Invasive fungal infections in patients with acute myeloid leucemia and in those submitted to allogeneic hemopoieticstem cell transplant: who is at highest risk ?

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are a growing cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AMLs) and in recipients of allogeneic hemopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCTs) (1–6). It is widely debated if either allo-HSCTs or AMLs are to be considered at higher risk, but no data comparing the two categories of patients have been reported in literature so far. This cohort study has been conducted from January 1999 to December 2003 in hematology wards located throughout Italy. The study was aimed at evaluating the incidence and mortality for IFIs in adult AMLs and in patients submitted to all types of allo-HSCT procedures; a comparison between the two categories of patients was carried out

Luehea conwentzii , Schumann 1886

Luehea conwentzii Schumann (1886: 154). Type:— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: “in collibus apricis”, 1832, Riedel 107 (lectotype, designated here, BR! [BR0000005491391]; isolectotypes C! [C10019549]; E! [E00894822]; G! [G00357099]; K! [K000381835]; L! [L2352793]; M! [M0210184], [M0210185]; MEL! [MEL2451387], [MEL 2451388]; NY! [NY00415477]; P! [P02142945], [P02142946], [P02142947]; S! [S-R-11135], [S13-2361]; W! [W0002578]). São Paulo: Campos da Bocaina, 27 September 1879, Glaziou 11795 (syntypes remaining C! [C10019550]; P! [P06663915]). When describing L. conwentzii, Schumann (1886) cited two collections in the protologue, Riedel 107 and Glaziou 11795, which are syntypes, therefore, in accordance with Art. 9.3 of the ICN, it is maybe select a lectotype. Cunha (1985) designated Riedel 107 in LE as the type, but no specimen has ever been found in this herbarium (L. Averyanov, pers. comm.). For this reason, we herein designate Riedel 107 (BR549139) as the lectotype by choosing the most complete and preserved specimen. Based on Cunha (1985) and the present study, the application of the name L. conwentzii is confirmed as an accepted species.Published as part of Gerace, Samuele, Bovini, Massimo G., Peruzzi, Lorenzo & Baumgratz, José Fernando A., 2022, Typification of names in the neotropical genus Luehea (Malvaceae: Grewioideae), pp. 180-188 in Phytotaxa 542 (2) on page 181, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.542.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/641598

Luehea grandiflora Martius 1826

Luehea grandiflora Martius (1826: 99). Type:— BRAZIL. Minas Gerais: Cocais, “ Crescit in montanis sylvis caeduis prope Cocaes, Maio ”, Martius s.n. (lectotype [as ‘holotype’], first-step designated by Cunha (1985: 19); second-step lectotype, designated here, M! [M0210173]; isolectotypes M! [M0210170], [M0210171], [M0210172]). In Martius’ protologue, the specimens on which this name is based are not specifically indicated. Nevertheless, it is known that collections of Martius are deposited in Herbarium M (Stafleu & Cowan 1976 –1988: 325). Cunha (1985) mentioned “ Martius s.n. ” (M) as the holotype, specifying not to have seen it (“ Holotypus – M, non vidi”), and not reporting any record number. This means that the status of the type needs to be corrected as lectotype and considered as a first-step typification (Art. 9.17 of the ICN). Therefore, in accordance with Arts. 9.3 and 9.4 of the ICN, we designate herein the specimen Martius s.n. (M0210173) as a second-step lectotype by choosing the most complete specimen and one that is congruent with the protologue’s description. The specimen M0210174 is only a reproduction of Figure 61 from Martius’ work. Based on Cunha (1985) and the present study, the application of the name L. grandiflora is confirmed as an accepted species.Published as part of Gerace, Samuele, Bovini, Massimo G., Peruzzi, Lorenzo & Baumgratz, José Fernando A., 2022, Typification of names in the neotropical genus Luehea (Malvaceae: Grewioideae), pp. 180-188 in Phytotaxa 542 (2) on pages 182-183, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.542.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/641598

Luehea candicans Martius 1826

Luehea candicans Martius (1826: 102). Type:— BRAZIL. Bahia: Monte Santo, “ Habitat in sylvis Catingas dictis prope Montem Sanctum ”, Martius s.n. (holotype M! [M0210187]; F! negative number 19699). This original specimen mentioned in the protologue was collected in Bahia, and it is preserved in Herbarium M, which is cited by Martius as the place where his collections are located (Martius 1826, Stafleu & Cowan 1976 –1988: 325). In the absence of duplicates, we confirm Martius s.n. (M0210187) as the holotype of L. candicans (Arts. 9.1 and 9.2 of the ICN), as also recognized by Cunha (1985). Schumann (1886: 154) considered L. candicans as a synonym for L. uniflora. However, Burret (1926: 826) recognized the priority of the name L. candicans over L. uniflora, as the former was correctly published in 1826 (Martius 1826: 102), while the latter was published two years later (Saint-Hilaire 1828: 291). Based on holotype study, the application of the name L. candicans is fully confirmed herein as an accepted species, as accepted by Cunha (1985).Published as part of Gerace, Samuele, Bovini, Massimo G., Peruzzi, Lorenzo & Baumgratz, José Fernando A., 2022, Typification of names in the neotropical genus Luehea (Malvaceae: Grewioideae), pp. 180-188 in Phytotaxa 542 (2) on page 181, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.542.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/641598

Luehea uniflora Saint-Hilaire 1828

Luehea uniflora Saint-Hilaire (1828: 290). Type:— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: “prope Cabam ”, Saint-Hilaire s.n. (lectotype [as ‘holotype’], first-step designated by Cunha (1985: 10); second-step lectotype, designated here, P! [P00604308]; isolectotypes MPU! [MPU017178]; P! [P00604307]). [= Luehea candicans Mart.] Saint-Hilaire (1828) did not mention any specimen in the protologue of L. uniflora, but three of his original specimens with the name L. uniflora are in P and in MPU herbaria, where his collections are kept (Stafleu & Cowan 1976 –1988: 1064). The specimens found in P present the data that contradict those cited in the protologue. In P00604308, an original label by Saint-Hilaire is found with the inscription “ Luhea uniflora + ” without the locality, together with another label with Claussen’s calligraphy and the erroneous travel period of Saint-Hilaire (1816–1821 instead of 1816–1822). In P00604307, an original label by Saint-Hilaire is found with “ 1 Luhea uniflora + ”, but with a sentence added later by another author (different spelling) and with the erroneous travel period as above. Based on this evidence, we do not consider the locality (Minas Gerais) reported on to these specimens as reliable and attribute them instead to the same collection as that reported in the protologue (Rio de Janeiro), as duplicates of the original material. Cunha (1985) indicated the specimen in P as the ‘holotype’, without having seen it and specifying its identification number. However, this designation should be corrected as a first-step typification (Art. 9.17 of the ICN). In accordance with Arts. 9.3 and 9.4 of the ICN, we designated herein specimen P00604308 as the second-step lectotype of L. uniflora by choosing the most representative specimen according to the protologue’s description. Saint-Hilaire (1828: 291) reports that L. uniflora and L. candicans are related, but the short description of Martius (1826: 102) does not allow for any certainty. After analyzing both the Martius material for L. candicans and the Saint-Hilaire material for L. uniflora, Schumann (1886: 154) concluded that both belong to the same species. However, L. uniflora was wrongly chosen by Schumann (1886) as the putatively correct name, as he himself reported as follows: “… itaque nomen ab St-Hilaire speciei impositum praetuli, neque vereor ne contra leges prioritatis peccaverim ”. Subsequently, Burret (1926: 826), in the light of Schumann’s analysis, recognized the priority of L. candicans and considered L. uniflora as a synonym, as also confirmed by Cunha (1985) and this report.Published as part of Gerace, Samuele, Bovini, Massimo G., Peruzzi, Lorenzo & Baumgratz, José Fernando A., 2022, Typification of names in the neotropical genus Luehea (Malvaceae: Grewioideae), pp. 180-188 in Phytotaxa 542 (2) on page 185, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.542.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/641598

Luehea speciosa Willdenow 1801

Luehea speciosa Willdenow (1801: 410). Type:— VENEZUELA. Distrito Capital: Caracas, “ Crescit prope Caracas ”, Bredemeyer s.n. (holotype B! [B-W14376–010]). The specimen collected by Bredemeyer (s.n.) in Venezuela is the only one cited in the protologue of L. speciosa (Willdenow 1801). We located only one specimen in Herbarium B where his collections are found (Stafleu & Cowan 1976 –1988: 298). It consists of a sheet (barcode B-W14376–000) with only one label containing the identification and location data similar to those mentioned in the protologue. Another sheet contains one fertile specimen with both species and collector names (barcode B-W14376–010). Since no duplicates of the original sample were found, we believe that specimen B-W14376–010 can be considered as the holotype of the name L. speciosa in accordance with Art. 9.1 of the ICN and Mabberley (2002: 255). Based on Burret (1926), Rijckevorsel (2005), Brummitt (2007: 592) and the present study, the application of the name L. speciosa is confirmed as an accepted species.Published as part of Gerace, Samuele, Bovini, Massimo G., Peruzzi, Lorenzo & Baumgratz, José Fernando A., 2022, Typification of names in the neotropical genus Luehea (Malvaceae: Grewioideae), pp. 180-188 in Phytotaxa 542 (2) on page 185, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.542.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/641598

Luehea uniflora var. gracilis A. St. 1886

Luehea uniflora A.St.-Hil. var. gracilis Schumann (1886: 153). Type:— BRAZIL. “In silvis provinciae Rio de Janeiro et S. Paolo ”, October 1833, Riedel 1397 (lectotype, designated here, P! [P02142949]; isolectotypes BR! [BR05491377]; C! [C10023264]; E! [E00894823]; LE! [LE00006867]; P! [P02142948]; S! [S13-21808]; W! [W1890-0002582]). [= Luehea candicans var. gracilis (K.Schum.) M.C.S.Cunha] Schumann (1886) described L. uniflora var. gracilis based on Riedel 1397, and several duplicates are kept in different herbaria. Cunha (1980) indicated this collection from Herbarium M as the ‘holotype’, but this specimen was not found (H. Esser, pers. comm.). Since Schumann (1886) did not specify any herbarium and since we have not found any specimen in Herbarium B where he worked (Stafleu & Cowan 1976 –1988: 400), we designate Riedel 1397 (P 02142949) as the lectotype of L. uniflora var. gracilis, according to Art. 9.3 of the ICN. It was chosen as the most representative, complete, and best-preserved specimen congruent with the protologue’s description. Cunha (1980) has restored the nomenclatural priority, recombining L. uniflora var. gracilis as L. candicans var. gracilis. We confirm here the application of this name.Published as part of Gerace, Samuele, Bovini, Massimo G., Peruzzi, Lorenzo & Baumgratz, José Fernando A., 2022, Typification of names in the neotropical genus Luehea (Malvaceae: Grewioideae), pp. 180-188 in Phytotaxa 542 (2) on page 186, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.542.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/641598

Luehea microphylla Pohl 1833

Luehea microphylla Pohl (1833: 129). Type:— BRAZIL. Minas Gerais: Minas Novas, “Habitat inter arbores ad margines fluviorum ad Rio S.Francisco, Capitanae Minas Novas. Legi florentem mense Octobri 1819”, Pohl s.n. (lectotype [as ‘holotype’], first-step designated by Cunha (1985: 10); second-step lectotype, designated here, W! [W0071087]). Minas Gerais: Minas Novas, Pohl s.n. (syntype remaining W! [W0071386]). [= Luehea candicans Mart.] Pohl’s original collection is kept in W where he worked and lived (Stafleu & Cowan 1976 –1988: 315), and where we found only two specimens reported by the author to the name L. microphylla and collected by him in Brazil (B. Wallnöfer, pers. comm.). These two specimens are syntypes of L. microphylla, and the previous typification of Cunha (1985) needs to be corrected (Art. 9.2 of the ICN), since it represents the first-step lectotype of L. microphylla and now requires the second-step typification by the way of subsequent lectotypification (Art. 9.17 of the ICN). For this reason, we designated herein the specimen Pohl s.n. (W0071087) the second-step lectotype of L. microphylla, that agree well with the morphological description presented in the protologue. Based on the type materials, the application of the name L. microphylla Pohl is confirmed as a heterotypic synonym of L. candicans, as previously accepted by Cunha (1985).Published as part of Gerace, Samuele, Bovini, Massimo G., Peruzzi, Lorenzo & Baumgratz, José Fernando A., 2022, Typification of names in the neotropical genus Luehea (Malvaceae: Grewioideae), pp. 180-188 in Phytotaxa 542 (2) on pages 183-184, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.542.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/641598

Luehea paniculata Martius 1826

Luehea paniculata Martius (1826: 100). Type:— BRAZIL. Minas Gerais: Mariana, “Habitat in adscensu Montis Itacolumi de Mariana, Aprili”, Martius s.n. (lectotype [as ‘holotype’], first-step designated by Cunha (1985: 25); second-step lectotype, designated here, M! [M0210164]; isolectotypes K! [K000381830]; M! [M0210163]). In the protologue, the specimens on which this name is based are not specifically indicated, but the herbarium of Munich (M) and the Herbarium Zuccarini are repositories of Martius collections (Martius 1826, Stafleu & Cowan 1976 –1988: 325). The typification claim by Cunha (1985) to be the holotype is corrected here as lectotypification (firststep typification) according to the Art. 9.10 of the ICN. We have found other specimens from the collection of Martius, both in M and other herbaria, with different numbers (263, 265, 269, 609) or s.n., and almost all without indicated locations. Since only location, but no collection number, is noted in the protologue, we accepted only the specimens Martius s.n. as the original material of L. paniculata because they are the only specimens with the location noted. Therefore, in accordance with Arts. 9.3 and 9.4 of the ICN, we designate herein Martius s.n. (M0210164) as a secondstep lectotype, in addition to being the best-preserved specimen and congruent with the protologue’s description. The specimen M0210162 is only a reproduction of Figure 62 from Martius` work. Based on the type materials, the application of the name L. paniculata is confirmed as an accepted species, as proposed by Cunha (1985).Published as part of Gerace, Samuele, Bovini, Massimo G., Peruzzi, Lorenzo & Baumgratz, José Fernando A., 2022, Typification of names in the neotropical genus Luehea (Malvaceae: Grewioideae), pp. 180-188 in Phytotaxa 542 (2) on page 184, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.542.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/641598

Luehea hoehnei Burret 1926

Luehea hoehnei Burret (1926: 833). Type:— BRAZIL. Mato Grosso: “ Caminho para Facão-Caceres ”, Hoehne 237 (holotype B destroyed, photo in F! [negative number 9244]; neotype, designated here:— Brazil. Mato Grosso: 1891, Moore 139, NY! [NY00996514]). In the protologue of L. hoehnei, specimen Hoehne 237 (B) is cited. Unfortunately, this specimen was destroyed in 1943 during World War II (R. Vogt, pers. comm.), along with other original material in another herbarium. For this reason, we designate herein Moore 139 (NY00996514) as the neotype, according to Art. 9.8 and 9.16 of the ICN. It was selected based on the geographical origin of the lost holotype and morphological characteristics described in the protologue. Based on Burret (1926) and the present study, the application of the name L. hoehnei is confirmed as an accepted species.Published as part of Gerace, Samuele, Bovini, Massimo G., Peruzzi, Lorenzo & Baumgratz, José Fernando A., 2022, Typification of names in the neotropical genus Luehea (Malvaceae: Grewioideae), pp. 180-188 in Phytotaxa 542 (2) on page 183, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.542.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/641598