(2951) Proposal to conserve <i>Malus domestica</i> , nom. cons., against the additional name, <i>M. sylvestris</i> ( <i>Rosaceae</i> )

(2951) Malus domestica (Suckow) Borkh., Theor. Prakt. Handb. Forstbot.: 1272. 1803 (Pyrus malus var. Suckow, Anfangsgr. Bot. 2: 332. 1786), [Angiosp.: Ros.], nom. cons. Typus: Herb. Linnaeus No. 647.3 (LINN) (typ. cons.). (=) sylvestris (L.) Mill., Gard. Dict., ed. 8: 1. 16 Apr 1768 L., Sp. Pl.: 479. 1 Mai 1753), rej. prop. Neotypus (vide Langenfelds, Apple-trees: 186. 1991): Latvia, “Dist. Madonensis, prope villula Grasi”, Langenfelds 105 (RIG). The oldest validly published name for the orchard apple when referred to genus Mill. is M. pumila (1768; Rosaceae; Mabberley & al. in Telopea 9: 421–430. 2001), but opinion of Nomenclature Committee Vascular Plants (NCVP), namely that a proposal (Qian Taxon 59: 650–652. 2010) reject this favour Borkh. (1803) be itself rejected, was reversed General (by very narrow majority) back NCVP, which, on second vote, narrowly recommended accepted after all. In consequence now conserved against besides six other older names, some which were added by NCVP and upon approval proposal's authors (Wilson 66: 742. 2017). Published unpublished molecular work (see Juniper Mabberley, Extraord. Story Apple: 11. 2019; Sun Nat. Genet. 52: 1423–1432. 2020; Volk Frontiers Pl. Sci. (Online journal) 13: 1015658. 2022, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1015658) has shown populations putative principal ancestor apple, sieversii (Ledeb.) Roem. Central Asia, also include what are fact hybrids with cultivars domestica, while eastern Europe Caucasus between native subsp. orientalis (Uglitzk.) Soó (M. Uglitzk.) well known, and, northern western Europe, hybridizes far more readily than had previously been held. inter-relationships three “wild” taxa have suggested they may represent eco-geographical races widespread ancestral species (Juniper l.c.: 28) these might therefore better recognised at subspecies level (Mabberley 244), as effect done long ago – (in Acta Acad. Hung. 423. 1963). Acceptance such taxonomic solution would currently lead being under (as Soó, l.c.), not conserved, so correct scenario appear “M. ined.” ≡ Pyrus L. malus, Ehrhart Hannover. Mag. 18: 223. 1780. To protect lately any system proposed most recent presented, must list names rejected domestica. DJM, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6082-5894 author is, ever, indebted John Wiersema advice preparing proposal.