as Kyphocarpa (Fenzl) Lopr. because that is how the entry will appear in Appendix III of the Code if the proposal is accepted; if it is not accepted, the name must be attributed to Lopriore alone, as it will not then have a basionym (Art. 49.1 & Note 1).

Requests for spelling conservation may arise out of a split in usage (e.g., Aconogonon Gandhi & Reveal in Taxon 63: 687. 2014, or Podostemum , Patil & al. in Taxon 66: 760. 2017) or because it comes to light that the widely used spelling is in fact not the original one (e.g., Dehaasia , Balakrishnan & Chakrabarty in Taxon 60: 1218. 2011). It is less common for a spelling to be in universal use in the literature while key nomenclatural databases almost universally disagree and use a different one. We have not found any recent comparable cases aside from that of Mezoneuron (Reveal & Gandhi in Taxon 61: 1124. 2012), where the issue was more typographical than interpretive. Normally, an issue of authorship interpretation would be at best a minor dispute over priority. In this case, however, it makes it unclear which spelling of the name is to be treated as original, and furthermore in a way the Code specifically points out as problematic.

If a mere appeal to common usage could have solved this situation, there would have been no need for this proposal. The current situation leaves third party users of data, such as Wikispecies and the Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera (IRMNG), in the awkward position of deciding, without any published material directly addressing the topic to guide us, whether the databases or the literature ought to be followed. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, we are requesting a final determination—in either direction—as to which spelling is to be used for this name. Although we are proposing conservation of Kyphocarpa , this is simply because that is the more widely used spelling.

（2735）Kyphocarpa （Fenzl）Lopr。在Bot。Jahrb。Syst。27：42 . 1899年4月7日（Cyphocarpa）（Sericocoma subg。Kyphocarpa Fenzl在Linnaea 17：324. 1844年1月）[A菜]。等。缺点 支柱。

斑疹伤寒：丝虫肉质囊肿（K. trichinioides（Fenzl）Lopr。）。

在2019年11月，Wikispecies（https://w.wiki/G3c）上出现了一个问题，涉及正确的拼写和作者是Kyphocarpa（Fenzl）Lopr的属。或Cyphocarpa Lopr。（A菜科：A菜科）。调查显示，尽管一般文献几乎都使用了Kyphocarpa（Fenzl）Lopr。，但命名数据库（例如ING，http：//botany.si.edu/ING/； IPNI，http：//www.ipni.org/ ； TROPICOS，http：//www.tropicos.org； GBIF，https：//www.gbif.org/等）更喜欢Cyphocarpa Lopr。，这种拼写现已开始在文学中传播（例如，Hernández- Ledesma等人在Willdenowia 45：304。2015年）。

Cyphocarpa这个名字是Lopriore创造的（在Bot。Jahrb。Syst。27：42。1899中），以“（Fenzl）Lopr。”的形式注明了作者身份。他以Fenzl的名字命名为Sericocoma subg。Fenzl指出的Kyphocarpa（在Linnaea 17：324. 1844中）是对他的“憎恶物”（Sericocoma a。）的更正。Hypocar​​pha ”（在Endlicher，Gen.Pl。，增刊2：33。1842年）。Lopriore在引用Fenzl时错误地将分类单元称为“部分”，并引用该页面为323。Lopriore指出：“为了统一起见，我将Kyphocarpa更改为Cyphocarpa ”（“ DerGleichförmigkeitwegen habe ich Kyphocarpa in Cyphocarpa”abgeändert。”）。援引类型“的称号时，他没有类似的评论trichinoides ”，而不是Fenzl的trichinioides（修饰语是基于关闭Trichinium R.溴）; 这是一个可纠正的错误。

似乎Schinz（在Engler＆Prantl，Nat。Pflanzenfam编辑，第2期，第16c页：43。1934年）是第一位主张恢复拼写Kyphocarpa的作者。。在此期间，他在整个20世纪的大部分时间里一直受到其他人的追捧（例如，在Mitt。Bot。Staatssamml。München1：146。的Süsenguth； 1952年在Mém。Mus。Natl.Hist。Nat。，B，Bot的Cavaco） 。13：70. 1962; Zambes的Townsend。9：64. 1988; Lebrun＆Stork，Pubs。Hors-Sér。Conserv。Jard。Bot。Genève7：103. 1991; Arnold＆de Wet在Mem。Bot 。Surv。South Africa 62：246-247。1993; Greuter等人于Regnum Veg。129：598. 1993; Townsend in Kubitzki等人，Fam。Gen. Vasc。Pl。2：83. 1993; Jordaan等人。 Strelitzia 10：51. 2000; Herman等人在Strelitzia 14：114. 2003; Mabberley，Pl.‐Book，编辑3：248，360. 2008，ed。4：268，496. 2017; Christenhusz等。 ，Pl。World Ill。Encycl。Vasc。Pl .： 450. 2017； Hyde等，莫桑比克Fl [在线]，https：//www.mozambiqueflora.com。2020等）。的几种独立用途中没有一种Cyphocarpa可能被发现（例如，在Cufodontis公牛Jard博特布鲁塞尔参谋部23（3-4）：63 1953;戈德布莱特在Ann密苏里博特加尔65：。434 1978;埃尔南德斯-莱德斯马＆人。 ，lc）属于修订工作。

这种分裂源自对艺术应用的不同解释。的60.3代码（Turland＆人在REGNUM吃素。159. 2018）（“校正名称的自由是用储备被使用，尤其是如果该改变影响的第一个音节，首先，的第一个字母名称”（作者强调）到Lopriore的原型。如果将其视为一个全新的名称（即Lopriore提供了广泛的描述，即nom。et stat。nov。或gen。nov。），则必须将其拼写为C，否则会违反Art。60.3。Fenzl的名字是合法的，Art。58.1不适用于此处。但是，如果（并且不容易忽略支持这种解释的论点），仅仅是Fenzl的名字升为一般身份（即，仅是stat nov。），那么Lopriore违反了《守则》（根据第6.10条），现在必须更改Fenzl的拼写（现在是原来的拼写），然后将“ Cyphocarpa ”更正为Kyphocarpa（第61.1、61.4条）。

与IPNI（K. Gandhi，个人通讯）和ING（G. Zijlstra，个人通讯）的交流并未提出支持“ Cyphocarpa Lopr”的具体论点。Kyphocarpa被视为正字法变体并被归因于这些数据库中的Schinz（lc）。鉴于现存植物属的当前名称（Greuter等人，lc）在ING的原始印刷册中使用了Fenzl等人的拼写Farr等人（Regnum Veg。100：480； 101：922。1979），受到青睐。洛普雷（Lopriore）的名字，尽管错误地将名称命名为（（Fenzl）Lopriore），就像埃尔南德斯·勒德斯玛（Hernández-Ledesma）等人一样。（lc）。我们的建议是保留名称Kyphocarpa（Fenzl）Lopr。因为这是条目将出现在如果提案被接受，则编码；如果不接受该名称，则该名称必须仅归因于Lopriore，因为这样就不会再有别名（第49.1条和注释1）。

拼写保护的请求可能来自用法的不同（例如，Aconogonon Gandhi和Reveal在Taxon 63：687。2014或Podostemum，Patil等人在Taxon 66：760。2017），或者是因为发现实际上，并非广泛使用的拼写实际上不是原始的拼写（例如，Taxa 60中的Dehaasia，Balakrishnan和Chakrabarty 60：1218. 2011）。拼写在文献中普遍使用的情况不那么普遍，而关键术语数据库几乎普遍不同意并使用另一种。除了甲磺隆以外，我们没有发现其他类似的可疑病例（Reveal＆Gandhi在Taxon 61：1124。2012）中，该问题比印刷的更具解释性。通常，著作权解释问题充其量是对优先权的小争议。但是，在这种情况下，尚不清楚该名称的哪个拼写将被视为原始拼写，此外，《守则》还特别指出了该拼写有问题的方式。

如果仅靠通用即可解决这种情况，则无需该提案。当前的情况使诸如Wikispecies和海洋和非海洋生物临时登记簿（IRMNG）之类的数据的第三方用户处于笨拙的决定地位，而没有任何出版的材料直接解决该主题以指导我们，无论是数据库还是应该遵循文学。为了命名的稳定性，我们要求对这个名称使用哪种拼写进行最终确定（无论从哪个方向）。尽管我们提议保护后果，但这仅是因为那是使用更广泛的拼写。