Giulietti & al. • (1902) Conserve Syngonanthus
TAXON 58 (3) • August 2009: 1008–1009
(1902) Proposal to conserve the name Syngonanthus against Philodice (Eriocaulaceae) Ana Maria Giulietti1,4, Maria José Gomes de Andrade1,5, Lara Regina Parra2, Cássio van den Berg1,4 & Raymond Mervyn Harley1,3 1
2 3 4 5
Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Pós-Graduação em Botânica and Laboratório de Taxonomia Vegetal, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Av. Transnordestina s/n, Novo Horizonte, Feira de Santana, BA, 44036-900, Brazil.
[email protected] (author for correspondence) Toronto Independent High School (THIS), 151 Eglinton Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4R1A6 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, England, U.K. Bolsista de Produtividade do CNPq Bolsista de Pós–doutorado do CNPq
(1902) Syngonanthus Ruhland in Urban, Symb. Antill. 1: 487. 15 Jan 1900 [Eriocaul.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: Syngonanthus umbellatus (Lam.) Ruhland (Eriocaulon umbellatum Lam.). (=) Philodice Mart. in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 2, 2: 26. Jul 1834, nom. rej. prop. Typus: Philodice hoffmannseggii Mart. Philodice is a genus that occurs in Central and South America, currently with only two species: Philodice hoffmannseggii Mart., an annual herb from humid savanna areas, and P. cuyabensis (Bong.) Körn., known only from the type material collected by Riedel near Cuiabá, capital of Mato Grosso state, Brazil. In contrast, Syngonanthus is a genus with ca. 200 species (Mabberley, The Plant-Book, ed. 2: 695. 1997), which occur disjunctly in South America and Africa. Many species of Syngonanthus are often locally dominant especially in the “campos rupestres” along the mountain tops of the Espinhaço Range in the Brazilian states of Minas Gerais and Bahia and in “cerrados”, the savannas of South America. The genus is also economically important, as many species, with attractive scapes and capitula, are used as everlasting plants, while the golden scapes of the “capim dourado” (Syngonanthus nitens (Bong.) Ruhland) are woven to make baskets and other handcraft products. Numerous accounts of the genus Syngonanthus have appeared in floras in recent decades (Harley & Simmons, Fl. Mucuge: 68–70. 1986; Kimpouni & al. in Seyani & Chikuni, Proc. XII Plenary Meeting AETFAT 1: 567–581. 1994; Stannard, Fl. Pico das Almas: 701–704. 1995; Phillips in Kew Bull. 52: 73–89. 1997; Parra in Bol. Bot. Univ. São Paulo 17: 219–254. 1998). An account of both genera has appeared in the Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana (Hensold in Berry & al., Fl. Ven. Guay. 5: 35–36, 41–57. 1999). The last revision of Philodice and Syngonanthus was published by Ruhland in 1903 (in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 30(Heft 13): 1–294), in which the author recognized five sections in Syngonanthus: S. sect. Dimorphocaulon Ruhland with 44 species distributed in North, Central and South America, the Caribbean area and Africa; S. sect. Carpocephalus (Körn.) Ruhland with 10 species, all from South America; S. sect. Eulepis (Bong.) Ruhland with 12 species 1008
from Brazil, Guyana and Venezuela; S. sect. Thysanocephalus (Körn.) Ruhland with 9 species, with the same distribution as S. sect. Eulepis; and S. sect. Chalarocaulon with the only species, S. macrocaulon Ruhland, from Colombia and Guyana. Since Ruhland, more than a hundred species have been described in the genus; S. sect. Dimorphocaulon became S. sect. Syngonanthus as it includes the type, S. umbellatus (Parra & Giulietti in Willdenowia 27: 227–233. 1997); and S. sect. Chalarocaulon was synonymized under S. sect. Carpocephalus, when S. macrocaulon was reduced to synonymy under S. anomalus (Körn.) Ruhland (Hensold, l.c.: 42). Ruhland (l.c.) recognized two informal groups in Syngonanthus: one consisting of S. sect. Dimorphocaulon (= S. sect. Syngonanthus) and S. sect. Carpocephalus, whose flowers have sepals larger than petals, and the other S. sect. Eulepis and S. sect. Thysanocephalus, with sepals smaller than petals. These two groups were confirmed by morphological (Parra, Ph.D. diss., Univ. São Paulo, 2000; Parra & al., submitted) and chemical data (Ricci & al. in Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 24: 577–583. 1996). Andrade (Ph.D. diss., Univ. Estadual de Feira de Santana. 2007) and Andrade & al. (submitted), using individual and combined analyses of ITS of nuclear ribosomal DNA and the plastid regions psbA-trnH and trnL-F, verified that Syngonanthus is a polyphyletic genus composed of two separate lineages. Syngonanthus sect. Eulepis and S. sect. Thysanocephalus, with 39 species, form a monophyletic group sister to Leiothrix Ruhland. This group includes the type of Comanthera L.B. Sm., which is being re-established for these two sections (Parra & al., submitted). The other lineage includes Syngonanthus sect. Syngonanthus, S. sect. Carpocephalus and Philodice, which can be united in a single genus. As Philodice is the earlier name, the rule of priority in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006) requires that the name for this enlarged genus should be Philodice. Accepting the priority of Philodice, an unfamiliar name to most non-specialists, would require the transfer of more than 120 epithets to account for those taxa currently accepted in the extensive literature on the genus Syngonanthus, for which no combinations exist in Philodice.
TAXON 58 (3) • August 2009: 1009
We therefore propose the conservation of Syngonanthus against Philodice under Art. 14 of the ICBN. The reason for this proposal is purely practical. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, it will be far less disruptive to transfer the two species currently in Philodice to Syngonanthus than to transfer to Philodice the over 120 species currently referred to Syngonanthus sect. Syngonanthus and S. sect.
Väre & Häkkinen • (1903) Conserve Musa velutina
Carpocephalus. Furthermore, there is no recent revision of these sections since Ruhland (l.c.), and to fully evaluate the names that need to be transferred to Philodice would require an enormous amount of herbarium and literature work. An alternative solution, to reject Philodice outright under Art. 56, would be unfavourable to those who wish to retain this genus in its current status.
(1903) Proposal to conserve the name Musa velutina against M. dasycarpa (Musaceae) Henry Väre1 & Markku Häkkinen2 1
2
Finnish Museum of Natural History, Botanical Museum, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 7, 00014 Finland.
[email protected] (author for correspondence) Botanic Garden, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 44, 00014 Finland
(1903)
Musa velutina H. Wendl. & Drude in Gartenflora 24: 65. 1875, nom. cons. prop. Typus: [icon in] Wendland & Drude in Gartenflora 24: t. 823. 1875. (=) Musa dasycarpa Kurz in J. Agric. Soc. India 14: 301. 1865, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (vide Häkkinen & Väre in J. Syst. Evol. 46: 230. 2008): [unpubl. icon.] “Musa dasycarpa Kurz, Assam” (K). As already Cheesman (in Kew Bull. [3]: 136. 1949) and Simmonds (in Kew Bull. 14: 204. 1960) found out, Musa dasycarpa Kurz was validly published and has priority over M. velutina H. Wendl. & Drude. Original herbarium material of neither name has been found, thus illustrations which are connected with their protologues were chosen as lectotypes (Häkkinen & Väre in J. Syst. Evol. 46: 230–235. 2008). Both names are based on material from Assam, in northeastern India. The peculiar feature is that the fruits are hairy. The description by Kurz (in J. Agric. Soc. India 14: 301. 1865) was brief: “fruits hairy”, but it is adequate. Wendland & Drude (in Gartenflora 24: 68. 1875) stated “die die Samenknospen einhüllenden Haare sind fortgelassen”. No other hairy-fruited Musa species have been found from Assam by Uma & al. (in Pl. Genet. Resources Newslett. 146: 17–23. 2006), and such are not known elsewhere in continental Asia either. The only other species with hairy ovaries is M. hirta Becc. from Borneo. This is clear evidence that M. dasycarpa and M. velutina represent the same taxon.
The name M. dasycarpa became neglected when Baker (in Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 7: 222. 1893) treated it as a synonym of M. velutina in his synopsis of the tribe Museae. Obviously Baker was not certain of Kurz’s name (Cheesman, l.c.). Subsequent botanists followed his view in accepting M. velutina and disregarding M. dasycarpa (e.g., Schumann in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 45(Heft 1): 24. 1900; Pucci in Bull. Reale Soc. Tosc. Ortic. 1906: 296–301. 1906; de Wildeman in Ann. Mus. Colon. Marseille, sér. 2, 10: 286–362. 1912; Burkill in Rec. Bot. Surv. India 10: 384. 1925; Argent in Walters & al., Europ. Gard. Fl. 2: 118. 1984; Simmonds & Weathercup in New Phytol. 115: 567–571. 1990; Hore & al. in J. Econ. Taxon. Bot. 16: 447–455. 1992). The name M. velutina remains overwhelmingly in use for this very commonly cultivated small ornamental banana, which has fruits pink and fuzzy and also edible, despite their seeds. A Google search on both names on 22 June 2009 favored M. velutina by 16,500 to 143 web documents returned and provides further evidence for this usage. Nevertheless, as clarified by Häkkinen & Väre (l.c.) the name M. dasycarpa is synonymous with M. velutina and has priority over this name. However, as the former name has been very rarely used we propose to conserve M. velutina against M. dasycarpa under Art. 14 of the ICBN (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006) to avoid confusion and to stabilise Musa nomenclature. Outright rejection of M. dasycarpa under Art. 56 is an alternative nomenclatural solution that has not been proposed here.
1009
