Division of Ecology & Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam. Road, Hong Kong, China. saunders@hkucc.hku.hk.
Saunders • (1878) Conserve Goniothalamus
dasymaschalum (Blume) I.M. Turner (≡ Unona dasymaschala Blume ≡ Desmos dasymaschalus (Blume) Saff.) at Kew from Griffith’s herbarium that was bequeathed to the East India Company and subsequently distributed by J.D. Hooker. The specimen bears a ticket with the number 354, in what seems to be Griffith’s hand. This match between numbers, the lack of conflict between Griffith’s description and the specimen, and noted locality on the specimen (Mergui) lead to the conclusion that this specimen is original material of Pelticalyx argentea. I therefore designate here the specimen (W. Griffith 354 [E.I.C. 448] (K), Burma, Mergui, Ins. Madamacca, Sep 1834) as lectotype of Pelticalyx argentea Griff. Theobald’s inclusion of Pelticalyx argentea as a synonym of Unona dasymaschala was therefore correct. Unfortunately Griffith’s genus Pelticalyx has more than 50 years priority over Dasymaschalon (Hook. f. & Thomson) Dalla Torre & Harms and therefore without conservation some 30 or so Annonaceae species (R.M.K. Saunders, pers. comm.)
TAXON 58 (1) • February 2009: 302–303
from Asia (North-East India and China to the Philippines and Sulawesi) should be transferred to Pelticalyx. While Dasymaschalon contains no species of particular economic or ecological importance, the wholesale transfer of specific epithets to a generic name that has not been used since its original publication more than a century and a half ago seems counter to the general consensus favouring nomenclatural stability. Therefore, this proposal is made to conserve Dasymaschalon against Pelticalyx. If conserved in this way, Dasymaschalon would not have priority over Desmos Lour., so the latter would still be available for those who took a wider view of the delimitation of Desmos and included in it the species assigned to Dasymaschalon. Acknowledgements
I thank Michèle Losse of the Kew Archives for assistance with the Griffith manuscripts and Gina Murrell for checking specimens in the Cambridge University Herbarium.
(1878) Proposal to conserve the name Goniothalamus against Richella (Annonaceae) Richard M.K. Saunders Division of Ecology & Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China. saunders@hkucc.hku.hk
(1878)
Goniothalamus (Blume) Hook. f. & Thomson, Fl. Ind.: 105. 1–19 Jul 1855 (Polyalthia sect. Goniothalamus Blume, Fl. Javae 28–29 (Anon.): 71. 30 Apr 1830) [Dicot.: Annon.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: Goniothalamus macrophyllus (Blume) Hook. f. & Thomson (Unona macrophylla Blume). (=) Richella A. Gray in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 2: 325. 1852, nom. rej. prop. Typus: Richella monosperma A. Gray. Goniothalamus is one of the largest palaeotropical genera in the Annonaceae, with ca. 130 species widely distributed in tropical lowland forests of SE Asia. In contrast, the genus Richella (Annonaceae) currently consists of only two species, and is restricted to Fiji and New Caledonia. Recent molecular phylogenetic research (Nakkuntod & al. in Taxon 58: 127–132. 2009 [this volume]) has revealed that Richella species (including the type) are closely associated with, and partially nested within, a clade consisting of Goniothalamus species and the names are therefore synonymous; this conclusion is supported by studies of comparative morphology (Nakkuntod & al., l.c.). The name Richella antedates that of Goniothalamus, and strict application of the principle of priority would require adoption of the former. Conservation of the name Goniothalamus is accordingly proposed in order to prevent the overturning of a very widely used and long-established name.
302
The name Goniothalamus originated in 1830, when Blume (l.c.) published the name Polyalthia sect. Goniothalamus, with Polyalthia macrophylla (Blume) Blume (based on Unona macrophylla Blume) as the only included species name and hence the type. Hooker & Thomson (l.c.) subsequently elevated this name to generic level, and validated the new combination Goniothalamus macrophyllus (Blume) Hook. f. & Thomson. This generic circumscription was almost universally accepted, and numerous new species have subsequently been described. The International Plant Names Index (IPNI; http://www.ipni.org/) currently includes 157 species records under the generic name Goniothalamus, and the internationally coordinated Annonaceae database (http://herbarium.botanik.univie.ac.at/annonaceae/listTax .php) similarly lists 161 species names in Goniothalamus, of which 126 are currently accepted. The generic name Richella was published by Gray (l.c.) in 1852, with one species, R. monosperma A. Gray. Baillon (Hist. Pl. 1: 237. 1868) recognised the taxonomic similarities between Richella and Goniothalamus and reduced both names to synonymy with Oxymitra (Blume) Hook. f. & Thomson. He accordingly transferred Goniothalamus gardneri Hook. f. & Thomson to Oxymitra, and published three new species names, O. gabriaciana Baill. (now recognised as Goniothalamus gabriacianus (Baill.) Ast), O. grayana Baill. (a synonym of Richella monosperma), and O. obtusata
TAXON 58 (1) • February 2009: 303–305
Baill. (now recognised as Richella obtusata (Baill.) R.E. Fr.). Numerous new species have subsequently been described in Oxymitra (76 are listed in IPNI), including the transfer of R. monosperma to Oxymitra by Smith (in Bull. Bernice P. Bishop Mus. 141: 62. 1936). Steenis (Fl. Schol. Indon.: 184–186. 1949) subsequently showed that the generic name Oxymitra (Blume) Hook. f. & Thomson is illegitimate as the name is a later homonym of Oxymitra Bisch. ex Lindenb. (Ricciaceae); he accordingly proposed the new generic name Friesodielsia Steenis, although he did not validate any new nomenclatural combinations. Smith (in J. Arnold Arbor. 31: 164–165. 1950) proposed that the use of the name Oxymitra in the Annonaceae should be conserved, but this was not supported by the relevant nomenclature committee (the then Subcommittee for Phanerogamae of the Special Committee for Pteridophyta and Phanerogamae) (in Taxon 3: 115. 1954), presumably because the name was still in use in the Ricciaceae. Smith (in J. Arnold Arbor. 36: 278. 1955) concluded that Richella was the correct name for the genus and that the name Friesodielsia was superfluous, although again no new nomenclatural combinations were validated. Fries (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam., ed. 2, 17a, II: 138–140, 171. 1959) followed Smith’s recommended use of the name Richella and validated the combination Richella obtusata, based on Oxymitra obtusata. Steenis (in Blumea 12: 353–361. 1964) subsequently revisited the taxonomy of the group, and showed unequivo-
Nordenstam & Buys • (1879) Conserve Echium laevigatum
cally that Richella and Friesodielsia are not congeneric. He validated numerous new combinations in Friesodielsia as well as one in Richella (R. ovalifolia (Ridl.) Steenis, based on Melodorum ovalifolium Ridl.). Steenis (l.c.) thus showed that Richella is a small genus of only three species, with a peculiar geographical distribution in Fiji (R. monosperma), New Caledonia (R. obtusata) and Borneo (R. ovalifolia). However, Richella ovalifolia is likely to represent a species of Friesodielsia (pers. obs.). Recent research based on comparative morphology and molecular phylogenetics (Nakkuntod & al., l.c.) has enabled a re-evaluation of the taxonomic relationships of Richella and Goniothalamus, and has shown that the two generic names are synonymous. The name Richella antedates that of Goniothalamus by three years, however, and strict application of the principle of priority would require adoption of the former name. This would necessitate ca. 130 new nomenclatural combinations and is clearly undesirable. Conservation of the name Goniothalamus is therefore proposed to enable its continued use. The two new nomenclatural combinations resulting from the transfer of Richella monosperma and R. obtusata to Goniothalamus will be validated elsewhere if this conservation proposal is successful. Acknowledgements
I am grateful to John McNeill for his nomenclatural advice.
(1879) Proposal to conserve the name Echium laevigatum (Lobostemon laevigatus) (Boraginaceae) with a conserved type Bertil Nordenstam1 & Matt H. Buys2 1
2
Department of Phanerogamic Botany, Swedish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 50007, 104 05 Stockholm, Sweden Compton Herbarium, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch, Private Bag X7, 7735 Claremont and Department of Botany & Zoology, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, 7602 Matieland, South Africa. buys@sanbi.org (author for correspondence)
(1879)
Echium laevigatum L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 916. 7 Jun 1759 [Dicot.: Boragin.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: [S. Africa, Western Cape Province], “Olifantsrivier” et “Brakfontein”, Sep, Ecklon & Zeyher (HBG No. 503026; isotypi: B No. 10 0239624, G, MEL Nos. 238078 & 238080, P No. 00599655, S), typ. cons. prop. Echium laevigatum L. was first published by Linnaeus in 1759 (Linnaeus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 916). The brief description highlights the difference from E. fruticosum L. (Sp. Pl.: 139. 1753) by the wording “caule laevi”, and Linnaeus added the citation of a Plukenet plate (Almag. Bot. Mant.: t. 341, fig. 7. 1700). Assuming that no specimen was available, Buys & Van der Walt (in Taxon 45: 516. 1996) lectotypified E. laevigatum by the Plukenet illustration cited in the protologue
whereby the name fell into the synonymy of Lobostemon fruticosus (L.) H. Buek (in Linnaea 11: 134. 1837). The typification of Echium laevigatum by Buys & Van der Walt’s (l.c.) is, however, questionable. As mentioned, Linnaeus (l.c. 1759) in his original description of E. laevigatum cited a Plukenet plate (l.c.). Later he (Linnaeus, Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 199. 1762) augmented the description and added two other pre-Linnaean sources, viz., “Old. afr. 27” and “Herm. afr. 8”, references to two catalogues of South African plants collected by Oldenland and Hermann (Catalogi duo plantarum africanorum fide Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 94: 415. 1976) that appear in the Appendix to Burman’s Thesaurus Zeylanicus (1737). It is apparent from Linnaeus’s concise description in 1759 as well as the more expanded version in 1762 that he did not solely rely on previous literature, but 303
