Fwd: Why Amomum (1753) rejected Zingiber (1754) accepted : 3 posts by 3 authors.
I would like to ask you. Why Amomum L., Sp. Pl.: 1 (1753), nom. rej. Zingiber Mill., Gard. Dict. Abr. ed. 4: s.p. (1754), nom. cons.
1. Amomum Roxb. and Zingiber Mill. are two well recognised genera with numerous species each.
2. Amomum Roxb. is conserved against over the earlier homonym Amomum L., nom. rej. (and as such Amomum L. is not rejected against Zingiber Mill.).
3. Zingiber Mill. conserved with this spelling against the original spelling “Zinziber”.
4. If your question was pertaining to why Amomum zingiber L. was ignored while accepting Zingiber officinale Roscoe, the reason is that Linnaeus had described this species under genus Amomum but latter transferred to
I hope this should help.
As per efi thread:
Curcuma: leaves less than ten, distichous, lower one sheathing, penninerved, petiole proper well developed, shorter than leaf sheath belonging to it.
Zingiber: leaves numerous, distichous, the lower one reduced and sheath like, pinnately nerved, petiole very short or absent.