(2772) Pandanus ornatus Kurz in J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt. 2, Nat. Hist. 38: 147. 29 Jul 1869 [Angiosp.: Pandan.], nom. cons. prop.

Typus: [Malaysia], Malacca, Feb 1837, Gaudichaud 108 (G barcode G00164258; isotypi: B barcode B 10 0279958, P barcodes P01751483, P01751484, P01751486 & P01751487), typ. cons. prop.

(=) Pandanus ornatus W. Bull in J. Roy. Hort. Soc. 1: i. 1 Apr 1866, nom. rej. prop.

Typus: non designatus.

The screw pine species currently known as Benstonea ornata (Kurz) Callm. & Buerki (in Candollea 67: 336. 2012) (≡ Pandanus ornatus Kurz in J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt. 2, Nat. Hist. 38: 147. 1869) is distributed from Peninsular Malaysia to Borneo (through Sumatra and Singapore) and Thailand. The name is based on a wonderful drawing published by Gaudichaud (Voy. Bonite, Bot.: t. 5, fig. 1, 8, 9. 1841). Gaudichaud's original species designation, “Fisquetia ornata”, was not validly published (under ICN Art. 35.1 and 38.5(a), Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) because, although the figure included an analysis (Art. 38.8 & 38.9), the simultaneously published new genus “Fisquetia” was not monotypic as Gaudichaud included four new species illustrated in two plates (l.c.: t. 4, 5). The published account of the plates (Alleizette in Gaudichaud, l.c., Explic. Atlas: 115. 1866) also lacked any descriptive material associated with the generic name. Later, Kurz (l.c.) published Pandanus ornatus intending it to be based on “Fisquetia ornata, Gaud.” but provided a diagnosis by comparing this species with his P. helicopus Kurz, therefore validly publishing P. ornatus Kurz. The new combination in Benstonea, B. ornata (in Candollea 67: 336. 2012) referred to the later citation of P. ornatus Kurz by Solms (in Linnaea 42: 11. 1878) contrary to Art. 41.5 of the ICN. However, although Solms (l.c.) cited Kurz's original publication, Callmander & Buerki's error is to be corrected under Art. 41.8(c) of the ICN, as the name would otherwise be an illegitimate replacement name for Pandanus monotheca Martelli (in Bull. Soc. Bot. Ital. 1904: 303. 1904), and so the new combination, Benstonea ornata (Kurz) Callm. & Buerki, was indeed validly published. Callmander & al. (in Candollea 67: 336. 2012) designated Gaudichaud's collection 108 from Malacca (Malaysia) collected in February 1837 as “lectotype” of the name. Although Solms may have seen this collection, Kurz saw only the illustration in Gaudichaud (l.c.), and so the collection is not original material for P. ornatus Kurz, nor can the selection be corrected to “neotype” under Art. 9.10 because original material (Gaudichaud, l.c.: t. 5, fig. 1, 8, 9.) exists. The simplest solution is to propose the Gaudichaud 108 as a conserved type as is done above.

Pandanus ornatus W. Bull (in J. Roy. Hort. Soc. 1: i. 1866) was based on a cultivated plant exhibited on 23 January 1866 by William Bull (1828–1902) at the Royal Horticultural Society of London and described as “a species, of elegant drooping habit, with narrowish dark‐green glossy leaves margined with short white spines; it was considered to be a very pretty subject for room‐decoration, especially in the small state”. Later in the same year in his Autumn issue of A retail list of new, beautiful and rare plants, Bull (Retail List 14: 15. 1866) listed plants of P. ornatus for sale. Édouard‐François André (1840–1911) (in Ill. Hort. 19: 143–144, t. 97. 1872) published an illustration accompanied by two pages of detailed description and reported that the species originated from the Mascarenes (Diego Rodriguez [Rodrigues Island]) and had been sent to Jean Jules Linden (1817–1898) in Gand (Belgium). No original material of this species was traced. This species was treated in two places by Otto Warburg (1859–1938) in his Pandanaceae monograph (in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 9 (Heft 3): 58, 88. 1900). On page 58, P. ornatus W. Bull was considered to be a synonym of the later‐published name P. heterocarpus Balf. f. (in Baker, Fl. Mauritius: 399. 1877), and on page 88, Warburg provided the superfluous new name P. lindenii Warb. for P. ornatus W. Bull [as ‘Hort.’] (nec Kurz), thus excluding the later homonym published by Kurz (in J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt. 2, Nat. Hist. 38(2): 147. 1869). The only other mentions of P. ornatus W. Bull are in the comprehensive list of Pandanaceae by Martelli (in Webbia 4: 8. 1913) and Stone's treatment of Pandanus subg. Acrostigma (Kurz) B.C. Stone (in Fed. Mus. J. 23: 34. 1978) where it was treated under P. lindenii Warb.

At no time during the last 150 years has this obscure species name been mentioned in general Pandanus treatments (e.g., Baker in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 17: 33–68. 1878; Ridley, Fl. Singapore: 170–172. 1900, Fl. Malay. Penins. 5: 72–84. 1925; Stone in Sandakania 2: 35–84. 1993), which have only referred to the taxon described by Kurz. The synonymy of P. ornatus W. Bull with the later published name P. heterocarpus Balf. f. suggested by Warburg (l.c.) cannot be accepted as young leaves of P. heterocarpus have red prickles (Bosser & Guého in Fl. Mascareignes 190: 19. 2003) like nearly all species in the Mascarenes. Pandanus ornatus W. Bull with its white prickles is most likely a synonym of P. tectorius Parkinson (J. Voy. South Seas: 46. 1773) or one of its cultivars.

In an effort to promote nomenclatural stability, we are therefore proposing to conserve, under ICN Art. 14, the unambiguous name P. ornatus Kurz, which has been used almost exclusively for well over a century. Without this conservation, strict application of the principles of priority (ICN Art. 11) would cause P. ornatus Kurz to be blocked by the unknown earlier homonym P. ornatus W. Bull, a name that would very likely do nothing more than contribute to the long list of P. tectorius synonyms. Another consequence would be the need to use the earliest available legitimate name for P. ornatus Kurz, P. monotheca Martelli (l.c., 1904), and provide a new combination in Benstonea. Martelli's name was accepted by Stone (l.c. 1978) based solely on diagnosis and illustrations, and it was only the rediscovery of original material of P. monotheca by Callmander & al. (l.c.) that allowed this name to be treated as a synonym of Benstonea ornata.

（2772）露兜树ornatus Kurz在J.Asiat。Soc。孟加拉国 2，自然 历史。38：147。1869年7月29日[Angiosp .: Pandan。]，标称值。缺点 支柱。

典型：[马来西亚]，马六甲，1837年2月，Gaudichaud 108（G条形码G00164258;同型：B条形码B 10 0279958，P条形码P01751483，P01751484，P01751486和P01751487），典型。缺点 支柱。

（=）Pandanus ornatus W.Bull in J.Roy。霍特 Soc。1：我 1866年4月1日，名义 rej。支柱。

类型：非指定类型。

螺旋松树种目前称为Benstonea ornata（Kurz）Callm。＆Buerki（Candollea 67：336. 2012）（≡Pandanus ornatus Kurz in J. Asiat。Soc。Bengal，Pt.2，Nat.Hist。38：147. 1869）从马来西亚半岛分发到婆罗洲（通过苏门答腊和新加坡）和泰国。该名称基于Gaudichaud出版的精美图画（Voy。Bonite，Bot。：t。5，图1、8、9，1841年）。Gaudichaud的原始物种名称“ Fisquetia ornata ”未得到有效发布（根据ICN第35.1和38.5（a）条，Turland等人于Regnum Veg。159. 2018），因为尽管该图包括了分析（第38.8条） ＆38.9），同时出版的新属“ Fisquetia”不是单一类型，因为高迪乔（Gaudichaud）在两个图版中包含了四个新物种（lc：t。4，5）。车牌的出版说明（Alleizette in Gaudichaud，lc，Explic。Atlas：115. 1866）也缺少与通用名称相关的任何描述性材料。后来，库尔兹（lc）发布了露兜树ornatus，希望它以“高斯Fisquetia ornata ”为基础。但通过将该物种与其Helicopus Kurz进行比较提供了诊断，因此可以有效地发表ornatus Kurz。在新的组合Benstonea，B.姬蛙称为后来的引证：（336 2012在Candollea 67）P.奥玛特斯Solms所著的Kurz（Linnaea 42：11. 1878）与艺术相反。ICN的41.5 。但是，尽管Solms（lc）引用了Kurz的原始出版物，但Callmander＆Buerki的错误需要根据Art予以纠正。ICN的41.8（c），否则该名称将成为Pandanus monotheca Martelli（在Bull。Soc。Bot。Ital。1904：303. 1904中）的非法替代名称，因此新组合Benstonea ornata（Kurz）卡勒姆 ＆Buerki，确实有效地发表了。卡曼德等人 （在Candollea 67：336。2012中）指定了Gaudichaud的收藏集108来自马六甲（马来西亚）的名称于1837年2月收集。尽管Solms可能已经看过该收藏，但Kurz仅在Gaudichaud（lc）中看到了插图，因此该收藏不是P. ornatus Kurz的原始材料，也不能根据Art将其更正为“ neotype”。9.10，因为存在原始材料（Gaudichaud，lc：t。5，图1、8、9）。最简单的解决方案是如上所述将Gaudichaud 108提议为保守类型。

Pandanus ornatus W. Bull（in J. Roy。Hort。Soc。1：i。1866）是基于1866年1月23日William Bull（1828–1902）在伦敦皇家园艺学会展出的一种栽培植物， “具有下垂习性的优良种，深绿色光泽叶片较窄，白色短刺边缘；它被认为是房间装饰的一个非常漂亮的主题，尤其是在小型状态下。” 同年晚些时候，在Bull的秋季新品种，美丽和稀有植物零售清单中，Bull（零售清单14：15。1866年）列出了P. ornatus植物。出售。Édouard‐FrançoisAndré（1840–1911）（Ill。Hort。19：143–144，t。97. 1872）发表了插图，并附有两页详细说明，并报告说该物种起源于Mascarenes（Diego Rodriguez [罗德里格斯岛]），并已被送往比利时甘德的让·朱尔斯·林登（Jean Jules Linden，1817-1898年）。没有找到该物种的原始材料。奥托·沃伯格（Otto Warburg（1859–1938））在他的Pandanaceae专着中（在Engler，Pflanzenr。IV。9（第3组）：58，88. 1900）在两个地方对该物种进行了处理。在第58页，P。ornatus W. Bull被认为是后来出版的P. heterocarpus Balf名称的同义词。F。（在佛罗里达州贝克的贝克：399。1877年），在第88页上，沃堡提供了多余的新名称菩提树b 为P.奥玛特斯W.公牛[按'园艺。']（NEC库尔兹），因此排除了由库尔兹出版（在J. Asiat志孟加拉后来谐音，铂2，纳特组织胺38（2）。。。。： 147. 1869）。唯一的其他提到的P.奥玛特斯W.公牛在综合名单露兜树科由马尔泰利（在Webbia 4：8，1913年）和石的治疗的露兜SUBG。Acrostigma（Kurz）BC Stone（Fed。Mus。J . 23：34 . 1978），在这里经过了P. lindenii Warb处理。

在过去的150年中，在露兜树的一般处理方法中从未提及过这种晦涩的物种（例如，Baker in J. Linn。Soc。，Bot。17：33-68。1878； Ridley，Fl.Singapore：170-172） （1900年，马来半岛出版社5：72–84。1925； Sandakania中的Stone 2：35–84。1993），这些文献仅提及库尔兹描述的分类单元。P. ornatus W. Bull与后来出版的名称P. heterocarpus Balf的同义词。F。Warburg（lc）提出的建议不能接受，因为异果P.的幼叶有红色的皮刺（Bosser＆Guéhoin Fl。Mascareignes 190：19。2003），就像Mascarenes中的几乎所有物种一样。Pandanus ornatus W. Bull的白色皮刺很可能是P. tectorius Parkinson（J. Voy。South Seas：46. 1773）或其中一个品种。

因此，为了促进命名稳定性，我们建议根据ICN Art进行保存。在图14中，明确命名为P. ornatus Kurz，几乎一个世纪以来一直被专门使用。如果没有这种保留，严格执行优先权原则（ICN第11条）将导致Ornatus Kurz被未知的早期同名P. ornatus W. Bull阻止，这个名字很可能只会助长P. tectorius同义词的长列表。另一个后果是需要使用最早可用的合法名称来命名P. ornatus Kurz，P. monotheca。Martelli（lc，1904），并在Benstonea提供了新的组合。Martelli的名字被Stone（lc 1978）仅仅基于诊断和说明才被接受，而这仅仅是Callmander等人重新发现的独角松的原始材料。（lc），该名称被视为Benstonea ornata的同义词。