(48) Request for a binding decision on whether Scilla L. (Hyacinthaceae subfam. Hyacinthoideae) and Squilla Steinh. (Hyacinthaceae subfam. Urgineoideae) are sufficiently alike to be confused

Abstract

We are requesting a binding decision as to whether Scilla L. and Squilla Steinh. are to be treated as independent names or are sufficiently alike to be confused (under Art. 53.5 of the ICN, McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012), and accordingly either orthographic variants with the current typification (under Art. 61.2 of the ICN) or treated as homonyms, if the conservation of Scilla with S. bifolia as type is approved (cf. Martínez-Azorín & Crespo in Taxon 65: 1427-1428. 2016). In our opinion, Steinheil ((in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 2, 6: 276. 1836) pointed out in the protologue of Squilla the differences between the two names, which he applied deliberately to two very different groups of plants now considered to belong to two different subfamilies, Hyacinthoideae and Urgineoideae respectively. Furthermore, those two generic names show important orthographic differences that strongly affect their pronunciation and make them easy to differentiate and recognise. As noted by Martínez-Azorín & Crespo (l.c.), Charybdis was superfluous when published, and is therefore illegitimate under Art. 52 of the ICN, as its type is the previously designated Rafinesque's type of Scilla L., a typification that was probably unknown to Speta (in Phyton (Horn) 38: 58. 1998). This makes Charybdis not available for use. Were our proposal to conserve Scilla with a conserved type (Martínez-Azorín & Crespo, l.c.) accepted, it would be the best choice to accept Squilla and Scilla as different names and thus Squilla would be available for the taxa currently included in the illegitimate Charybdis, thus avoiding the necessity to provide a new generic name for those plants (or propose Charybdis for conservation). This would not be very disruptive, since most of the needed combinations in Squilla are already available.