2020
DOI: 10.1002/tax.12272
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

(2748) Proposal to conserve the name Eriobotrya against Rhaphiolepis (Rosaceae)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…With the above conflicting issues, we agree with the proposal to conserve the name Eriobotrya against Rhaphiolepis (Shaw 2020). In this proposition, Shaw (2020) stressed the importance of maintaining nomenclatural stability of Eriobotrya species with horticultural and agricultural value, in particular E. japonica, which just months after the publication by Liu et al (2020a), received another name combination (i.e. E. japonica to R. loquata Liu & Wen in Liu et al (2020a: 11) to R. bibas (Lour.)…”
Section: Phylogenetic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the above conflicting issues, we agree with the proposal to conserve the name Eriobotrya against Rhaphiolepis (Shaw 2020). In this proposition, Shaw (2020) stressed the importance of maintaining nomenclatural stability of Eriobotrya species with horticultural and agricultural value, in particular E. japonica, which just months after the publication by Liu et al (2020a), received another name combination (i.e. E. japonica to R. loquata Liu & Wen in Liu et al (2020a: 11) to R. bibas (Lour.)…”
Section: Phylogenetic Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two genera can be well separated according to whether the sepals fall off and whether there is an annular ring after sepal senescence or not ( Supplementary Table S5 and Supplementary Figure S9 ). In addition, Shaw (2020) stressed the importance of maintaining nomenclatural stability for Eriobotrya species with horticultural and agricultural value. Because of the conflicting issues we have found, we do not recommend Eriobotrya being incorporated into the genus Rhaphiolepis .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The phylogenomic analysis by Liu et al (2020) revealed that Rhaphiolepis and Eriobotrya strongly supported the paraphyly of Eriobotrya, with Rhaphiolepis nested within it and Eriobotrya was embedded in Rhaphiolepis. Shaw (2020) conserved the name Eriobotrya against Rhaphiolepis and concluded that the epithet japonica was preoccupied and the name of the panglobal loquat changes both in its genus and specific epithet. The replacement name Rhaphiolepis loquata (Liu et al 2020) The two genera can be distinguished from each other by the following morphological c h a r a c t e r s ; t h e p r i m a r y l a t e r a l v e i n s reaching at the leaf margin, often in a tooth (Craspedodromous) in Eriobotrya, whereas the primary veins consistently end without reaching the margins (Camptodromous) in Rhaphiolepis; the inflorescence are paniculate in Eriobotrya and racemose in Rhaphiolepis; flower white and carpels (2 or) 3-5 in Eriobotrya, whereas flower pink and carpels ) (-1) 2 in Rhaphiolepis; the sepals are persistent on the fruits in Eriobotrya, while in Rhaphiolepis, the sepals are early deciduous, leaving an annular ring at the summit of the fruit (Gu & Spongberg 2003).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%