Nomenclatural and taxonomic comments on some taxa of Chenopodiaceae of the Himalayas and Tibet/Xizang

S. Mosyakin, B. Mandák
{"title":"Nomenclatural and taxonomic comments on some taxa of Chenopodiaceae of the Himalayas and Tibet/Xizang","authors":"S. Mosyakin, B. Mandák","doi":"10.15407/ukrbotj77.06.413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nomenclatural corrections and comments are provided on several taxa of Chenopodiaceae occurring in the Himalayas and Xizang/Tibet and adjacent areas, following the recent monographic revision of the family in that region and earlier publications. In particular, the original identity of the name Atriplex bengalensis (Chenopodium bengalense) is discussed and it is confirmed, based on additional evidence, that the name was originally (before its epitypification in 2014) applicable to a robust diploid of the Chenopodium ficifolium aggregate, not to the robust hexaploid currently known as C. giganteum. It is thus also concluded that the recent proposal by Mosyakin and Mandák (2018) to conserve the name C. giganteum with a conserved type corresponding to the current understanding and application of that name will best serve nomenclatural stability. A nomenclatural solution alternative to the proposal to reject the name A. bengalensis might be the following: (1) to conserve the name Atriplex bengalensis with a conserved C. ficifolium against C. bengalense. The nomenclaturally paradoxical situation with the names Chenopodium pallidum, C. harae, and Atriplex pallida (all now considered homotypic, as justified by Mosyakin and McNeill in 2018), which emerged from the conflicting lectotypification and epitypification of the name C. pallidum, is revisited and reconsidered. Possible options for dealing with that nomenclatural problem are outlined: (1) keeping the status quo, (2) proposing to conserve the name C. pallidum with a conserved type other than the standing lectotype, and (3) proposing to reject the name C. pallidum. The last option is considered preferable. Additional considerations are presented on a possible taxonomic identity of Chenopodium strictum as originally described by Roth; it is confirmed that that name was misapplied to a widespread Eurasian tetraploid species now properly known as C. betaceum. The identity of the name Bassia fiedleri is discussed; being a replacement name for Echinopsilon divaricatum, it is homotypic with Bassia divaricata (Kar. & Kir.) Kuntze (nom. illeg., non F. Muell.) and is a taxonomic synonym of Grubovia dasiphylla (as correctly stated by Kadereit and Freitag in 2011), but not a synonym of Bassia scoparia. Several comments on type designations of selected taxa of Chenopodiaceae from the Sino-Himalayan region are provided as well; e.g., for Acroglochin persicarioides and associated names, Chenopodium karoi, and Salsola monoptera.","PeriodicalId":52835,"journal":{"name":"Ukrainian Botanical Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ukrainian Botanical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15407/ukrbotj77.06.413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Nomenclatural corrections and comments are provided on several taxa of Chenopodiaceae occurring in the Himalayas and Xizang/Tibet and adjacent areas, following the recent monographic revision of the family in that region and earlier publications. In particular, the original identity of the name Atriplex bengalensis (Chenopodium bengalense) is discussed and it is confirmed, based on additional evidence, that the name was originally (before its epitypification in 2014) applicable to a robust diploid of the Chenopodium ficifolium aggregate, not to the robust hexaploid currently known as C. giganteum. It is thus also concluded that the recent proposal by Mosyakin and Mandák (2018) to conserve the name C. giganteum with a conserved type corresponding to the current understanding and application of that name will best serve nomenclatural stability. A nomenclatural solution alternative to the proposal to reject the name A. bengalensis might be the following: (1) to conserve the name Atriplex bengalensis with a conserved C. ficifolium against C. bengalense. The nomenclaturally paradoxical situation with the names Chenopodium pallidum, C. harae, and Atriplex pallida (all now considered homotypic, as justified by Mosyakin and McNeill in 2018), which emerged from the conflicting lectotypification and epitypification of the name C. pallidum, is revisited and reconsidered. Possible options for dealing with that nomenclatural problem are outlined: (1) keeping the status quo, (2) proposing to conserve the name C. pallidum with a conserved type other than the standing lectotype, and (3) proposing to reject the name C. pallidum. The last option is considered preferable. Additional considerations are presented on a possible taxonomic identity of Chenopodium strictum as originally described by Roth; it is confirmed that that name was misapplied to a widespread Eurasian tetraploid species now properly known as C. betaceum. The identity of the name Bassia fiedleri is discussed; being a replacement name for Echinopsilon divaricatum, it is homotypic with Bassia divaricata (Kar. & Kir.) Kuntze (nom. illeg., non F. Muell.) and is a taxonomic synonym of Grubovia dasiphylla (as correctly stated by Kadereit and Freitag in 2011), but not a synonym of Bassia scoparia. Several comments on type designations of selected taxa of Chenopodiaceae from the Sino-Himalayan region are provided as well; e.g., for Acroglochin persicarioides and associated names, Chenopodium karoi, and Salsola monoptera.
标题喜马拉雅和西藏地区藜科若干分类群的命名与分类学评论
根据喜马拉雅山和西藏及邻近地区最近对藜科的专题修订和早期出版物,对该科的几个分类群进行了命名更正和评论。特别是,讨论了本加莱滨藜(Chenodium bengalense)这个名字的原始身份,并根据额外的证据证实,这个名字最初(在2014年表分型之前)适用于Chenodiumficiffolium聚集体的一个结实的二倍体,而不适用于目前被称为C.giganteum的结实的六倍体。因此,还得出结论,Mosyakin和Mandák(2018)最近提出的以与当前对该名称的理解和应用相对应的保守类型来保护巨型C.giganteum名称的建议将最有利于命名法的稳定性。拒绝使用A.bengalensis名称的提议的命名解决方案可能如下:(1)用一种保守的C.ficifilum对抗C.bengalense来保护本加兰Atriplex bengalensis的名称。苍白球藻(Chenopodium pallidum)、苍白球藻(C.harae)和苍白球滨藻(Atriplex pallida)(现在都被认为是同型的,Mosyakin和McNeill在2018年证明了这一点)的命名上的矛盾情况,源于苍白球藻名称的选型和表型冲突,现在被重新审视。概述了处理这一命名问题的可能选择:(1)保持现状,(2)提议保留苍白球藻这个名称,使其成为一个非固定选型的保守类型,以及(3)提议拒绝使用苍白球菌这个名称。最后一种选择被认为是可取的。对Roth最初描述的严格藜属可能的分类学身份提出了额外的考虑;已经证实,这个名字被误用为一个广泛分布的欧亚四倍体物种,现在被正确地称为C.betaceum。讨论了巴西娅·费德利这个名字的身份;作为二尖棘皮的一个替代名称,它与二尖Bassia(Kar.&Kir.)Kuntze(nom.ileg.,non.F.Muell.)是同型的,是dasiphylla Grubovia的分类学同义词(Kadereit和Freitag在2011年正确地指出了这一点),但不是scoparia的同义词。对中国喜马拉雅地区藜科部分植物的类型命名也提出了几点意见;例如,对于Acroglochin persicaroides和相关名称,Chen opodium karoi和Salsola monotera。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信