Ipomoea dichroa

Ipomoea dichroa Choisy, A. L. P. P. de Candolle, Prodr. 9:364. 1845 (syn: (=) Ipomoea arachnosperma Welw.) as per GRIN;

---

---

Panipat?

Flora of Panipat District- Ipomoea dichroa – efloraofindia | Google Groups

---

 

Convolvulaceae week: Ipomoea dichroa canal bank Sutana and Thermal:

---

Let us remember the fact that I. arachnosperma Welw. and I. dichroa Hochst. ex Choisy are heterotypic, originally described as distinct species, and whether they are to be treated as same species (synonyms) or distinct taxa is a matter of taxonomic judgement, and both sets of people treating them as synonyms (when I. dichroa Choisy would be the accepted name) or distinct species would be justified in their own right. But ultimately it is logical to follow most recent interpretation of Flora Mozambique, which treats I. dichroa Hochst ex Choisy as accepted name and I. arachnosperma Welw. as synonym, and followed by GRIN, Flora of Zambia and African Plant Database, 2009. Important to mention that both species had originally been described from Africa .

---

Thank you for your clarifications regarding the current confusion in different databases referring to Ipomoea dichroa and Ipomoea arachnosperma.
I agree that in many cases it may be a case of taxonomic judgement.
I stated my position regarding synonyms being used as if they had the same status as an accepted name repeated here:
“The current accepted name should be used in place of older outdated synonyms , otherwise people get the impression that synonym in botany means = “The same as” and that is not true because the synonym in botany refers to the outdated name that is no longer current as the legitimate name and that is why it has only the status of synonym”
Regarding the discussion and hopeful clarification of legitimate binomials or epithets , certainly synonyms will be addressed in the course of the clarification process.
I would still take the position regarding generalized usage of nomenclature that an accepted name (when clear ) should be used in place of any synonym , that there is a distinct organizational premise for assigning an accepted (international ?) name over any other illegitimate name , because a plant can (and should) have only one accepted legitimate name but can have many synonyms…and a binomial or epithet which has synonym status as a lower ranking term for some other accepted binomial , may have legitimate status in it’s own right..
The general usage of synonyms , as if they had the same rank ( and therefore were the equivalent in terms of correct usage) as an accepted name would tend (in the final analysis) towards engendering the mistaken concept that a plant can ( and should) have more than one accepted name.
There should ultimately be only one accepted legitimate name , as that is one of the goals of modern organized taxonomic nomenclature , (however and whenever the conclusion is finally arrived at) and agreed upon Internationally.

---

Thanks for your detailed explanation. Just one clarification. There is nothing like accepted legitimate name. Any name is legitimate which has been published according to the rules of nomenclature and can be considered while deciding the correct/accepted name. There can be many legitimate name for a taxon, but only one correct/accepted name. All rest of names legitimate as well as illegitimate ones are its synonyms. 

---

I must wonder about the reasoning involved that “legitimate accepted” name should not be used together, because in order for any accepted name to be accepted , it must have been published and therefore legitimate.
Are you taking a position that ,once a name becomes accepted that it (by virtue of becoming accepted) looses status as ‘legitimate’ (?) and so combination of “accepted legitimate” is an error of nomenclatural terminology ?…is legitimate ‘ implied ‘ in accepted and therefore redundant ?
Please clarify…

---

Here’s another image

Attachments (1)- 2 mb. 

---

This is Ipomoea dichroa Choisy as per images and details herein and as per comparative images at Ipomoea‎

---

  

 

References: