What is correct: POWO page listed name or specimen name in herbarium sheets ?:
I have been encountering this issue both in POWO and GBIF.
You are missing something.
But in the herbarium sheet, it is mentioned as Mussaenda frondosa var. grandifolia Hook.f., which is a syn. of Mussaenda treutleri Stapf. as per POWO.
It could just be a mistake. May be Jayweera made a mistake and designated a wrong lectotype.
My question is ‘What is correct: POWO page listed name or specimen name in herbarium sheets ?’ as a layman.
To keep ourself safe, we should look at accession Number.
But what is the answer to my question as a layman?
Wallich cited several specimens in his publication Wallich Catalogue 1812 (as there were no descriptions publication and names remained illegitimate unless validated by some later author/s). Mussaenda macrophylla Wall. was validated in Roxb.Fl. Ind. 1824, based on the Wall. Catalogue No.. 6295. Hooker also included M. frondosa Wall. Cat. 6250 A under it. M. frondosa 6250 E he separated under frondosa var. grandifolia Hook.f.. Jayaweera 1960-61 who examined these specimens realised that Wall. Cat. 6295 is true M. macrophylla Wall. designated it as Holotype (although it is not technically right), and shifted M. frondosa var. grandifolia Hook.f as distinct from M. frondosa Linn. as M. treutleri Stapf, as the name M. grandifolia Elmer was preoccupied. and selected one specimen as Lectotype out of several syntypes. Wall. Cat. 6250 had several specimens under numbering A, B. C, D, E, F, G etc,, which went different ways.
POWO/ GBIF are overriding what is written in the herbarium sheets (without changing its name on it) in such cases. Should we go by the opinion of POWO/GBIF as shown in their databases or Should we generally go by the name which is written in the herbarium sheet ? Or it can be either way ? Or do we compare with specimens where there is no such ambiguity ?
I require this guidance as I am very frequently trying to match with POWO/ GBIF specimens and I find such conflicts many times.
I would prefer to use the POWO/GBIF database name rather than the name found on the herbarium sheet which may not be up-to-date. As … pointed out, the specimens especially Holotypes would/should have the latest name reflecting the database name, but other specimens may still have old names on them. Moreover, I would assume, the scanned images of the specimens that we see may be old and not reflect any recent changes in the nomenclature. So, we should go by the database name which is supposed to be the most recent accepted name.
There is another problem here. Although I also like to attach determinavits, I do it only when I am sure. But then people do attach slips mistakenly and this wrong ID sometimes persists.
I hope I have more clarity on this now.