May 6, 2011, 11:06:03 AM5/6/11
to H S, Mayur Nandikar, deshmukh, efloraofindia
Dear Mayur ji and H S
Perhaps I am not able to comprehend. The name Sterculia villosa was first proposed by Roxburgh in Hort. Bengal. 50. 1814, but is not accepted as it is nom. nud., the name having become legitimate after description was provided by Smith in Cycl. (Rees) 34: Sterculia no. 16. 1816, as such the name becomes S. villosa Roxburgh ex Sm with official date of publication as 1816.
Roxburgh evidently published detailed description only in 1832 in Fl. Ind. (Roxburgh) 3: 153 (-154). 1832 [Oct-Dec 1832]. I wonder then how Sterculia villosa Roxburgh, 1832 get precedence over Sterculia villosa Roxburgh ex Sm, 1816.
Dr. Gurcharan Singh
Retired Associate Professor
SGTB Khalsa College, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007
Res: 932 Anand Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.
Phone: 011-25518297 Mob: 9810359089