John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:49:52 -0500
From: "Gregory A. Payton" <...DAWESARB.ORG>
Subject: Callitropsis or Xanthocyparis?
To: [email protected]
Reply-to: List of botanical gardens and arboreta staff interested in plant collections <[email protected]>
Chamaecyparis nootkatensis was recently reclassified as Xanthocyparis nootkatensis. Even more recently, in Little, D. P., Schwarzbach, A. E., Adams, R. P. & Hsieh, Chang-Fu. 2004. The circumscription and phylogenetic relationships of Callitropsis and the newly described genus Xanthocyparis (Cupressaceae). American Journal of Botany 91 (11): 1872–1881. Abstract (http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/11/1872), it has been suggested that this species be placed in the genus Callitropsis.
In an attempt to shed more light on this situation we have contacted Dr. Aljos Farjon at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, who has studied this matter in detail. We would like to share with you part of his response:
“I am of course aware of the recent paper in American Journal of Botany proposing the use of Callitropsis instead of Xanthocyparis.
The matter is more complicated than indicated in that paper. It is true that, following the rules of ICBN, the name Callitropsis should have been taken up if the genus Xanthocyparis, erected by me in the first instance for a new Vietnamese conifer, is also to include X. nootkatensis (alias Chamaecyparis nootkatensis or Cupressus nootkatensis). Callitropsis Oersted was, very obscurely but validly, published in 1864 (not 1865) intended for the Nootka Cypress. However, neither Oersted nor anybody ever since validly published the combination Callitropsis nootkatensis so that name does not exist and cannot be used at present.
The name Callitropsis is confusing on several grounds, most importantly because in 1922 Compton independently coined it for a conifer from New Caledonia and the name was in use in the sense of Compton for 30 years (and even now by some, although it is illegitimate) until corrected to Neocallitropsis by Florin. It was never taken up for the Nootka Cypress …. because of its obscurity and because everyone accepted it under Chamaecyparis or Cupressus.
The relationship between the American and Vietnamese species seems soundly based, on morphology by myself, on DNA by the authors of the paper mentioned above. So the Nootka Cypress is neither a Cupressus nor a Chamaecyparis (see my forthcoming Monograph of Cupressaceae & Sciadopitys, expected published by RBG Kew in April 2005). Following scientific discovery, its name must be changed. You can't use Callitropsis nootkatensis unless that name has been validly published. And we should not, either.
A formal proposal and background paper intended to conserve Xanthocyparis over Callitropsis under the ICBN has been submitted by Mill & Farjon to Taxon very recently. We urge people not to rush into using the ambiguous name Callitropsis in a binomial that does not formally exist and to keep using either traditional names or X. nootkatensis (although at present illegitimate) until a decision on our proposal has been made and published. …the ramifications of the use of Callitropsis go much further than this, especially affecting horticulture (the correct name of Leyland Cypress, for instance).”
Hence, it would seem ill-advised to adopt the name Callitropsis nootkatensis until this matter has been resolved.
From: "Gregory A. Payton" <...DAWESARB.ORG>
Subject: Callitropsis or Xanthocyparis?
To: [email protected]
Reply-to: List of botanical gardens and arboreta staff interested in plant collections <[email protected]>
Chamaecyparis nootkatensis was recently reclassified as Xanthocyparis nootkatensis. Even more recently, in Little, D. P., Schwarzbach, A. E., Adams, R. P. & Hsieh, Chang-Fu. 2004. The circumscription and phylogenetic relationships of Callitropsis and the newly described genus Xanthocyparis (Cupressaceae). American Journal of Botany 91 (11): 1872–1881. Abstract (http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/11/1872), it has been suggested that this species be placed in the genus Callitropsis.
In an attempt to shed more light on this situation we have contacted Dr. Aljos Farjon at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, who has studied this matter in detail. We would like to share with you part of his response:
“I am of course aware of the recent paper in American Journal of Botany proposing the use of Callitropsis instead of Xanthocyparis.
The matter is more complicated than indicated in that paper. It is true that, following the rules of ICBN, the name Callitropsis should have been taken up if the genus Xanthocyparis, erected by me in the first instance for a new Vietnamese conifer, is also to include X. nootkatensis (alias Chamaecyparis nootkatensis or Cupressus nootkatensis). Callitropsis Oersted was, very obscurely but validly, published in 1864 (not 1865) intended for the Nootka Cypress. However, neither Oersted nor anybody ever since validly published the combination Callitropsis nootkatensis so that name does not exist and cannot be used at present.
The name Callitropsis is confusing on several grounds, most importantly because in 1922 Compton independently coined it for a conifer from New Caledonia and the name was in use in the sense of Compton for 30 years (and even now by some, although it is illegitimate) until corrected to Neocallitropsis by Florin. It was never taken up for the Nootka Cypress …. because of its obscurity and because everyone accepted it under Chamaecyparis or Cupressus.
The relationship between the American and Vietnamese species seems soundly based, on morphology by myself, on DNA by the authors of the paper mentioned above. So the Nootka Cypress is neither a Cupressus nor a Chamaecyparis (see my forthcoming Monograph of Cupressaceae & Sciadopitys, expected published by RBG Kew in April 2005). Following scientific discovery, its name must be changed. You can't use Callitropsis nootkatensis unless that name has been validly published. And we should not, either.
A formal proposal and background paper intended to conserve Xanthocyparis over Callitropsis under the ICBN has been submitted by Mill & Farjon to Taxon very recently. We urge people not to rush into using the ambiguous name Callitropsis in a binomial that does not formally exist and to keep using either traditional names or X. nootkatensis (although at present illegitimate) until a decision on our proposal has been made and published. …the ramifications of the use of Callitropsis go much further than this, especially affecting horticulture (the correct name of Leyland Cypress, for instance).”
Hence, it would seem ill-advised to adopt the name Callitropsis nootkatensis until this matter has been resolved.
