Diplazium sanctae-rosae Christ

[joelnitta]

Currently (2025-06-15) Rhakhis has Diplazium sanctae var. rosae Christ as unplaced.

There are two names in IPNI, both with the same publication: Diplazium sanctae rosae Christ, Bull. Herb. Boissier 2(7): 268 (1907). and Diplazium sanctae var. rosae Christ, Bull. Herb. Boissier ser. 2, 7: 268 (1907).

Furthermore, the IPNI link to the protologue in BHL appears to be the correct publication, but there is no hint of Diplazium there, only "Rostkoviana".

I think none of these are the correct spelling; rather I suspect they are all typographical errors for Diplazium sanctae-rosae. But to be really sure we need to track down the protologue.

[msundue]

I believe that Bulletin de l'Herbier Boissier, sér. 2, 7(4): 268. 1907, is correct. The link to the protolog on BHL from MOBOT's Tropicos works. As you suggested, the name was originally published as "Sanctae Rosae" which is automatically corrected to sanctae-rosae. I attach the first page of the publication and the text for the species.

[joelnitta]

Thanks @msundue ! When you say "automatically corrected" is this a rule of the Code?

I think I found a similar situation here, as well:

Dryopteris glandulosa-lanosa C.Chr. in Rhakhis, Dryopteris glandulosolanosa C.Chr. in IPNI. In this case it seems Rhakhis is correct, assuming the "automatic hyphen" holds?

[msundue]

https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_60.html#Art60.11

[msundue]

In general, the Code indicates that hyphens are automatically dropped when the words can be combined, and maintained when the words stand independently. The article in the Code explains it with examples.