Taxon最新文献

{"title":"(3017) Proposal to conserve the name Gymnosporia royleana (Celastraceae)","authors":"Abhishek T. Bhat, K.M. Prabhukumar, Tikam Singh Rana","doi":"10.1002/tax.13159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13159","url":null,"abstract":"<p>(3017) <b><i>Gymnosporia royleana</i></b> M.A. Lawson in Hooker, Fl. Brit. India 1: 620. Feb 1875 [Angiosp.: <i>Celastr</i>.], nom. cons. prop.</p>\u0000<p><b>Lectotypus (hic designatus):</b> “Affghania” [Afghanistan], <i>Griffith 1245</i> (K barcode K001325915 [digital image!]; isolectotypus: K001325917 [digital image!]).</p>\u0000<p>Wallich (Numer. List: 151, no. 4317. 1831) listed “<i>C</i>[<i>elastrus</i>]. <i>Royleana</i> Wall.”, based on a Royle collection. Subsequently, Royle (Ill. Bot. Himal. Mts.: 167. 1835) recorded “<i>C. spinosus</i> nob. <i>Ic. ined</i>. t. 73”. Both, being nomina nuda, are not validly published names. However, <i>Celastrus spinosus</i> was later validated by Boissier (Fl. Orient. 2: 11. 1872).</p>\u0000<p>Lawson (in Hooker, Fl. Brit. India 1: 620. 1875), while revising the family <i>Celastraceae</i>, transferred a few members of <i>Celastrus</i> to <i>Gymnosporia</i>. He thus inadvertently validly published <i>Gymnosporia royleana</i> seemingly based on the invalid “<i>C. royleanus</i> Wall.” Lawson (l.c.) also included <i>C. spinosus</i> Royle ex Boiss. as a synonym. His choice in accepting <i>G. royleana</i> was seemingly purely based on what he considered to be priority of publication. This nomenclatural error under current rules made <i>G. royleana</i> a superfluous illegitimate name under Art. 52.1 of the <i>ICN</i> (Turland &amp; al. in Regnum Veg. 2018) as Lawson (l.c.) should have adopted the then-available epithet “<i>spinosa</i>”. It is thus automatically typified by the type of <i>C. spinosus</i> Boiss. (Art. 7.5). Boissier (l.c.) cited two gatherings from Afghanistan (“Griffith pl. exs. 1245! et Herb. East lnd. Comp. n^o 1991!”). During our search for type specimens, we traced eight specimens, six at K [barcodes K001325915, K001325916, K001325917, K001325918, K001325919, K001325920] and one each at CAL [No. 86591] and DD [No. 1991]. The sheet K001325915 is well preserved, precisely matching with the protologue, bearing one flowering and a fruiting twig of a single gathering [1245] without any confusing and illegible labels. Hence, it is selected above as the lectotype; the specimen K001325917 appears to be a duplicate of it.</p>\u0000<p>Cufodontis (in Senckenberg. Biol. 43: 313. 1962) transferred <i>Gymnosporia royleana</i> to <i>Maytenus</i> as <i>M. royleana</i> Cufod., which is a legitimate name, as the existence of <i>M. spinosa</i> (Griseb.) Lourteig &amp; O'Donell (in Natura (Buenos Aires) 1: 188. 1955) precluded the adoption of Boissier's epithet ‘<i>spinosa</i>’ in <i>Maytenus</i>. Raju &amp; Babu (in Bull. Bot. Surv. India 10: 348. 1969) opined that Kanjilal (Forest Fl. School Circle: 68. 1901) had validated <i>Celastrus royleanus</i>. However, <i>C. royleanus</i> Wall. ex Kanjilal is also an illegitimate name as <i>C. spinosus</i> was included in its synonymy.</p>\u0000<p>The species known as <i>Gymnosporia royleana</i> is distributed in Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Tibet, and West Himalaya (POWO, 2023 ht","PeriodicalId":49448,"journal":{"name":"Taxon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140076400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"(3014) Proposal to conserve the name Clitocybe (Basidiomycota) with a conserved type","authors":"Zheng-Mi He, Zhu L. Yang","doi":"10.1002/tax.13149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13149","url":null,"abstract":"<p>(3014) <b><i>Clitocybe</i></b> (Fr.) Staude, Schwämme Mitteldeutschl.: xxviii, 122. 1857 ≡ <b><i>Agaricus</i></b> “trib.” <b><i>Clitocybe</i></b> Fr., Syst. Mycol. 1: 9, 78. 1 Jan 1821, nom. sanct. (Fries, ibid.), nom. cons. prop.</p>\u0000<p>Typus: <i>Agaricus phyllophilus</i> Pers., nom. sanct. (<i>C</i>. <i>phyllophila</i> (Pers.) P. Kumm.), typ. cons. prop.</p>\u0000<p><i>Clitocybe</i> (Fr.) Staude (Schwämme Mitteldeutschl.: xxviii, 122. 1857) is a genus of the family <i>Clitocybaceae</i> Vizzini &amp; al. (in Index Fungorum 462: 1. 2020), characterized by the clitocyboid basidiome typically with a depressed pileus and decurrent lamellae. The genus currently encompasses approximately 500 species, according to the Index Fungorum database (www.indexfungorum.org, accessed on 1 Oct 2023). A substantial proportion of these species is included in specific monographs of Harmaja (in Karstenia 10: 5–168. 1969) and Bigelow (N. Amer. Sp. Clitocybe 1. 1982; 2. 1985). The genus exhibits a wide global distribution, and has also been extensively documented in various comprehensive monographs, journals or field guides from Africa (e.g., Pegler in Persoonia 4: 73–124. 1966), Asia (e.g., Li &amp; al., Atlas Chinese Macrofungal Resources. 2015), Europe (e.g., Bas &amp; al., Fl. Agaricina Neerl. 3. 1995), North America (e.g., Phillips, Mushrooms Other Fungi N. Amer. 2005), South America (e.g., Dennis, Fungus Fl. Venezuela. 1970), Australia (Grgurinovic, Larger Fungi S. Australia. 1997), and New Zealand (e.g., Cooper, New Zealand Clitocybaceae. 2016). The genus has been demonstrated to serve as a valuable reservoir of edible and medicinal resources (Wu &amp; al. in Fungal Diversity 98: 1–76. 2019). Meanwhile, the genus has also been found to contain numerous muscarine-producing poisonous mushrooms (Genest &amp; al. in J. Pharmacol. Sci. 57: 331–333. 1968; He &amp; al. in Fungal Diversity 123: 1–47. 2023).</p>\u0000<p>Recent multi-locus phylogenetic and phylogenomic analyses of <i>Clitocybaceae</i>, conducted by He &amp; al. (l.c.), revealed the presence of six generic clades based on comprehensive assessments of genetic distance and divergence time. In the phylograms, the genera <i>Dendrocollybia</i>, <i>Lepista</i> s.str., <i>Pseudolyophyllum</i>, and <i>Singerocybe</i> each formed a distinct clade, whereas <i>Clitocybe</i> fell into the remaining two generic clades. The first clade exhibited robustness, encompassing the majority of traditional <i>Clitocybe</i>, <i>Collybia</i>, and <i>Lepista</i> species, while the second clade comprised only a few <i>Clitocybe</i> species.</p>\u0000<p>The first generic clade can be divided into four subclades, including species previously classified under (1) <i>Clitocybe</i> sect. <i>Candicantes</i> (Quél.) Konrad &amp; Maubl. (Icon. Select. Fung. 10: 331. 1937), <i>C</i>. sect. <i>Odorae</i> H.E. Bigelow (l.c. 1982: 148), and <i>Collybia</i> s.str. (Fr.) Staude (l.c.), (2) <i>Lepista</i> sect. <i>Nuda</i> Harmaja (in Karstenia 18: 49–54. 197","PeriodicalId":49448,"journal":{"name":"Taxon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140073263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"(3018) Proposal to reject the name Cheiranthus armeniacus (Erysimum armeniacum) (Cruciferae)","authors":"Dmitry A. German","doi":"10.1002/tax.13160","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13160","url":null,"abstract":"<p>(3018) <b><i>Cheiranthus armeniacus</i></b> Sims in Bot. Mag.: t. 835. 1 Mai 1805 [Angiosp.: <i>Cruc</i>.], nom. rej. prop.</p>\u0000<p><b>Lectotypus (hic designatus):</b> [icon in] Bot. Mag.: t. 835. 1 Mai 1805.</p>\u0000<p>The name <i>Cheiranthus armeniacus</i> Sims (in Bot. Mag.: t. 835. 1805), the basionym of <i>Erysimum armeniacum</i> (Sims) J. Gay (Erysim. Nov.: 8. 1842), is the earliest available for the group of 3–4 predominantly Caucasian, basically biennial species of <i>Erysimum</i> L. referred to as <i>E</i>. subsect. <i>Iberica</i> V.I. Dorof. (in Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow &amp; Leningrad) 72: 1538. 1987). In spite of this, its use has been most discontinuous for over two centuries and its interpretation remains unstable and still seriously varying among authors.</p>\u0000<p>Description of <i>Cheiranthus armeniacus</i> was based on cultivated plants grown from seeds collected on Mount Ararat in eastern Anatolia. No relevant herbarium material seems to be extant, as suggested by Davis &amp; al. (Fl. Turkey 10: 55. 1988; the author's search in K and elsewhere also failed), and trichome morphology, critically important in the taxonomy of <i>Erysimum</i>, was not described in the protologue. However, the original illustration, designated above as lectotype, showing the characteristic habit along with some mentioned details (e.g., stout sulcate stem, big and profoundly bilobed stigmas, erect young fruits) allows for defining its affinity. Bieberstein (Fl. Taur.-Caucas. 2: 118. 1808) was the first to consider <i>C. armeniacus</i> conspecific with <i>C. ibericus</i> Adams (in Beitr. Naturk. 1: 61. 15 Nov 1805; see TL-2 No. 16,898), described from north-eastern Georgia (lectotypified by Polatschek in Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, B, 111: 254. 2010: Georgia, Mtskheta-Mtianeti, Mt. Kaishauri, <i>A.A. Musin-Pushkin</i> [B-W No. 12086-03]), and was followed by Candolle, who adopted the name <i>E. ibericum</i> (Adams) DC. (Syst. Nat. 2: 498. 1821) for the species. This synonymy was included in early synoptic accounts (Sprengel, Syst. Veg. 2: 907. 1825; Steudel, Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2, 1: 346. 1840; Jackson in Index Kew. 1: 508, 892. 1893) and in a few floras (Ledebour, Fl. Ross. 1: 187. 1841 [“1842”]; Boissier, Fl. Orient. 1: 192. 1867; Busch in Kuznetsov &amp; al., Fl. Cauc. Crit. 3(4): 526. 1909, in Komarov, Fl. SSSR 8: 101. 1939), in the latter two cases with respect to the illustration only. Recently this approach was revived by Zernov &amp; al. (Opred. Sosud. Rast. Karachay-Cherkess. Resp.: [205]. 2015).</p>\u0000<p>As an accepted species, <i>Cheiranthus armeniacus</i> was treated by Gay (l.c.), who transferred it to <i>Erysimum</i>, then, indirectly, by Ruprecht by exclusion of the name from synonymy of <i>Erysimastrum ibericum</i> (Adams) Rupr. (in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint Pétersbourg, Sér. 7, 15(2) [Fl. Caucasi]: 75, 77. 1869) and the next time, after over 110 years, by Polatschek (in Willdenowia 13: 88. 1983), who mentioned that the species also occurs in the Cau","PeriodicalId":49448,"journal":{"name":"Taxon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140073300","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"DNA barcoding of the genus Verbascum (Scrophulariaceae) in the Arabian Peninsula","authors":"Ali Mohammed Alzahrani, Joana Magos Brehm, Shahina A. Ghazanfar, Nigel Maxted","doi":"10.1002/tax.13156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13156","url":null,"abstract":"<i>Verbascum</i> and <i>Rhabdotosperma</i> are members of the family Scrophulariaceae. The first genus comprises approximately 360 species from almost all parts of the world, while the second contains a total of 8 species from tropical Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Since 1977, the relationships between <i>Verbascum</i> and <i>Rhabdotosperma</i> continue to be contested. The present study aims to present the phylogenetic relationships and status among <i>Verbascum</i> species in the Arabian Peninsula. For phylogenetic analyses, maximum parsimony and Bayesian inference were performed. In total, 236 DNA sequences from 59 specimens of Arabian <i>Verbascum</i> were analysed. The phylogenetic analysis of one nuclear (ITS) and three chloroplastic (<i>rbcL</i>, <i>matK</i>, <i>trnL</i>) markers confirmed the monophyly of <i>Verbascum</i>, including the genus <i>Rhabdotosperma</i>. In addition to presenting novel phylogenetic relationships among the different <i>Verbascum</i> species in the Arabian Peninsula, our study reduced the species count of Arabian <i>Verbascum</i> to 16. Moreover, the phylogenetic analysis strongly supports the reinstatement of the genus <i>Rhabdotosperma</i> into <i>Verbascum</i> based on the Bayesian and maximum parsimony analyses.","PeriodicalId":49448,"journal":{"name":"Taxon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140073020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Report of the General Committee: 29","authors":"Karen L. Wilson","doi":"10.1002/tax.13151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13151","url":null,"abstract":"SummaryDecisions of the General Committee are reported on proposals and requests in Report 74 of the Permanent Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants and on two older proposals: 2550 (<jats:italic>Plagiomnium</jats:italic>) and 2786 (<jats:italic>Ipomoea</jats:italic>). The General Committee has approved the list of institutional votes for the Nomenclature Section of the XX International Botanical Congress in Madrid.","PeriodicalId":49448,"journal":{"name":"Taxon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140054363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"(3019) Proposal to conserve the name Hypericum olympicum (Hypericaceae) with a conserved type","authors":"P. Pablo Ferrer-Gallego, Inmaculada Ferrando-Pardo, Maja Lazarević","doi":"10.1002/tax.13152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13152","url":null,"abstract":"<p>(3019) <b><i>Hypericum olympicum</i></b> L., Sp. Pl.: 784. 1 Mai 1753 [Angiosp.: <i>Guttif</i>. / <i>Hyperic</i>.], nom. cons. prop.</p>\u0000<p>Typus: Herb. Clifford: 380, <i>Hypericum</i> No. 8 (BM barcode BM000646814), typ. cons. prop.</p>\u0000<p><i>Hypericum olympicum</i> L. (Sp. Pl.: 784. 1753) (<i>H</i>. sect. <i>Olympia</i> (Spach) Nyman) is a small perennial herb distributed in the Balkan Peninsula (southeastern Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece [excluding Crete and western Aegean islands] and northwestern Turkey [Jordanov &amp; Kožukharov in Jordanov, Fl. R. P. Bulg. 4: 235, t. 44, fig. 1. 1970; Greuter &amp; al. in Med.-Checklist 3: 270. 1986; Robson &amp; Strid in Strid, Mtn. Fl. Greece 1: 597, fig. 35. 1986; Qosja &amp; al., Fl. Shquip. 2: 296, fig. 550. 1992; Zlatković in Stevanović &amp; Niketić, Fl. Serbia 3: 311–313, 317, t. 53, fig. 1. 2022; POWO, 2023: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:433682-1]). <i>Hypericum olympicum</i> is a variable species, but the variation, though partly geographical, is more or less continuous. In order to make this variation comprehensible, the species was divided into five forms, which remain distinct in cultivation (Robson in Plantsman 1: 193–200. 1980, in Phytotaxa 4: 26. 2010). Moreover, there are several ornamental cultivars of <i>H</i>. <i>olympicum</i> (e.g., ‘Citrinum’, ‘Sulphureum’, ‘Variegatum’) (see https://ecuador.inaturalist.org/taxa/567176-Hypericum-olympicum#cite_note-30).</p>\u0000<p>Aerial parts of the plant are used in folk medicine for stomach ache, inflamed wounds and cuts (Tuzlacı &amp; al. in Fitoterapia 72: 323–343. 2001), thus its essential oil composition (Gudžić &amp; al. in Flavour Fragr. J. 16: 201–203. 2001; Smelcerovic &amp; al. in Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 35: 99–113. 2007) and antimicrobial properties have been frequently investigated (Ilieva &amp; al. in Plants (Switzerland) 12: 1500. 2023; Kirci &amp; al. in J. Res. Pharm. 27: 2153–2159. 2023).</p>\u0000<p>Linnaeus (l.c.) described <i>Hypericum olympicum</i> providing a short diagnosis “HYPERICUM floribus trigynis, calycibus acutis, staminibus corolla brevioribus, caule fruticoso” taken from Linnaeus (Hort. Cliff.: 380. 1738) and Van Royen (Fl. Leyd. Prodr.: 473 [not “374”]. 1740), followed by two synonyms: (1) “Hypericum montis olympi” cited from Wheeler [Sir George Wheler 1651–1724] (A Journey into Greece: 222. 1682) and Dillenius (Hort. Eltham.: 182, t. 151, fig. 183. 1732); and (2) “Ascyrum magno flore” cited from Bauhin (Prodr.: 130. 1620; Pinax: 280. 1623), and finally the reference “<i>Burs. XVI</i>: 25”. The protologue also included information about the origin of the species, “<i>Habitat in</i> Pyrenaeis, Olympo”. The references quoted by Linnaeus (Wheeler, l.c.: 221, lib. III, fig. III; Dillenius, l.c.: t. 151, fig. 183) include the illustrations “Hypericon montis Oly[m]pii foliis hursutis” (image available at https://www.alamy.com/stock-image-hypericon-montis-olympi-wheler-george-1682-16333079","PeriodicalId":49448,"journal":{"name":"Taxon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140005177","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"(3013) Proposal to conserve the name Lichen pullus Schreb. (Parmelia pulla, Xanthoparmelia pulla) against L. pullus Neck. (Parmeliaceae, lichenized Ascomycota) with a conserved type","authors":"Linda in Arcadia, Teuvo Ahti, Renato Benesperi, Guillermo Amo de Paz, Pradeep K. Divakar, David L. Hawksworth","doi":"10.1002/tax.13153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13153","url":null,"abstract":"<p>(3013) <b><i>Lichen pullus</i></b> Schreb., Spic. Fl. Lips.: 131. 9 Jul–25 Oct 1771, nom. cons. prop.</p>\u0000<p>Typus: Norway, Østfold, Hvaler, Spjærøy, Spjærholmen, W side, on rock in coastal heath, 59.0617N, 10.9038E, alt. 15 m, 1 Aug 2022, <i>E. Timdal</i> (O No. L-229346; isotypus: MAF No. Lich 25274), typ. cons. prop.</p>\u0000<p>(H) <i>Lichen pullus</i> Neck., Delic. Gallo-Belg.: 510. 1768, nom. rej. prop.</p>\u0000<p>Typus: non designatus.</p>\u0000<p>The well-established name <i>Xanthoparmelia pulla</i> (Schreb.) O. Blanco &amp; al. (or sometimes <i>Neofuscelia pulla</i> (Schreb.) Essl.) has been used to refer to a common, brown, foliose saxicolous lichen. The basionym had, however, long been considered to be <i>Parmelia pulla</i> Ach. (Syn. Meth. Lich.: 206. 1814), and so the type had been assumed to be an Acharian collection. A specimen of <i>Parmelia pulla</i> in H-ACH 1420D (= H9502152) conforming to current usage was therefore designated as lectotype by Esslinger &amp; Ahti (in Revista Fac. Ci. Univ. Lisboa, ser. 2, C, Ci. Nat. 17: 728 &amp; fig. 1. [“1973”] 1975). However, one of us (L.A.) pointed out that this was incorrect, as Acharius's species name was intended as a new combination based on <i>Lichen pullus</i> Schreb. (Spic. Fl. Lips.: 131. 1771) as that name was listed as a synonym. It is therefore necessary to address the status and typification of the intended basionym to fix the application of Acharius's name.</p>\u0000<p>The situation is complicated as Schreber's name is a later homonym of <i>Lichen pullus</i> Neck. (Delic. Gallo-Belg.: 510. 1768), a corticolous and not a saxicolous brown parmelioid species. The protologues of both these names include Dillenius (Hist. Musc.: 182, t. 24, fig. 77. 1742 [<i>sic</i> 1741, fide Henrey, Brit. Bot. Hort. Lit. 2: 271. 1975]), but we do not consider them isonyms because the texts make clear they were referring to species of different substrata and so should be typified accordingly. Figure 77 shows three lichens, A, B and C, but on page 182 Dillenius cited only A and B. Crombie (in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 17: 572. 1880) studied the Dillenian collections, and stated that A was from the species now known as <i>Melanohalea olivacea</i> (L.) O. Blanco &amp; al., and B from that now known as <i>Melanelixia fuliginosa</i> (Fr. ex Duby) O. Blanco &amp; al. We examined high-resolution digital images of these collections and have no reason to disagree with Crombie's opinion for B, but A appears to have apothecia with papillate thalline exciples and so may be <i>Melanohalea exasperata</i> (De Not.) O. Blanco &amp; al., rather than <i>M. olivacea</i>. Both <i>M. exasperata</i> and <i>M. olivacea</i> are almost always corticolous and fertile, whereas <i>Melanelixia fuliginosa</i> is only exceptionally corticolous and sterile with abundant isidia. Necker's lichen was therefore most likely a corticolous <i>Melanohalea</i> species, but we choose not to lectotypify it here by Dillenius's fig. 77A as we have not investigat","PeriodicalId":49448,"journal":{"name":"Taxon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140004526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"(3020) Proposal to conserve the name Trichostema brachiatum (Lamiaceae) with a conserved type","authors":"Gerry Moore, Derick Poindexter","doi":"10.1002/tax.13154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13154","url":null,"abstract":"<p>(3020) <b><i>Trichostema brachiatum</i></b> L., Sp. Pl.: 598. 1 Mai 1753 [Angiosp.: <i>Lab</i>.], nom. cons. prop.</p>\u0000<p>Typus: Herb. Linnaeus No. 750.2 (LINN), typ. cons. prop.</p>\u0000<p>Specimen 750.2, annotated by Linnaeus as <i>Trichostema brachiatum</i> L. with “?” added later by J.E. Smith, was apparently added to LINN after 1753. <i>Trichostema brachiatum</i>, when applied consistent with 750.2, represents a species that is widely distributed in North America north of Mexico. As indicated by Linnaeus (“staminibus brevibus inclusis”), the species is distinguished on the basis of its short stamens. The only cited original material for the name <i>T. brachiatum</i>, a Dillenius icon (“<i>Teucrium Virginicum, Origani folio</i>”, Hort. Eltham. 2: 380, t. 285, fig. 369. 1732; lectotypification by Reveal in Taxon 50: 522. 2001), likely represents the species currently known as <i>T. dichotomum</i> L. (Sp. Pl.: 598. 1753; “staminibus longissimis exsertis”), the “short” stamens in the illustration (see Rees, Cycl. 36(I): <i>Trichostema</i> no. 2. 1817) the result of the coiled filaments in late-day flowers (see McClelland &amp; Weakley in J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 17: 220–223. 2023). Druce &amp; Vines (Dillenian Herb.: 181. 1907) incorrectly applied Dillenius's polynomial consistent with specimen 750.2 (LINN).</p>\u0000<p>Michaux (Fl. Bor.-Amer. 2: 3–4, t. 30) published the names <i>Isanthus</i> and <i>I. coeruleus</i> and Redouté's illustration in Michaux of <i>I. coeruleus</i> clearly represents the same species as specimen 750.2 (LINN). Like Michaux, many subsequent authors also recognized <i>I. coeruleus</i>, some without citing <i>Trichostema brachiatum</i> (e.g., Eaton, Man. Bot., ed. 2: 285, 467. 1818; Torrey, Comp. Fl. N. Middle Stat.: 233, 238. 1826; Wood, Class-book Bot.: 541. 1881; Gray, Manual, ed. 6: 405–406. 1889; Chapman, Fl. S. U.S., ed. 3: 389. 1897) and others (e.g., Muhlenberg, Cat. Pl. Amer. Sept.: 56. 1813; Nuttall, Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 2: 27, 39. 1818; Bentham, Labiat. Gen Spec.: 166–167. 1833, 658–660. 1835; Steudel, Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2, 1: 823–824. 1840, 2: 703. 1841; Torrey, Fl. New York 2: 55, 81–82. 1843; Candolle, Prodr. 12: 572–574. 1848) citing <i>T. brachiatum</i> as a synonym of <i>I. coeruleus</i>, their adoption of the later <i>I. coeruleus</i> instead of a new combination in <i>Isanthus</i> based on the earlier <i>T. brachiatum</i> the result of their following the “Kew Rule”, in which priority was applied only within the genus.</p>\u0000<p>Only a few authors attempted to apply <i>Trichostema brachiatum</i> consistent with Dillenius's illustration. Lamarck &amp; Poiret (Tabl. Encycl. 2: t. 515. 1794, 3: 71. 1823; Encycl. 6: 572. 1805, 8: 84–85. 1808) applied the name consistent with the species now known as <i>T. setaceum</i> Houtt. (= <i>T. lineare</i> Walter; <i>T. lineare</i> Nutt.), a species taxonomically aligned with <i>T. dichotomum</i>. Others (Rees, Cycl. 19(I): <i>Isanthus</i> no. 1. 1811, l.c. 1817; Pursh, Fl. Amer","PeriodicalId":49448,"journal":{"name":"Taxon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140004416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"(3015) Proposal to reject the name Arum pentaphyllum (Arisaema pentaphyllum) (Araceae)","authors":"Duilio Iamonico, Manudev Kambiyelummal Madhavan","doi":"10.1002/tax.13150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13150","url":null,"abstract":"<p>(3015) <b><i>Arum pentaphyllum</i></b> L., Sp. Pl.: 964. 1 Mai 1753 (Angiosp.: <i>Ar</i>.), nom. utique rej. prop.</p>\u0000<p>Typus: non designatus.</p>\u0000<p>Linnaeus, in <i>Species plantarum</i> (1753: 964–967), published 22 names under <i>Arum</i> L., among which only one (<i>A. maculatum</i> L.) is currently accepted in this genus, while the other 21 names are now treated in 13 different genera (see, e.g., Jarvis, Order out of Chaos: 318–320. 2007; The Natural History Museum, Linnaean Plant Names (from The Linnaean Plant Name Typification Project) [Dataset resource], https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/the-linnaean-plant-name-typification-project/resource/ec9fffe8-f7f4-4dcd-9471-641c4922d956, accessed 8 Feb 2024). One of these names, <i>A. pentaphyllum</i> L. (l.c.: 964–965) was described from India and appears still to be untypified.</p>\u0000<p>The protologue of <i>Arum pentaphyllum</i> (Linnaeus, l.c.) consists of a very short diagnosis (“ARUM acaule, foliis quinatis”) and two synonyms cited from Morison (“Arum pentaphyllum indicum. <i>Moris. hist</i>. [Pl. Hist. Univ.] 3. <i>p</i>. 540 [549]. <i>s</i>. 13. <i>t</i>. 5. <i>f</i>. 27.” [1699]) and Zanoni (“Romphal planta indiae orientalis. <i>Zan. hist</i>. [Istoria Botanica] 205. <i>fig</i>. [LXXVIII, preceding p. 205]” [1675]); the provenance was also reported (“<i>Habitat in</i> India”). Both Morison (l.c. 1699: sect. 13, t. 5, fig. 27) and Zanoni (l.c. 1675: fig. LXXVIII: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ucm.5325109245&amp;seq=381) published almost identical illustrations, which are original material for the Linnaean name. No original specimens have been located in the Linnaean and Linnaean-linked herbaria. Therefore, the two illustrations are the only extant original material. Both match the Linnaean diagnosis in depicting a plant without stem and with leaves 5-palmate (“foliis quinatis”); both illustrations also include the spadix but no floral details are represented there.</p>\u0000<p>In accordance with the treatments of Schott (in Schott &amp; Endlicher, Melet. Bot.: 17. 1832) and Blume (Rumphia 1: 109. 1836), Jarvis (l.c.: 319) considered <i>Arum pentaphyllum</i> to be <i>Arisaema pentaphyllum</i> (L.) Schott (l.c.). Nevertheless, this name has not been otherwise accepted in any botanical publication in over a century, and in fact the illustration and Zanoni's (l.c.: 170) associated description clearly demonstrate that the name cannot be applied to any member of the tribe <i>Arisaemateae</i> Nakai to which the genus <i>Arisaema</i> belongs, because the illustrated spathe appears to be constricted with a connate tube and a gaping and erect blade, while according to Mayo &amp; al. (Gen. Araceae: 268. 1997; in Kubitzki, Fam. Gen. Vasc. Pl.: 268–272. 1998) the spathe tube is cylindric with blade fornicate in tribe <i>Arisaemateae</i>.</p>\u0000<p>Furthermore, there are four characters that suggest the plant cannot belong to <i>Arisaema</i> itself (see, e.g., Mayo &amp; Gilbert in Kew Bull. 41: 261–278.","PeriodicalId":49448,"journal":{"name":"Taxon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140004515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Unearthing the identity, taxonomy and nomenclature of the enigmatic Marchantiopsis stoloniscyphula (Marchantiophyta, Marchantiaceae) from China","authors":"Tian-Xiong Zheng, Yong Hu, Wei Li, Xue-Dong Li","doi":"10.1002/tax.13146","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.13146","url":null,"abstract":"Owing to a combination of reportedly unique morphological characters and an unlocatable type specimen, <i>Marchantiopsis stoloniscyphula</i> has been regarded as an enigmatic species in Marchantiaceae since its description, and all subsequent taxonomic treatments of this species were made without examination of the type. We located the original material of <i>M. stoloniscyphula</i> which was included as an admixture within the holotype of <i>Wiesnerella fasciaria</i> deposited in IFP. Our morphological examination found that <i>M. stoloniscyphula</i> and <i>W. fasciaria</i> are conspecific with <i>Marchantia papillata</i> subsp. <i>grossibarba</i> and <i>Sandea japonica</i>, respectively. The nomenclature of <i>Marchantiopsis</i> and <i>M. stoloniscyphula</i> are discussed. Lectotypes for <i>M. stoloniscyphula</i> and <i>W. fasciaria</i> are also designated.","PeriodicalId":49448,"journal":{"name":"Taxon","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140004414","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}