brouille
commented
6 years ago Do you mean Picea alba (Castigl.) Link ? there is no (Munchh.) Link with this sp
I add or remove name. It is not a good idea to replace one by another. Better add a new entry. This is to keep the numbering unique to names.
I believe that replacing P. glauca, which has been used by all, by P. laxa, never used really in the litt., is a bad idea, however correct nomenclaturally. This should be a case of conservation. Luc
Re: http://data.canadensys.net/vascan/taxon/7173
The synonym Pinus alba Aiton should be listed as a nom. illeg. Pinus alba Aiton 1789, nom. illeg. hom., non Münchh. 1770
Similarly, Picea alba (Aiton) Link should be Picea alba (Münchh.) Link
In the NL checklist, we have this info on the name changes: [Kews' World checklist of Selected Plant Families (Govaerts et al. 2011) posted information on overlooked Pinus names by Münchh. (1770) that change the existing nomenclature. The name Pinus alba Aiton (1789) is a later homonym of Pinus alba Münchh. (1770), so Münchh. replaces Aiton as the basionym in names based on Aiton's Pinus alba, e.g.: Picea alba (Münchh.) Link and Abies alba (Münchh.) Michx. ]
See also: http://wcsp.science.kew.org/namedetail.do?name_id=380696 It seems that WCSP is using Picea laxa (Münchh.) Sarg. as the accepted name of Picea glauca, but I don't think that's accepted elsewhere. We list this name as synonym if P. glauca