Iamonico & al. • Lectotypification of Anabasis foliosa
TAXON 61 (5) • October 2012: 1103–1104
Lectotypification of the Linnaean name Anabasis foliosa L. (Chenopodiaceae) Duilio Iamonico,1 Alexander P. Sukhorukov2 & Charles E. Jarvis3 1 Department of Environmental Biology, University of Rome Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italy 2 Department of Higher Plants, Lomonosov State University, Vorobyovy Gory, 119234 Moscow, Russia 3 Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Author for correspondence: Duilio Iamonico,
[email protected] Abstract The typification of the name Anabasis foliosa L. (≡ Neocaspia foliosa (L.) Tzvelev) (Chenopodiaceae) is discussed. A specimen from LINN is designated as the lectotype. Keywords Anabasis; Linnaean names; Neocaspia; Salsola; typification
Introduction Anabasis L. (Caryophyllales Juss. ex Bercht & J. Presl., Chenopodiaceae Vent.) is a genus of about 30 species distributed in arid territories from the Mediterranean region to Central Asia (Zhu & al., 2003; Sukhorukov, 2008; Wen & al., 2010). Linnaeus published three names under Anabasis, A. aphylla, A. tamariscifolia and A. foliosa (Jarvis, 2007: 287), of which only A. aphylla is now generally referred to the genus (Uotila, 2011). The other two names apply to species that are usually placed in other genera. Anabasis tamariscifolia (Linnaeus, 1759) is a synonym of Salsola vermiculata (Linnaeus, 1753), a species recently treated in the genus Caroxylon Thunb. (Akhani & al., 2007). Anabasis foliosa was for a long time treated in the genus Salsola s.l. as S. foliosa (L.) Schrad. (e.g., Akeryod, 1993; FloraGREIF, 2010) but has recently been transferred to Neocaspia Tzvelev (Tzvelev, 1996). This species has yet to be included in any molecular study in this group of plants (e.g., Pyankov & al., 2001; Akhani & al., 2007; Wen & al., 2010) and the generic position of the species is still uncertain. Despite its varying generic placement, A. foliosa appears to be untypified.
Typification Linnaeus’s protologue (Linnaeus, 1753: 223) consisted of a short diagnosis cited from an account in a dissertation (“Plantae Camschatcenses Rariores”), written by Linnaeus but defended by his student, J.P. Halenius (Linnaeus, 1751: 347– 348), dealing with plants from Kamchatka. A single synonym (from Buxbaum, 1728: 12, t. 12, f. 1) is also cited, and this is accompanied by an illustration. In the Linnaean Herbarium at LINN there are two sheets (Nos. 316.3 and 316.4), both of which were indicated by Botschantzev (1976: 99) as type material. Since these collections do not appear to be part of a single gathering Botschantzev’s statement cannot be accepted as effecting a lectotypification of the name Anabasis foliosa L (Art. 9.15; McNeill & al., 2006). Sheet no. 316.3 (image available at http://www.linnean-online.
org/3560) bears material annotated by Linnaeus with “foliosa 2” at the base of the sheet, explicitly referring to the number of the species account in Linnaeus’s protologue. At the base of the specimen, it also carries a symbol that is usually associated with plants received by Linnaeus that he believed to have originated in Kamchatka (see Jarvis, 2007: 89) and this also serves to link the specimen with the dissertation account. Although there is an apparent discrepancy between Linnaeus’s “Habitat ad maris Caspii litora” (i.e., from the shores of the Caspian Sea) and the symbol suggesting the specimen’s origin as from the Kamchatka peninsula, the material Linnaeus had received from Russia, including this collection, had in reality come from a variety of geographical regions (see Jarvis, 2007: 206–207 for further information). It and the cited Buxbaum illustration are original material for the name. In contrast, sheet no. 316.4 (image available at http://www .linnean-online.org/3561), despite being annotated “Anabasis foliosa”, lacks either the Species Plantarum number or any link with the dissertation and thus appears to be a post-1753 addition to the collection and not original material for the name. We have been unable to trace any further original material in any of the other Linnaean and Linnaean-linked herbaria (see Jarvis, 2007). Although both the specimen (no. 316.3) and Buxbaum’s illustration are identifiable as Linnaeus’ Anabasis foliosa, long known as Salsola foliosa and more recently as Neocaspia foliosa, we prefer to designate the specimen at LINN as the lectotype. Neocaspia foliosa (L.) Tzvelev in Ukrayins’k. Bot. Zhurn. 50(1): 81. 1993 ≡ Anabasis foliosa L., Sp. Pl. 1: 223. 1753 ≡ Salsola foliosa (L.) Schrad. in Roemer & Schultes, Syst. Veg., ed. 15 bis, 6: 235. 1820 – Lectotype (designated here): Herb. Linnaeus, no. 316.3 (LINN).
LITERATURE CITED Akeroyd, J.R. 1993. Salsola L. Pp. 125–128 in: Tutin, T.G., Heywood, V.H., Moore, D.M., Valentine, D.H., Walters, S.M. & Webb, D.A. (eds.), Flora Europaea, vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Version of Record (identical to print version).
1103
Iamonico & al. • Lectotypification of Anabasis foliosa
Akhani, H., Edwards, G. & Roalson, E.H. 2007. Diversification of the Old World Salsoleae s.l. (Chenopodiaceae): Molecular phylogenetic analysis of nuclear and chloroplast data sets and a revised classification. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 168: 931–956. Botschantzev, V. 1976. Conspectus specierum sectionis Coccosalsola Fenzl generis Salsola L. Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 13: 74–102. Buxbaum, J.C. 1728. Plantarum minus cognitarum centuria I complectens plantas circa Byzantium & in oriente observatas. St. Petersburg. FloraGREIF 2010. FloraGREIF—Virtual Flora of Mongolia. Salsola foliosa (L.) Schrad. http://greif.uni-greifswald.de/floragreif/?flora_ search=taxon&taxon_id=1254 (accessed 9 July 2012). Jarvis, C. 2007. Order out of chaos: Linnaean plant names and their types. London: Linnean Society of London and the Natural History Museum. Linnaeus, C. 1751. Amoenitates academicae, vol. 2. Stockholm. Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species plantarum, vol. 1. Stockholm. Linnaeus, C. 1759. Systema naturae, ed. 10, vol. 2. Stockholm. McNeill, J., Barrie, F.R., Burdet, H.M., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth, D.L., Marhold, K., Nicolson, D.H., Prado, J., Silva, P.C., Skog, J.E., Wiersema, J.H. & Turland, N.J. (eds.) 2006. International code of botanical nomenclature (Vienna Code): Adopted by the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress, Vienna, Austria, July 2005. Regnum Vegetabile 146. Ruggell: Gantner.
1104
TAXON 61 (5) • October 2012: 1103–1104
Pyankov, V.I., Artyusheva, E.G., Edwards, G.E., Black, C.C. & Soltis, P.S. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of tribe Salsoleae (Chenopodiaceae) based on ribosomal ITS sequences: Implication for the evolution of photosynthesis types. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 168: 931–956. Sukhorukov, A.P. 2008. Fruit anatomy of the genus Anabasis (Salsoloideae, Chenopodiaceae). Austral. Syst. Bot. 21: 431–442. Tzvelev, N.N. 1993. Notes on the Chenopodiaceae of Eastern Europe. Ukrayins’k. Bot. Zhurn. 50: 78–85. Tzvelev, N.N. 1996. Neocaspia. P. 96 in: Tzvelev (ed.), Flora of eastern Europe, vol. 9. St. Petersburg: Mir i semya. Uotila, P. 2011. Anabasis. In: Euro+Med Plantbase – the information resource for Euro-Mediterranean plant diversity. http://ww2 .bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameId=17736&PT RefFk=7300000 (accessed: 7 July 2012). Wen, Z.-B., Zhang, M.-L. & Zhu, G.-L. 2010. Phylogeny of Salsolae s.l. (Chenopodiaceae) based on DNA sequence data from ITS, psbB-psbH, and rbcL, with emphasis on taxa of northwestern China. Pl. Syst. Evol. 288: 25–42. Zhu, G.L., Mosyakin, S.L. & Clemants, S.E. 2003. Anabasis L. Pp. 397–399 in: Wu, Z.Y. & Raven, P.H. (eds), Flora of China, vol. 5. Beijing: Science Press.
Version of Record (identical to print version).
