Balakrishnan & Chakrabarty • (2026) Conserve Dehaasia
TAXON 60 (4) • August 2011: 1218
(2026) Proposal to conserve the name Dehaasia (Lauraceae) with that spelling Nambiyath P. Balakrishnan1 & Tapas Chakrabarty 1 13–14 B.P.C. Nagar, Thondamuthur Road, Coimbatore 641046, India 2 Botanical Survey of India, Industrial Section, Indian Museum, 1 Sudder Street, Kolkata 700016, India Author for correspondence: N.P. Balakrishnan,
[email protected]
(2026) Dehaasia Blume in Nees, Syst. Laur.: 372. 30 Oct–5 Nov 1836 (‘Haasia’), orth. cons. prop. Typus: D. microcarpa Blume [= D. incrassata (Jack) Kosterm. (Laurus incrassata Jack)]. The genus Dehaasia, published by Blume (Rumphia 1: 161.) in Apr–Jun 1837 with four original species (D. microcarpa Blume, D. media Blume, D. cuneata (Blume) Blume, and D. elongata Blume), now consists of about 35 accepted species distributed from China, Northeast India and through Southeast Asia to New Guinea. A total of 54 binomials has been published for the genus (International Plant Names Index, June 2011). Dehaasia has been lectotypified on D. microcarpa Blume (by Kostermans in J. Sci. Res. (Jakarta) 1: 91. Apr 1952), a synonym of D. incrassata (Jack) Kosterm. (l.c. 1952), based on Laurus incrassata Jack (in Malayan Misc. 2(7): 33. 1822, described from a Jack collection from Natal, Sumatra likely destroyed in 1824 fide Merrill, in J. Arnold Arbor. 33: 199–251. Jul 1952, who published a later isonym of D. incrassata). Since its original publication, Dehaasia has been widely adopted, as by Blume, Mus. Bot. 1: 333. 1851; Bentham & Hooker, Gen. Pl. 3: 152–153. 1880; Hooker, Fl. Brit. India 5: 125–126. 1886; Pax in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(2): 120. 1889; Boerlage, Handl. Fl. Ned. Ind. 3: 136. 1900; Gamble, Man. Ind. Timb., ed. 2: 560. 1902; Ridley in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 38: 320. 1908; Gamble in Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1910: 150–151. 1910; Merrill, Bibl. Enum. Born. Pl.: 278. 1921, Enum. Philipp. Fl. Pl. 2: 199. 1923; Allen in J. Arnold Arbor. 23: 444–445. 1942; Backer & Bakhuizen van den Brink, Fl. Java 1: 130–131. 1963; Kostermans in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 93: 424–480. 1973; Hutchinson, Gen. Fl. Pl. 1: 131. 1964; Steenis, Checkl. Gen. Names Males. Bot.: 72. 1987; Whitmore & Sidiyasa in Whitmore & al., Tree Fl. Indonesia: Kalimantan: 188–189. 1990; Oldfield & al., World List of Threatened Pl.: 169. 1998; Li & al. in Wu & Raven, Fl. China 7: 224–225. 2008; and Julia & al. in Blumea 54: 192–197. 2009. However, several months before Blume published Dehaasia, the same genus had already been published in a work of Nees (Syst. Laur.: 372. 30 Oct–5 Nov 1836) from information provided by Blume. However, in Nees’s work the genus appeared as “Haasia Blume” (with the footnote “Genus a cl. Blume elaboratum.”) with six species, four with the same epithets and essentially identical protologues (all ascribed to Blume) as published later by Blume himself and two additional ones added by Nees (H. peduncularis (Nees) Nees and H. incrassata (Jack) Nees). It should be noted that while the spelling “Haasia” can be found on pp. 25, 372–379, 675–676, and 709 (index) of Nees’s work, “Dehaasia” appears with a generic diagnosis on p. 354 and in the index on p. 708. Both of these spellings commemorate Dirk de Haas (died in 1702?), who in 1687 was Governor of Ambon and afterwards a correspondent of Rumphius. It is unclear why different spellings ascribed to Blume were used for the same genus in the two works. Although the species included varied between the two publications, it seems clear that we are dealing with orthographic variants of a single genus, to which Art. 61 should be applied to determine 1218
the correct orthography under the ICBN (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006). If we apply Art. 61.1 we would conclude the correct spelling to be the earlier “Haasia”, there being no typographical or orthographic error or standardization issue involved. Because variant spellings appeared in Nees’s work, can we apply Art. 61.3 and retain the one that “best suits the recommendations of Art. 60”? Only Rec. 60C.5(c) relates to the personal name de Haas, but that deals only with specific or infraspecific epithets, not with generic names. Otherwise, Art. 61.3 mandates that the first author who “explicitly adopts one of the variants and rejects the other must be followed”. The first such instance of this appears to be in Dizionario delle Scienze Naturali 12(2): 970. 1843 where an entry attributed to A. Brucalassi adopted Haasia and mentioned the alternative Dehaasia. So either way we are left to conclude that Haasia is the correct spelling to be used. Indeed, Haasia was adopted by a number of subsequent authors, including Miquel, Pl. Jungh. 2: 177. 1852, Fl. Ned. Ind. 1(1): 928 –931. 1858; Meisner in Candolle, Prodr. 15(1): 59–62. 1864; Teijsmann & Binnendijk., Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor: 93. 1866; Greshoff in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg 9: 257. 1891; Treub in Ann. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg 22: 150. 1908; Lecomte in Notul. Syst. (Paris) 2: 331–333. 1911, 3: 9–13. 1914, Fl. Indo-Chine 5(2): 150–152. 1914. For the last century, however, the spelling Dehaasia has been consistently adopted. This seems to be because the publication dates of the two publications involved were not clear, and most recent workers thought that Dehaasia was the earlier usage, despite the fact that many well-known classical works (Miquel, Meisner in De Candolle, Lecomte, etc.) adopted Haasia instead of Dehaasia. Kostermans (l.c. 1973), who revised the genus, could not solve the problem. In adopting Dehaasia, he thought that Blume’s work with that spelling appeared in November 1836, but recommended that if it would turn out that Haasia has priority, Dehaasia should be conserved. We referred the matter to Dr. J.F. Veldkamp (at L), who after considerable browsing through various literatures in Leiden clarified the real facts. The title page of vol. 1 of Rumphia, where Dehaasia was published, shows 1835, but Parts 10–12 containing p. 161 were actually published in Apr–Jun of 1837, according to Stafleu & Cowan (in Regnum Veg. 94: 238. 1976) and evidence of distribution of the book in Leiden. As already noted, most recent workers have used Dehaasia and the majority of species have binomials employing that spelling. If we strictly apply the rules of the ICBN and resurrect the spelling Haasia, it would create nomenclatural disarray, and pose problems for users of Floras and other works. The best solution is to conserve the genus with the spelling Dehaasia, enabling its continued use and avoiding the unnecessary loss of a long-established and widely used spelling for this genus. Acknowledgement We are extremely grateful to Dr. J.F. Veldkamp, Leiden for taking efforts to trace out the actual dates of publications from the Herbarium and Library of Leiden and his valuable nomenclatural advice.
