{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03620689655172414, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010344827586206896, 'mean_word_length': 4.663414634146341, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Honoring Philip Barker Webb: the three intriguing stories of Webbia as a genus name

The name Webbia has been used to describe three different genera: Webbia Spach (Clusiaceae), Webbia DC., nom. illeg. (Asteraceae: Vernonieae), and Webbia Sch.Bip., nom. illeg. (Asteraceae: Astereae). The title of the botanical journal Webbia does not pertain to any of these generic names but is a mere Latinization of the surname Webb, and was created as a patronym that honors the legacy of Philip Barker Webb (1793–1854). The journal is a tribute to Webb’s botanical contributions, and his importance in the development of the collections of the Museo di Storia Naturale di Firenze in the establishment of the Herbarium Webbianum. The journal had an uneasy start, as a book proposal made by the Italian professor (Università di Pisa) Ugolino Martelli to the Società Botanica Italiana to honor Webb was rejected in 1905. The names Conyza obscura DC. and Erigeron capensis Houtt. are lectotypified. The nomenclature of Conyza pinifolia Lam. is revisited, and it is considered a legitimate name. A specimen housed in G-DC is designated as the neotype of this Lamarckian name.