Both Catalogue of Life and WFO consider them synonyms. Now why B.
cochinchinensis is selected as correct name:
The species was first described as *Toluifera cochinchinensis *by João de
Loureiro in 1790, it was transferred to *Buchanania* and named *B.
cochinchinensis* (Lour.) Almeida in 1996. On the other hand *B. lanzan*
Spreng. was first described in 1800, so gets relegated to synonymy on basis
of Principle of Priority.
At the same time Kew Database POWO, treats two as distinct belonging
to different genera Buchanania lanzan Spreng. and Glycosmis cochinchinensis
(Lour.) Pierre & Engl. You can choose whom to follow.
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:09:24 PM UTC+5:30 veer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Respected Sir/Madam
>
> I have doubt about *Buchanania cochinchinensis *and *Buchanania lanzan*.
> *Buchanania
> lanzan* Spreng. SYNONYM: *BUCHANANIA COCHINCHINENSIS* (LOUR.) ALMEIDA.
> some
>
> ambiguity. Sir, is it *Buchanania lanzan* Spreng.SYNONYM: *BUCHANANIA
> COCHINCHINENSIS* (LOUR.) ALMEIDA.
> THANK YOU ALL
>
>
>
> Veera Kishore
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"eFloraofIndia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to indiantreepix+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/indiantreepix/1592f990-d26e-4216-b888-ac4c415ba062n%40googlegroups.com.
