The valid publication of Abroma (Malvaceae)
by Shuai Liao, Qin-Wen Lin, Jin-Shuang Ma, John H. Wiersema
“Abroma” Jacq. and “Ambroma” L. f. have been alternatively adopted in different publications for the same genus of Malvaceae. The correct spelling and ascription of this generic name remain in dispute. Fosberg reviewed the nomenclature of this genus and concluded that Jacquin did not validly publish Abroma in 1776 because he failed to provide a separate generic description or diagnosis, and because validation with a combined genus/species description or diagnosis was not possible, as another prior name (Theobroma augustum L.) was included based on the same type as his sole species A. fastuosum. However, Jacquin had, in fact, validly published his new genus by providing both a generic diagnosis and description after his species description. Given the inconsistent opinions about the author and spelling of the genus in different publications and databases, a detailed clarification is presented here to promote nomenclatural stability of the genus. We hope this explanation will eliminate the erroneous adoption of “Ambroma” L. f., as in the Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae and Flora of China.
