Requests for binding decisions
TAXON 63 (3) • June 2014: 694–695
R E Q U E S T S F O R B I N D I N G D E C I S I O N S O N A PPL I C AT I O N O F T H E CO D E Edited by John McNeill
(11) Request for a binding decision on whether Senecio petasioides Greenm. ex Donn. Sm. and Senecio petasitoides H. Lév. (Asteraceae) are sufficiently alike to be confused DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.12705/633.15 Senecio petasioides (Asteraceae) Donnel Smith (in Bot. Gaz. 37: 419. 1904) published this name, ascribed to Greenman, for a species from Guatemala. The specific epithet was derived from S. petasitis DC., with which Donnel Smith compared his new species. It was transferred by Robinson (in Phytologia 32: 331. 1975) to Roldana La Llave as R. petasioides (Greenm. ex Donn. Sm.) H. Rob., and then reduced by Turner (in Phytologia 87: 239. 2005) to synonymy under R. oaxacana (Hemsl.) H. Rob. & Bretrell. In the most recent revision of Roldana, Funston (in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 95: 323. 2008) regarded R. petasitis (Sims) H. Rob. & Brettell as a variable species, placing S. petasioides, together with R. petasioides, under its synonymy. Senecio petasitoides (Asteraceae) Léveillé (in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni. Veg. 8: 360. 1910) published this name based on a collection from Kouy-Tchéon (= Guizhou), China. The specific epithet was derived from Petasites Mill., referring to the 694
similarity in the leaf shape between Senecio petasitoides and Petasites species. Handel-Mazzetti (in Acta Horti Gothob. 12: 301. 1938) considered S. petasitoides to be a later homonym of S. petasioides Greenm. ex Donn. Sm., and re-described the plant as a new species, i.e., Cacalia longispica Hand.-Mazz., designating a collection from Sichuan, China as the type and the type of S. petasitoides as a paratype. Koyama (in Bull. Natl. Sci. Mus. Tokyo, B 2: 4. 1976) argued that Léveillé’s entity was readily distinguishable from typical C. longispica, and thus resurrected S. petasitoides from synonymy to treat it as a subspecies of C. farfarifolia Siebold & Zucc., i.e., subsp. petasitoides (H. Lév.) H. Koyama. Chen (in Fl. Reipubl. Popularis Sin. 77(2): 75. 1999) recognized the two taxa at specific level, and transferred them to Parasenecio W.W. Sm. & J. Small as P. petasitoides (H. Lév.) Y.L. Chen and P. longispicus (Hand.-Mazz.) Y.L. Chen respectively. This treatment has been adopted by Chen & al. (in Wu & Raven, Fl. China 20–21: 455. 2011). Conclusion We are requesting a binding decision under Art. 53.5 as to whether Senecio petasioides and S. petasitoides are sufficiently alike to be confused and thus should be treated as homonyms. If they are ratified as homonyms, the basionym of Parasenecio petasitoides will be Cacalia farfarifolia subsp. petasitoides H. Koyama, and the authority authorship of the species should be ascribed to “(H. Koyama) Y.L. Chen”. If not, C. longispica will be nomenclaturally superfluous
Version of Record (identical to print version).
Requests for binding decisions
TAXON 63 (3) • June 2014: 694–695
supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 31300169).
(Art. 52.2) since Handel-Mazzetti cited the legitimate S. petasitoides as its synonym, and hence the presently accepted combination P. longispicus should be treated as a new name, with its authorship being ascribed to “Y.L. Chen”.
Chen Ren, Yun-Fei Deng & Qin-Er Yang
Acknowledgements We are grateful to Professor John McNeill for his valuable comments on and careful editing of the manuscript. This work was
Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xingke Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou 510650, China. Author for correspondence: Qin-Er Yang,
[email protected]
Version of Record (identical to print version).
695
