Sir ji, Glycosmis cochinchinensis ??? I think it should be Buchanania cochinchinensis. Thanks & Regards,
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 2:18:09 AM UTC+5:30 Gurcharan Singh wrote: > 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/b733e0d3-cb7e-43d2-847e-08de3b58ced4n%40googlegroups.com.
