(2750) Panicum crus‐galli L., Sp. Pl.: 56. 1 Mai 1753 [Angiosp.: Gram.], nom. cons. prop.

Typus: Herb. Burser I: 103 (UPS), typ. cons. prop.

Linnaeus (Sp. Pl.: 56. 1753) published the name Panicum crus‐galli, which is the basionym of the currently accepted combination Echinochloa crus‐galli (L.) P. Beauv. (Ess. Agrostogr.: 161. 1812). It is applied to plants native to warmer regions of Eurasia, but currently widespread throughout America, Oceania and the Pacific Islands. The species is considered a weed with global impacts on many crops around the world, notably corn or maize (Zea mays L.), cotton (Gossypium spp.), soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.), rice (Oryza sativa L.) and alfalfa or lucerne (Medicago sativa L.), to which it causes millions of euros in losses every year (cf. Rojas‐Sandoval & Acevedo‐Rodríguez, Echinochloa crus‐galli (barnyard grass) in: Invasive Species Compendium‐CABI. 2014; available at https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/20367).

The Linnaean protologue of Panicum crus‐galli (in which the specific epithet was spelled “Crusgalli”) consists of a diagnostic phrase (nomen specificum legitimum), “PANICUM spicis alternis conjugatisque, spiculis subdivisis, glumis aristatis hispidis”, followed by four polynomial synonyms. The first one, “Panicum spicis alternis remotis declinatis compositis”, was taken from Linnaeus (Virid. Cliff.: 7. 1737), Van Royen (Fl. Leyd. Prodr.: 55. 1740) and Dalibard (Fl. Paris. Prodr.: 22. 1749); the second also from Linnaeus (Hort. Cliff.: 27. 1737), “Panicum spicis alternis remotis laxis”; and the third and fourth from Bauhin (Pinax: 8. 1623), respectively “Gramen paniceum spica divisa” and “Gramen paniceum spica divisa, aristis longis armata”, the latter marked as variety β. No illustrations were provided in any of the cited works that can be considered original material. The geographical provenance of the species was indicated as “Habitat in Europae, Virginiae cultis”. Linnaeus also noted that his species showed some morphological variation concerning the spikelet awn length: “Variat aristis, in aliis longitudine glumarum, in aliis decies longioribus.”

Hitchcock (in Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 12: 117. 1908) was the first author to identify “type” specimens of P. crus‐galli at LINN and BM as part of the original material. He referred to three sheets pinned together among the Linnaean collections in London. The first one (LINN No. 80.18, available at http://linnean-online.org/1250/) was collected in Canada by Pehr Kalm during his North American stay (1748–1751), and was annotated “5 crus galli” and “K” (for Kalm) at the bottom in Linnaeus's handwriting. The second sheet (LINN No. 80.19, available at http://linnean-online.org/1251/) includes material labelled “591 Panicum arvense paniculis fuscis densioribus, glumis hispidis, aristis brevioribus”, and marked “Panicum” at the top. It is a duplicate of the gathering Clayton 591 from J.F. Gronovius's collection, currently in the Clayton Herbarium (BM000051620, available at https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/clayton‐herbarium/resource/51e7a60c‐cbda‐4e88‐8a68‐ef93442643e6/record/1518). It was collected in Virginia (U.S.A.), as quoted by Gronovius (Fl. Virgin., ed. 2: 13. 1762, sphalm. as “Clayt. n. 561”) in comments to his “PANICUM spica composita, spiculis glomeratis setis immixtis, pedunculo hirsuto Linn. spec. 56”, which included in synonymy the same polynomials as P. crus‐galli L. The third one (LINN No. 80.20, available at http://linnean-online.org/1252/) is marked “Panicum” at the top (on recto) and annotated “579. pl. 2. Panicum arundinaceum, spica ampla densa hirsuta purpurea longis aristatis Clayt.” (on verso). It is a duplicate of Clayton 579 pl. 1 (BM000051632, available at https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/clayton‐herbarium/resource/51e7a60c‐cbda‐4e88‐8a68‐ef93442643e6/record/983) from Gronovius, also collected in Virginia (cf. Gronovius, l.c.). Both collections by Clayton justify the insertion of the North American occurrence in the protologue of P. crus‐galli. Hitchcock (l.c. 1908) designated LINN No. 80.18 as “type” (lectotype) of the Linnaean name, since it is the only one marked with the Species plantarum number, and suggested LINN No. 80.20 to be the basis of P. crus‐galli var. β. Besides these specimens, there are two additional vouchers not cited by Hitchcock but indeed original material. The first one is in Van Royen's herbarium in Leiden (L 0052671, available at https://data.biodiversitydata.nl/naturalis/specimen/L%20%200052671), and is annotated with the first synonym in the Linnaean protologue, among other polynomials. The second one is in Burser's collection at UPS (Herb. Burser I: 103) and is annotated “Gramen paniceum spica divisa Bauh. Panicum sylvestre Matth. Wilder fench, wildt Panikorn. Ingolstadtii et in Bohemia, Helvetia, Dania”, a sentence that connects it to the third synonym in the Linnaean protologue (cf. Michael in Int. Rice Res. Inst., Proc. Conf. Weed Control Rice: 300. 1983) and reflects its European origin.

A close observation of all those seven original specimens reveals that Linnaeus adopted a broad concept for his P. crus‐galli, which included European and North American plants belonging to three different, currently accepted species in Echinochloa. In fact, as previously reported by Hitchcock (in Contr. U.S. Natl. Herb. 22: 139–140. 1920) and confirmed here, the three specimens at LINN (plus the two duplicates at BM) correspond to the North American endemics E. muricata (P. Beauv.) Fernald var. muricata (LINN No. 80.18 & LINN No. 80.19), a name sometimes included in the synonymy of E. crus‐galli and that is characterised by its glabrous leaf sheaths, comparatively short‐awned small panicles with ovoid spikelets showing coarse spinules on lateral ribs of upper glumes, and E. walteri (Pursh) A. Heller (LINN No. 80.20), a name applying to plants with hispid leaf sheaths and long‐awned and much larger panicles with fusiform spikelets showing softer spinules on lateral and central ribs of upper glumes. On this basis, Hitchcock himself (l.c. 1920) reconsidered his previous choice and suggested disregarding LINN No. 80.18 as type of E. crus‐galli to maintain the traditional concept of the Linnaean name for the European plants, which are usually separated at species rank from the aforesaid North American taxa (cf. Michael in Flora of North America Editorial Committee, Fl. N. Amer. 25: 390−403. 2003). Both the specimen at L and that at UPS include material fitting with the current “European” concept of E. crus‐galli.

Hitchcock's solution has so far been accepted de facto by later authors, and other alternative types have been suggested or even designated for P. crus‐galli. First, Wiegand (in Rhodora 23: 55–57. 1921) concurred with Hitchcock's reconsideration and extensively questioned the sole American origin of both Linnaean varieties, adding some important details. He argued that Linnaeus would also have known both short‐ and long‐awned plants from several countries in Europe after descriptions and illustrations by Morison (Pl. Hist. Univ. 3: 189. 1699) of “15. Gramen paniceum spica divisa primum” (l.c., Sect. 8 t. 4 fig. 15) and “16. Gramen paniceum spica divisa aristis longis armata” (l.c., Sect. 8 t. 4 fig. 16), and by Lobelius (Icon. Stirp. 1: 14. 1591) of “Panici effigie, Gramen aristis circunvallatum”, all of which are cited in Bauhin (l.c.). In Wiegand's view, the annotation “5 crus galli” on LINN No. 80.18 might be regarded as incidental, and he concluded that there was not a solid basis to regard the American specimens cited by Hitchcock (l.c. 1908, 1920) as the type material of both Linnaean varieties, whose types should otherwise be founded on European material. Baum (in Canad. J. Bot. 45: 1846. 1967) also disregarded the lectotypification of Hitchcock (l.c. 1908) based on the wrong assumption that the Kalm material and its Canadian origin were not cited nor referred to in the Linnaean protologue, and therefore an alternative solution would involve a “lectotype” designation on European material. Similarly, Carretero (in Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 38: 98. 1981) assumed that neither of the specimens connected to P. crus‐galli at LINN belonged to that species as it is currently accepted, and pointed to LINN No. 80.17 (a specimen connected to P. crus‐corvi L.) as the Linnaean specimen matching the current concept of P. crus‐galli. Conversely, Gould & al. (in Amer. Midl. Naturalist 87: 54. 1972) suggested (but did not designate) a specimen from Ohio (Moldenke 13127, US No. 2146423) as “neotype” for P. crus‐galli. Finally, Michael (l.c. 1983), remarking on the confusion over the type of P. crus‐galli, disregarded any previous types and designated as “lectotype” the Burser specimen at UPS, which he implicitly considered original material. This latter designation is currently followed in some web sites (cf. https://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/Plant.aspx?id=1903).

However, as shown by Jarvis (Order out of Chaos: 720. 2007) the Kalm specimen is undoubtedly original material for P. crus‐galli, and hence Hitchcock's (l.c. 1908) earlier type choice is correct and must be followed in the light of Art. 9.19 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Posterior type designations, whatever the arguments they are founded on, are not applicable. On this basis, the name P. crus‐galli (and the currently accepted combination Echinochloa crus‐galli) should be properly applied to the North American plant generally identified as E. muricata var. muricata, whereas the current name E. muricata var. microstachya Wiegand should be replaced with E. crus‐galli var. microstachya (Wiegand) Shinners or even synonymised to a broadly circumscribed E. crus‐galli (incl. E. muricata). Furthermore, the Eurasian native weedy species now called E. crus‐galli should perhaps be renamed E. crus‐corvi L., a binomial often treated in the synonymy of the former (cf. Brown, Prodr. Fl. Nov. Holland.: 191. 1810; Hitchcock, l.c. 1920; Honda in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 37: 121. 1923; Carretero, l.c.; Costea & Tardiff in Sida 20: 537−538. 2002) but still untypified and suggested for rejection by Jarvis (l.c.). This latter change would surely require several new combinations to accommodate the broad infraspecific variation of the Eurasian complex.

In this case, a strict application of the Shenzhen Code would be clearly very disruptive. In its current sense, E. crus‐galli is considered a noxious weed in economically important crops that has been the focus of extensive research for more than 60 years, mostly related to its biosystematics (e.g., Yabuno in Jap. J. Bot. 19: 277−323. 1966), control by bioherbicides (e.g., Zhang & al. in Pest Technol. 5 (Special Issue 1): 56−60. 2011), resistance to chemical herbicides (e.g., Yang & al. in PLoS One 8: e69168. 2013), or agronomic management (e.g., Bajwa & al. in Crop Protect. 75: 151−162. 2015), but also due to its increasing pharmacological value (e.g., Al‐Snafi in Indo Amer. J. Pharm. Sci. 4: 117−122. 2017) and potential use for food and feed (e.g., Prietto & al. in Int. Food Res. J. 24: 2509−2517. 2017). Many investigations have been published in the last decades that involve researchers from different fields (e.g., agronomy, bromatology, chemistry, pharmacology, weed control, alimentary industry, etc.), not familiar with taxonomic issues, to whom any nomenclatural change affecting E. crus‐galli would likely cause great confusion.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, we formally propose to conserve Panicum crus‐galli (Art. 14.1, 14.2 & 14.9 of the Code) with a conserved type based on the specimen Herb. Burser I: 103 (UPS), the one previously chosen as “lectotype” by Michael (l.c. 1983), which is perhaps the best choice both to avoid the need to propose unnecessary nomenclatural changes and to best serve stability of nomenclature. The Burser specimen is well‐conserved and bears an entire plant with mature spikelets in which the diagnostic characters of Echinochloa crus‐galli relative to E. muricata can be easily observed. Furthermore, it has the additional value of being original material of P. crus‐galli, this also justifying the European provenance of the Linnaean plant.

Acceptance of the present conservation proposal would preserve the use of both Echinochloa crus‐galli and E. muricata (and subordinate taxa) in their traditional concepts and is in line with the assumptions of previous authors who disregarded the lectotypification by Hitchcock (l.c. 1908). It also has the additional advantage that it precludes the need for unnecessary new combinations after transfer of the infraspecific taxa of E. crus‐galli to presumably E. crus‐corvi, a name that has not been in use within the last century. On the contrary, failure to accept the proposal would create unnecessary instability in at least three well‐known and currently stable names in Echinochloa (one of them applied to a species currently widespread worldwide), which would dramatically change their broadly accepted sense or even reduce them to synonymy. Furthermore, conservation of the Linnaean name as proposed here would have the positive effect of ending the still open typification conflict in a manner that maintains current and traditional usage of the relevant concerned names.

（2750）Panicum crus‐galli L.，Sp。邮编：56。1Mai 1753 [Angiosp .: Gram。]，nom。缺点 支柱。

斑疹伤寒：药草。Burser I：103（UPS），典型值。缺点 支柱。

Linnaeus（Sp。Pl .: 56. 1753）发布了Panicum crus-galli这个名字，它是目前公认的Echinochloa crus-galli（L.）P. Beauv组合的别名。（Ess.Agrostogr.：161。1812）。它被应用于欧亚大陆较暖地区的植物，但目前在美国，大洋洲和太平洋岛屿广泛分布。该物种被认为是一种杂草，对全球许多农作物具有全球影响，特别是玉米或玉米（Zea mays L.），棉花（Gossypium spp。），大豆（Glycine max（L.）Merr。），水稻（Oryza sativa） L.）和苜蓿或卢塞恩（紫花苜蓿L.），每年为此造成数百万欧元的损失（参见：Rojas-Sandoval和Acevedo-Rodríguez，Echinochloa crus-galli（n草），见：Invasive Species Compendium-CABI。2014；网址：https：// www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/20367）。

Panicum crus-galli的Linnaean原型（其中特定的名字叫“ Crusgalli””）由一个诊断性词组（nomenspecificumlegitimum），“ PANICUM spicis alternis conjugatisque，spiculis subdivisis，glumus aristatis hispidis”和四个多项式同义词组成。第一个是“ Panicum spicis alternis remotis declinatis compositis”，取自Linnaeus（Virid。Cliff.：7。1737)、Van Royen（Fl。Leyd。Prodr.：55。1740）和Dalibard（Fl。Paris。Prodr）。 。：22. 1749）; 第二个也来自林奈（Linnaeus）（Hort。Cliff.：27。1737），“ Panicum spicis alternis remotis laxis”；第三和第四位来自Bauhin（Pinax：8。1623），分别是“ Gramen paniceum spica divisa”和“ Gramen paniceum spica divisa，aristis longis armata”，后者标记为β。在所引用的任何作品中都没有提供任何可以视为原始材料的插图。该物种的地理来源表示为“在弗吉尼亚州欧罗巴栖息地”。林奈夫斯还指出，他的物种在小穗芒长度方面表现出一些形态学变化：“在阿里斯纵向纵小柱中的阿里斯提亚里斯，在阿里斯蜕变的是长尾dec。”

希区柯克（《美国自然疗法杂志》第12期：117.，1908年发表）是第一位在林恩和BM上鉴定出克鲁斯疟原虫“类型”标本的人，这是原始材料的一部分。他提到在伦敦的Linnaean系列中固定在一起的三张表。第一个（LINN No. 80.18，可在http://linnean-online.org/1250/处获得）由Pehr Kalm在加拿大逗留期间（1748–1751）在加拿大收集，并注有“ 5 crus galli”和Linnaeus笔迹底部的“ K”（对于Kalm）。第二页（LINN第80.19号，可在http://linnean-online.org/1251/获得）包括标有“ 591 Panicum arvense paniculis fuscis densioribus，gloumis hispidis，aristis brevioribus”的材料，并在顶部标有“ Panicum” 。它是收集的Clayton 591的副本来自JF Gronovius的收藏集，目前在Clayton植物标本室（BM000051620，可在https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/clayton‐herbarium/resource/51e7a60c‐cbda‐4e88‐8a68‐ef93442643e6/record/1518中找到）。它收集在弗吉尼亚州（美国），通过Gronovius引（佛罗里达州圣母编2：13. 1762年，sphalm为“ Claytñ。 561”）在评论他的“柳枝穗composita，spiculis glomeratis SETIS Immixtis，pedunculo hirsuto Linn。规格 56”，其同义词与P. crus-galli L相同。多项式（LINN No. 80.20，可从http://linnean-online.org/1252/获得）在顶部标有“ Panicum”。 （右上）并注明“ 579。pl。2.沙棘，spica ampla densa hirsuta purpurea longis aristatis Clayt。” （反之）。它是Clayton 579 pl的副本。1（BM000051632，可从https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/clayton-herbarium/resource/51e7a60c‐cbda‐4e88‐8a68‐ef93442643e6/record/983获取），也从弗吉尼亚州收集（cf. Gronovius，lc）。克莱顿（Clayton）的这两个系列都证明了在克鲁斯·加利（P. crus-galli）的原型中插入了北美的出现。希区柯克（lc 1908）将Linnn第80.18号指定为Linnaean名称的“类型”（电型），因为它是唯一一个标有植物种编号的植物，并建议使用Linn No. 80.20作为克鲁氏假单胞菌的基础。加利变种 β。除了这些标本外，还有两个额外的凭证，希区柯克没有引用这些凭证，但实际上是原始凭证。第一个是在莱顿（Leden）的Van Royen的植物标本室（L 0052671，可在https://data.biodiversitydata.nl/naturalis/specimen/L%20%200052671上获得），并在Linnaean原型中用第一个同义词进行注释。其他多项式。第二个是在UPS的Burser藏品中（Herb。Burser I：103），其注释为“ Gramen paniceum spica divisa Bauh”。Panicum sylvestre Matth。怀尔德·芬奇（Wilder fench），怀尔德·帕尼科恩（Panikorn）。Ingolstadtii et in Bohemia，Helvetia，Dania”，该句子将其与Linnaean原型中的第三个同义词连接（参见Michael in Int。Rice Res。Inst。，Proc。Conf。Weed Control Rice：300. 1983），并反映了它的欧洲血统。

所有这七个原始标本进行仔细观察就会发现，林奈通过一个广泛的概念，他P.稗，其中包括属于三个不同的，在目前公认的物种欧洲和北美的工厂稗。实际上，正如希区柯克先前报道的那样（在Contr。US Natl.Herb。22：139-140。1920中得到证实），LINN的三个标本（加上BM的两个重复标本）与北美地方性E相对应。穆里卡塔（P. Beauv。）muricata（LINN号80.18和LINN号80.19），有时也包含在E. crus-galli的同义词中其特征是其无毛的叶鞘，较短的短圆锥花序的小穗和小穗状的小穗在上部颖片的侧肋上显示出粗刺，和E. walteri（Pursh）A. Heller（LINN No. 80.20），该名称适用于具叶片叶鞘和长圆锥形穗状的长圆锥形小穗的植物，在上部颖片的侧面和中央肋骨上有较弱的刺。在此基础上，希区柯克本人（lc 1920）重新考虑了他先前的选择，并建议不将LINN No. 80.18视作E. crus-galli保持欧洲植物的Linnaean名称的传统概念，通常将它们与上述北美分类单元按物种等级分开（参见Michael in Flora of North America编辑委员会，Fl。N. Amer。25：390−403 （2003）。L处的样品和UPS处的样品都包含符合当前E. crus-galli的“欧洲”概念的材料。

迄今为止，希区柯克的解决方案事实上已经为后来的作者所接受，并且已经提出了其他替代类型，甚至为P. crus-galli指定了其他类型。首先，韦根（Rhoodora 23：55-57。1921）同意希区柯克的重新考虑，并广泛质疑这两个林奈品种的唯一美国起源，并增加了一些重要的细节。他辩称，在莫里森（Pl。Hist。Univ。3：189. 1699）的描述和插图中，“ 15。Gramen paniceum spica divisa primum ”（lc，Sect。8 t。4图15）和“ 16。Gramen paniceum spica divisa aristis longis armata（lc，Sect。8 t。4图16），以及Lobelius（Icon。Stirp。1：14。1591）的“ Panici effigie，Gramen aristis circunvallatum”，所有这些都在Bauhin（lc）中引用。在韦根看来，LINN No. 80.18上的注解“ 5 crus galli”可能被认为是偶然的，他得出的结论是，没有充分的依据将希区柯克（lc 1908，1920）引用的美国标本视为类型材料。这两个Linnaean品种，其类型应以欧洲材料为基础。Baum（在Canad。J. Bot。45：1846。1967中）也基于错误的假设，即在Linnaean的序言中未引用或提及Kalm材料及其加拿大血统，而无视希区柯克（lc 1908）的选型。因此，另一种解决方案将包括在欧洲材料上使用“电铸型”标识。同样，LINN的P. crus-galli属于该物种，目前被认为是该物种，并指出Linnean标本是第80.17号LINN（与P. crus-corvi L.连接的标本），符合当前的P. crus-加利。相反，古尔德等人。（阿梅尔MIDL博物87：54 1972）建议（但没有指定）从俄亥俄（试样Moldenke 13127，US 2146423号），为“neotype”为P.稗。最后，迈克尔（lc（1983））谈到对克鲁斯·加利（P. crus-galli）类型的困惑，不考虑任何先前的类型，而是将UPS上的Burser标本指定为“电标本”，他暗中将其视为原始材料。当前在某些网站中遵循后一种名称（请参阅https://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/Plant.aspx?id=1903）。

但是，正如贾维斯（Jarvis）所言（混沌中的720：2007年），卡尔姆标本无疑是克鲁斯·加利的原始材料，因此希区柯克（lc 1908）的早期类型选择是正确的，必须遵循艺术。深圳法》第9.19条（Turland等人于Regnum Veg.159.2018）。后继类型名称（无论它们基于什么论据）均不适用。在此基础上，应将名称P. crus-galli（和目前公认的Echinochloa crus-galli组合）适当地应用于通常被标识为E. muricata var的北美植物。muricata，而当前名称为E. muricata var。microstachya Wiegand应替换为E. crus-galli var。microstachya（Wiegand）闪光剂，或什至是广泛限制的E. crus-galli（包括E. muricata）的代名词。此外，现在被称为E. crus-galli的欧亚本地杂草物种可能应该重命名为E. crus-corviL.是常被视为前者的代名词的二项式（参见Brown，Pro .. Fl。Nov. Holland .: 191. 1810; Hitchcock，lc 1920; Honda in Bot。Mag。（Tokyo）37：121. 1923） ； Carretero，lc； Costea＆Tardiff in Sida 20：537-538。2002），但仍未典型化，建议由Jarvis（lc）拒绝。后一种变化肯定会需要几种新的组合，以适应欧亚大陆复杂的基础设施变化。

在这种情况下，严格执行《深圳守则》显然会造成破坏。从目前的意义上来说，克鲁斯大肠杆菌被认为是具有重要经济意义的作物中的有害杂草，在60多年来一直是广泛研究的重点，其中大部分与它的生物系统学有关（例如Yabuno in Jap。J. Bot。19：277-323。1966），受到了生物除草剂（例如，Zhang等人在Pest Technol。5（Special Issue 1）：56-60。2011），对化学除草剂的抗性（例如，Yang等人在PLoS One 8：e69168。2013）或农艺管理（例如，Bajwa等人在Crop Protect。75：151-162。2015），但也要归因于其药理价值的提高（例如，Indo Amer。J. Pharm。Sci。4：117-122中的Al-Snafi。 2017年）以及食品和饲料的潜在用途（例如，Prietto等人，Int。Food Res。J. 24：2509-2517。2017）。在过去的几十年中，已经发表了许多研究，涉及不同领域的研究人员（例如农学，微生物学，化学，克鲁斯大肠杆菌可能会引起极大的混乱。

因此，由于上述原因，我们正式建议使用基于标本Herb的保守型保存Panicum crus-galli（《守则》第14.1、14.2和14.9条）。Burser I：103（UPS），以前被Michael（lc（lc 1983））选为“原型”，这既是避免提出不必要的命名法变更，又能最好地维护命名法稳定性的最佳选择。所述Burser试样充分保守并承载与其中的诊断字符成熟小穗整个植物稗相对于E.柃可以容易地观察到。此外，它还具有附加的价值，可作为P. crus-galli的原始材料。，这也证明了Linnaean植物在欧洲的起源。

接受当前的保护性建议将保留在传统观念中使用硬棘纲and虫和栗毛E虫（以及从属生物分类）的使用，并且符合先前作者不顾希区柯克（Hitchcock）的电典型化（lc 1908）的假设。它还具有额外的优势，即避免了在将E. crus-galli的种下分类单元转移到E. crus-corvi时，不需要不必要的新组合，该名称在上个世纪未曾使用过。相反，如果不接受该建议，将至少在埃奇诺奇洛亚的三个知名且当前稳定的名称中造成不必要的不​​稳定（其中之一适用于目前在全球范围内广泛传播的物种），这将极大地改变其广泛接受的含义，甚至将它们简化为同义词。此外，此处提议的保护Linnaean名称将产生积极的效果，以保持相关名称的当前和传统用法的方式结束仍未解决的典型冲突。