(96) Aneilema vitiense Seem. in Bonplandia (Hannover) 9: 260. 15 Sep 1861 [Angiosp.: Commelin.].

Aneilema vitiense was published twice by Seemann (in Bonplandia (Hannover) 9: 260. 1861 and Viti: 443. 1862) prior to what is generally regarded as its valid publication (Seemann, Fl. Vit.: 314, t. 96. 1 Oct 1868). The first two publications contained exactly the same descriptive material and so only the earlier, that in Bonplandia, need be considered. This entry reads: “643. Aneilema Vitiense, Seem. (sp. nov.) florib. pallide coeruleis.” This publication of A. vitiense has been regarded as a nomen nudum, despite the “sp. nov.” and the descriptive statement (flowers pale blue). Because of its context (see below), we regard this statement as a diagnosis, and thus enough to validate the publication of A. vitiense in 1861 and prior to Seemann (l.c. 1868). We are well aware that for a member of the family Commelinaceae, these words generally do not amount to much, and could easily be applied to more than 50% of the species in the family. However, it should be pointed out that Seemann (l.c. 1861) listed only four species under his “Commelynaceae”: (1) Commelina communis L. (which has sky‐blue flowers); (2) Flagellaria indica L. and (3) Joinvillea elegans Gaudich. ex Brongn. & Gris (both of which have greenish‐yellow flowers); and (4) his new species Aneilema vitiense. Therefore, in this context of Seemann (l.c. 1861), “florib. pallide coeruleis” can be regarded as diagnostic, easily differentiating his new species from the other three species listed by him. Furthermore, there is no provision in the Code on the quality of a diagnosis, only that there should be one in order to validly publish a name (see Art. 38.1(a), 38.2 & 38 Note 2 of the Shenzhen Code; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Thus, we conclude that A. vitiense was validly published in 1861, cited once again in 1862, and finally, Seemann (l.c. 1868) provided a more detailed description of the species, together with a beautiful watercolor illustration.

Despite our conclusions, the original place of publication for Aneilema vitiense has been cited, we believe incorrectly, by all major taxonomic databases (IPNI, accessed 05 Aug 2020 at: https://www.ipni.org/n/171765-1; POWO, accessed 05 Aug 2020 at: http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:171765‐1; The Plant List, accessed 05 Aug 2020 at: http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-220239; TROPICOS.org, accessed 05 Aug 2020 at: http://www.tropicos.org/Name/8300146; WFO, accessed 05 Aug 2020 at: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000340026), as well as the most relevant studies on Aneilema and closely related genera (Morton in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 59: 436. 1966; Faden in Phytologia 37: 480. 1977). The databases listed cite Seemann (l.c. 1868) as the original place of publication, following Faden (l.c.), while Morton (l.c.) accepted Seemann (l.c. 1862) as the original place of publication. Thus, it is clear that a binding decision on whether the diagnosis provided by Seemann (l.c. 1861) meets the requirements of Art. 38.1(a) of the Shenzhen Code is necessary.

（96）Aneilema vitiense似乎。于Bonplandia（Hannover）9：260。1861年9月15日[Angiosp .: Commelin。]。

Seeeil出版了Vieliense vitiense（Bonplandia（Hannover）9：260. 1861和Viti：443. 1862），然后才被公认为有效出版物（Seemann，Fl。Vit .: 314，t。96. 1）。 1868年10月）。前两个出版物包含完全相同的描述性材料，因此仅需考虑Bonplandia中的较早版本。该条目显示为：“ 643。Aneilema Vitiense，似乎。（11月上旬）花絮。苍白球蓝藻。” 尽管存在“ sp。vitiense ”，但该出版物仍被认为是裸露的。十一月。” 和描述性陈述（淡蓝色的花朵）。由于它的上下文（请参阅下文），我们将此声明视为诊断，因此足以验证维他命A的发表在1861年和在Seemann（lc 1868）之前。我们很清楚，对于Commelinaceae的一个成员来说，这些词通常用不了多少，很容易应用于该家族中超过50％的物种。但是，应该指出的是，Seemann（lc 1861）在其“ Commelynaceae”下只列出了四个物种：（1）Commelina communis L.（有天蓝色的花朵）；（2）印度鞭毛和（3）秀丽线虫（Joinvillea elegans Gaudich）。前布隆。＆Gris（均具有绿黄色的花朵）；和（4）他的新种Aneilema vitiense。因此，在Seemann（lc 1861）的背景下，“ florib。pallide coeruleis”可以被认为是诊断病，很容易将他的新物种与他列出的其他三个物种区分开。此外，《守则》中没有关于诊断质量的规定，只有为了有效发表姓名而应有一项（见《深圳守则》第38.1（a），38.2和38条注2 ； Turland和（例如，Regnum Veg。159. 2018）。因此，我们得出的结论是，维他命A于1861年有效发表，并于1862年再次被引用，最后，Seemann（lc 1868）提供了对该物种的更详细描述，并附有精美的水彩插图。

尽管有我们的结论，但所有主要的分类学数据库都引用了Aneilema vitiense的原始出版地（我们错误地认为是这样的）（IPNI，2020年8月5日访问：https：//www.ipni.org/n/171765-1； POWO，于2020年8月5日访问：http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:171765-1;《植物名录》，于2020年8月5日访问：http：// www。 theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-220239; TROPICOS.org，2020年8月5日访问：http://www.tropicos.org/Name/8300146; WFO，2020年8月5日访问：http：// www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000340026），以及与阿涅利玛（Aneilema）有关的最相关研究（Morton in J.Linn.Soc。，Bot。59：436. 1966; Faden in Phytologia 37：480. 1977）。数据库列出了Seemann（lc 1868）作为原始出版物，紧随Faden（lc），而Morton（lc）接受Seemann（lc 1862）作为原始出版物。因此，很明显，关于Seemann（lc 1861）提供的诊断是否符合Art。要求的约束性决定。深圳守则第38.1（a）条是必要的。