I see that the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families at the Royal Botanic Gardens: Kew now accepts our usage of the names, for both Narcissus miniatus and Narcissus obsoletus. Narcissus elegans is relegated to a synonym of Narcissus obsoletus. Sorry Brian and others who were against us pointing out what the correct names should be.
Daffseek will need to be changed.
Hi Harold,
Congratulations on your nice miniatures at the Fall Show.
I have been watching the issues of priority play out with interest. From my perspective the naming of N. miniatus was an important advance on Fernandes’ understanding. The idea of crossing hexaploid serotinus (now miniatus) with a diploid serotinus to obtain a tetraploid serotinus seemed like a good idea. The recognition that the hexaploid is not serotinus at all shows this cross would not have produced a fertile tetraploid. Regardless of how the issue plays out I think you and your co-authors have made an important contribution to the identification and naming of these species.
I am confused about the current situation. I see that in the World Checklist the review of Amaryllidaceae is complete and that the reviewer is S.Kington (RHS, 2007, Narcissus). The most recent Daffodil, Snowdrop and Tulip Yearbook 2017 has an article by Sally Kington which states “the name N. obsoletus takes priority over the name N. miniatus “.
This situation is obviously difficult. In the publication of the name N. miniatus you accept the name N. elegans but have since said that N. elegans is N. obsoletus . Meanwhile others have argued that N. miniatus is N. obsoletus. I assume this means that is is agreed that N. obsoletus has priority over something. This, from my perspective, is a shame because I am very attached to the name elegans and also I feel it would be nice to see the insight in the naming of miniatus rewarded. Alas, I don’t suppose sentiment counts for much in taxonomy.