Martín-Bravo & al. • Lectotypification of Reseda glauca
TAXON 60 (5) • October 2011: 1478–1479
Revised lectotypification of Reseda glauca L. (Resedaceae) Santiago Martín-Bravo,1 Pedro Jiménez-Mejías1 & Charles E. Jarvis2 1 Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemical Engineering, Pablo de Olavide University, ctra. de Utrera km 1, 41013, Sevilla, Spain 2 Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Author for correspondence: Santiago Martín-Bravo,
[email protected] Abstract The currently accepted lectotype (Herb. Linn. No. 629.4, LINN) of Reseda glauca L. is identifiable as the related species, R. virgata Boiss. & Reuter. The specimen, collected by Löfling in central Spain, was not explicitly cited in Linnaeus’s protologue, in contrast to a specimen (at UPS) collected by Burser in the Pyrenees and identifiable as R. glauca of usage. In accordance with Art. 9.10 of the ICBN, we reject the choice of 629.4 (LINN) as lectotype and we designate Burser’s specimen as the lectotype of R. glauca L. in its place. This type choice maintains the traditional and current usage of this well-known and widely used Linnaean name. Keywords Linnaean names; nomenclature; Reseda sect. Glaucoreseda ; taxonomy; typification
INTRODUCTION Reseda glauca L. (Resedaceae) is a mountain species restricted to the northern part of the Iberian Peninsula, namely the Pyrenees and the Cantabrian Range. It is included in R. sect. Glaucoreseda DC., composed of five species, R. battandieri Pit., R. complicata Bory, R. glauca L., R. gredensis (Cutanda & Willk.) Müll. Arg., and R. virgata Boiss. & Reuter, endemic to the high mountain ranges and plateaus of the Iberian Peninsula and Morocco. Species circumscription based on morphology is relatively well-established (Abdallah & de Wit, 1978; Valdés Bermejo, 1993), and the phylogenetic relationships, evolutionary history, and speciation processes within the section have been recently studied (Martín-Bravo & al., 2007, 2010). As part of a taxonomic revision of the family, Abdallah & de Wit (1978) typified all species names in R. sect. Glaucoreseda except R. battandieri. However, the lectotype chosen for R. glauca (Herb. Linn. No. 629.4, right specimen) by these authors presents some difficulties, principally because it is identifiable not as R. glauca of general usage as has been assumed, but rather as the later R. virgata Boiss. & Reuter. In order to address this problem, and to try to avoid unfortunate name changes, we have re-examined the typification of R. glauca.
TYPIFICATION OF THE NAME Linnaeus (1753: 449) published the name Reseda glauca with a very short diagnosis (“Reseda foliis linearibus basi dentatis, floribus tetragynis”) and the Indicatio Locotypica “Habitat in Pyrenaeis”. This phrase-name included some of the diagnostic characters of R. sect. Glaucoreseda ; however, as frequently found in Linnaeus’s protologues, these are not enough for the discrimination of this species from its closest relatives. Below the diagnosis, some synonyms were quoted corresponding to plants from the Pyrenees studied by 1478
pre-Linnaean authors (Bauhin, 1623; Plukenet, 1696; Morison, 1699; Tournefort, 1700; Ray, 1704). Unusually, Linnaeus explicitly cited a specimen collected in the Pyrenees included in the herbarium of Caspar Bauhin’s disciple, Joachim Burser (Herb. Burser IV: 88, UPS), which means that this specimen is a syntype (ICBN Art. 9.4). It was identified as R. glauca L. by Juel (1923, 1936), and we agree with his opinion. In the Linnaean herbarium (Herb. Linn. No. 629.4, LINN) is a sheet bearing two specimens collected by Pehr Löfling in Spain. The sheet is annotated by Linnaeus with “3 glauca” and, on the verso, “Hispania. 396. Loefl.”, clearly linking the material with the list of material sent by Löfling to Linnaeus in 1752, and received prior to the publication of R. glauca in 1753. The right-hand specimen was subsequently designated as the lectotype of R. glauca (Abdallah & de Wit, 1978; cf. Jarvis, 2007). However, Löfling’s material was not explicitly cited in the protologue of the species (unlike that of Burser) and it is therefore original material for the name, rather than a syntype. Under ICBN Art. 9.10 (McNeill & al., 2006), “In lectotype designation, an isotype must be chosen if such exists, or otherwise a syntype if such exists. … If no cited specimens exist, the lectotype must be chosen from among the uncited specimens …” Since Burser’s specimen is a syntype, it necessarily takes precedence over the material of Löfling, and the latter cannot serve as the lectotype of R. glauca. Löfling’s specimens are identifiable as R. virgata Boiss. & Reuter, a species closely related to R. glauca and distributed in the Central-Northern Iberian Plateau. Were this material to remain as the lectotype of R. glauca, unfortunate nomenclatural consequences would follow, with R. glauca becoming the correct name for the species currently known as R. virgata, and a new name would be needed for the species long known as R. glauca. Several arguments support our view about the taxonomic identity of 629.4 (LINN). Firstly, according to Iter Hispanicum (1758), Löfling entered the Iberian Peninsula via Portugal (Setúbal), headed towards Central Spain (Madrid) and
TAXON 60 (5) • October 2011: 1478–1479
then went southwards to Cádiz, from where he departed to America. Given that Löfling never visited either the Pyrenees or the Cantabrian Range, he would therefore have been extremely unlikely to have encountered R. glauca. In the “Spanish List” that Löfling sent to Linnaeus in 1752, reporting on the plants collected in the Iberian Peninsula, he indicated that the voucher “Hispania 396” was found “ad margines collium agrorum” (G. López, pers. comm.). This is a typical R. virgata habitat, very different from the rocky mountainous sites where R. glauca grows. Secondly, Abdallah & de Wit (1978) reported the number of leaf teeth pairs as the single diagnostic character for distinguishing R. glauca (0–2 pairs) from R. virgata (2–4(–5) pairs). Probably as a result of this, they identified the left specimen on 629.4 (LINN) as R. virgata, and the one on the right as R. glauca, the latter subsequently designated as the lectotype. In our opinion, the specimen on the right is a depauperate specimen of R. virgata, corresponding to an upper fragment of a stem which shows a lower number of leaf teeth pairs in the few leaves that remain. Other useful characters for distinguishing between the two taxa (Martín-Bravo, 2009), such as the narrow racemes and the erect stems, would also support the identification of both specimens as R. virgata. In summary, the current lectotype of R. glauca L. (LINN 629.4) must be rejected because it is an uncited specimen, whereas one exists that was explicitly cited in the protologue (Herb. Burser IV: 88, UPS). Under the ICBN (Art. 9.10), the latter specimen must have priority in lectotype designation. A beneficial consequence of this change in typification is that R. glauca can continue to be used in its traditional sense, rather than becoming the correct name for the species known as R. virgata. Reseda glauca L., Sp. Pl. 1: 449. 1753 – Lectotype (designated here): “Reseda linariae foliis Bauh. In sabulo ad rivum in montibus Pyrenais” (Herb. Burser IV: 88—UPS, photo!).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are extremely grateful to Dr. Ginés López for his critical indications about this nomenclatural problem.
Martín-Bravo & al. • Lectotypification of Reseda glauca
LITERATURE CITED Abdallah, M.S. & de Wit, H.C.D. 1978. The Resedaceae: A taxonomical revision of the family (final instalment). Meded. Landbouwhoogeschool 78(14): 1–416. Bauhin, C. 1623. Pinax theatri botanici. Basel. Jarvis, C.E. 2007. Order out of Chaos: Linnaean plant names and their types. London: The Linnean Society of London and the Natural History Museum. Juel, H.O. 1923. Studien in Burser’s Hortus siccus. Nova Acta Regiae Soc. Sci. Upsal., ser. 4, 5(7): i–xvi, 1–144. Juel, H.O. 1936. Joachim Burser’s Hortus siccus. Symb. Bot. Upsal. 2(1): 1–187. Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species plantarum, vol. 1. Stockholm: Laurentius Salvius. Loefling, P. 1758. Iter hispanicum. Stockholm: Lars Salvius. Martín-Bravo, S. 2009. Sistemática, evolución y biogeografía de la familia Resedaceae. Dissertation, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, Spain. Martín-Bravo, S., Meimberg, H., Luceño, M., Märkl, W., Valcárcel, V., Bräuchler, C., Vargas, P. & Heubl, G. 2007. Molecular systematics and biogeography of Resedaceae based on ITS and trnL-F sequences. Molec. Phylog. Evol. 44: 1105–1120. Martín-Bravo, S., Valcárcel, V., Vargas, P. & Luceño, M. 2010. Geographical speciation related to Pleistocene range shifts in the western Mediterranean mountains (Reseda sect. Glaucoreseda, Resedaceae). Taxon 59: 466–482. McNeill, J., Barrie, F.R., Burdel, 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. 2006. International code of botanical nomenclature (Vienna Code). Regnum Vegetabile 146. Ruggell, Liechtenstein: Gantner. Morison, R. 1700. Plantarum historia universalis oxoniensis pars tertia. Oxford: e Theathro Sheldoniano. Plukenet, L. 1696. Almagestum botanicum sive phytographiae Pluknetianae onomasticon. London: pub. by the author. Ray, J. 1704. Historiae plantarum tomus tertius. London: pub. by the author. Tournefort, J.P. 1699. Institutiones rei herbariae, editio altera. Paris: e Typographia regia. Valdés Bermejo, E. 1993. Reseda L. Pp. 440–475 in: Castroviejo, S., Aedo, C., Gómez Campo, C., Laínz, M., Montserrat, P., Morales, R., Muñoz Garmendia, F., Nieto Feliner, G., Rico, E., Talavera, S., & Villar, L. (eds.), Flora Iberica, vol. 4. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
1479
