it was a trick question...
the name was first published validly here (checked and cleared 2 weeks ago):
Serapias orientalis E.Nelson
Monogr. & Ikonogr. Orchid.-Gattung. Serapias, Aceras, Loroglossum, Barlia 16, t. 2, figs. 3-6. 1968
holotype herbarium Nelson No. 27 (Kreta)
http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSea ... t%3Dnormal
I have no issues with where a name is published, however when you try to locate a publication and a type, it should be easier - only now things are getting better.
I am trying to locate all protologues, types, etc to put on our online database (free access) and it is a mess (it is done already for the cultivated plants and it was a mess too mind you).
There are many more issues like that
e.g.
Orchis italica was found to be a synonym of
O. simia (the type specimen of the name was
O. simia). Last April Efimov & Kuropatkin proposed to make the name
nom. et typ. cons. to save it, so we don t have to call the well known taxon
O. longicuris.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/i ... 2/art00026
and it goes on...
by the way, if anyone has these pages from Nelson, I will be extremely happy to get a scan of them and see (finally) what
Serapias orientalis really is.
