van Konijnenburg-van Cittert, Johanna H.A.

Zijlstra, Gea

Utrecht University Repository

(in Phytologia 12: 439. 1965). This latter author commented that: “Iknow nothing whatever of this species except what is given in the lit-erature” and, additionally, reported that the type was at LE, but evi-dently had not examined it. The only other use of the name that wehave traced was by Hayek (in Denkschr. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss., Wien,Math.-Naturwiss. Kl. 79: 296. 1908), whomisidentified as L. riedeli-ana a specimen from the state of São Paulo where the species doesnot occur.During the taxonomic revision of Lippia L. for the forthcomingFlora of Brazil, online 2020 (http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br), wecontacted the Curator of LE to locate the type specimen of L. riedeli-ana. He sent us photographs of the five specimens he found atLE. All specimens contain labels with information that matchesthe contents presented by Schauer in Flora Brasiliensis: “in locisglareosis arenosis prov. Tejuco, Decembri”. Additionally, these labelsshow: “Riedel 1228”, probably the collection number by Riedel.These five specimens are, by definition (see Art. 40 Note 1 of theICN; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), the syntypes of thename L. riedeliana, and we are lectotypifying the name in the presentpaper.After careful checking of the details of these specimens at LE,we concluded that Lippia riedeliana is the same as L. rosella Mol-denke (in Phytologia 39: 449–450. 1978), a species based on materialcollected by Irwin & al. 28442a (LL), from Minas Gerais State. Thisspecies is endemic to the region of the Diamantina Plateau in the stateof Minas Gerais, Brazil, and can be recognized in having strigosebranches, opposite or ternate leaves, scabrid adaxially, glandular-strigose abaxially, green bracts, vinaceous at the apex, and pinkcorollas. It grows in the Brazilian savanna, called locally “CamposRupestres”, at 1200–1400 m elev.Since its publication in 1978, this later synonym, Lippia rosellaMoldenke, has been consistently applied to the taxon rather thanL. riedeliana. Additionally, this species has economic importance(medicinal properties such as: anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and anti-fungal) and has been the target of several papers dealing with cytol-ogy, genomics, physiology, chemistry, and taxonomy, e.g.: Viccini& al. (in Pl. Syst. Evol. 246: 1–8. 2004, 256: 171–178. 2005);Pimenta & al. (in Brazil. J. Bot. 30: 211–220. 2007); Campos & al.(in Pl. Syst. Evol. 291: 133–140. 2011); Sousa & al. (in Anais Acad.Brasil. Ci. 84: 1029–1037. 2012, 85: 147–157. 2013); Chaves & al.(in Genet. Molec. Res. 13: 7864–7868. 2014); Singulani & al.(in J. Med. Pl. Res. 27: 4416–4422. 2018); and Cardoso& al. (in Phy-totaxa 455: 47–52. 2020).To maintain nomenclatural stability for this species name thathas economic importance, we propose the rejection of the nameLippia riedeliana, a 173-year-old name that has long been obscureand that seems, as noted above, to have been used only three timessince its publication. The adoption of the present proposal will securethe current use of L. rosella.Author informationPHC, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6198-6729FRGS, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9000-4683JP, http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4783-3125AcknowledgementsWe thank Vladimir Dorofeyev for sending photos of the typespecimens of Lippia riedeliana deposited at LE. PHC thanks theConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico(CNPq, Brazil) for the doctorate scholarship (141837/2020-9).(2791–2792) Proposals to conserve the nameWilliamsoniawith a conserved typeand W. gigas T.M. Harris against W. gigas (Lindl. & Hutton) Carruth. (fossilCycadophyta: Bennettitales)Gea Zijlstra & Johanna H.A. van Konijnenburg-van CittertMarine Palynology, Vening Meinesz Building A, Princetonlaan 8A, 3584 CB Utrecht, The NetherlandsAddress for correspondence: Gea Zijlstra, g.zijlstra@uu.nlDOI https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12408First published as part of this issue. See online for details.(2791) Williamsonia Carruth. in Trans. Linn. Soc. London 26:680, 691. 21 Mai 1870, nom. cons. prop.Typus: W. gigas T.M. Harris, Yorkshire Jurass. Fl. 3: 123.Feb 1969, typ. cons. prop.Carruthers (in Trans. Linn. Soc. London 26: 680, 691. 1870)published the name Williamsonia in an article entitled “On FossilCycadean Stems from the Secondary Rocks of Britain”. In this publi-cation, however, he also discussed the leaves and flowers of those plantremains. On p. 680, he presented brief Latin descriptions of (amongothers) Williamsonia and its three species, W. gigas, W. pecten, andW. hastula, all of which he ascribed to himself, although he later indi-cated (l.c.: 693–694) basionyms for all three. That generic descriptionconcerns stem, leaves and flowers, but for the species, only the leavesare described. English descriptions and extensive discussion ofWilliamsonia and its species started on p. 691, including referencesto earlier literature for every species. It is quite clear that he used thename Williamsonia for fossils of which the stem, leaves and flowers1376 Version of RecordZijlstra & al. • (2791–2792) Conserve Williamsonia and W. gigas T.M. Harris TAXON 69 (6) • December 2020: 1376–1378were known. In his discussion on this genus (about 1½ pages: onp. 691–693), he paid much attention to the preceding article on the his-tory of Zamia gigasLindl. &Hutton byW.C.Williamson (Williamsonin Trans. Linn. Soc. London 26: 663–674, t. 52–53. 1870). Carruthers(l.c.: 692) stated that he “was fortunate enough to obtain from him[Williamson] the paper which precedes this memoir, for communica-tion to the Society”. Indeed, Williamson’s article has its title andauthorship followed by “Communicated by William Carruthers”.Williamson apparently was not a member of the Linnean Society, butCarruthers considered him to be so important that he dedicated thename of the new genus to “father and son” Williamson. In addition,he considered their contribution to this group of plants to be so impor-tant that he commemorated them with the new tribe Williamsonieae(Carruthers, l.c.: 680).Even although he ascribed Williamsonia gigas to himself(as “Carr.”) (Carruthers, l.c.: 680, 693), it is quite clear from his listof references for this species (p. 693) that he included Zamia gigasLindl. & Hutton (Foss. Fl. Gr. Brit. 3: 45. 1835) and Zamites gigas(Lindl. & Hutton) Morris (in Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 7: 116. 1841).Moreover, Williamson’s plates (l.c.: t. 52–53) have as caption the name“Williamsonia Gigas. (Zamia Gigas.)”, and so the name must betreated as the new combination W. gigas (Lindl. & Hutton) Carruth.Seward (Foss. Pl. 3: 421. 1917) designated W. gigas (Lindl. &Hutton) Carruth. as type of Williamsonia – a type designation thatthe first author added to Index nominum genericorum (Plantarum)only in 2013. In the recent proposal to conserve Zamites (Zijlstra& Van Konijnenburg-van Cittert in Taxon 69: 1122–1123. 2020), weconcluded, however, that Zamia gigas, the basionym of Zamites gigas,would be the best conserved type for Zamites; a type selection that hadalready beenmade byAndrews, in both editions of his Index of genericnames of fossil plants (Andrews in Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv. 1013: 261.1955, 1300: 229. 1970), despite the fact that it is not one of the originalspecies of Zamites. We found this choice confirmed by severalimportant publications, among others that by Harris (Yorkshire Jurass.Fl. 3: 3. 1969).The situation in Andrews’s Index (Andrews, l.c. 1955: 259, 1970:227) is even more peculiar as he also lists Williamsonia gigas (Lindl.& Hutton) Carruth. as the type of Williamsonia, referring to Seward(l.c. 1917: 421–423).Nathorst (in Kungl. Svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl. 45(4): 1–38.1909) had already decided that the nameWilliamsonia should only beused for flowers or fruits, not for leaves. However, he did not yet clearlydistinguish W. gigas from Zamia gigas (Nathorst, l.c. 1909: 19),whereas later (Nathorst in Förh. Geol. Fören. Stockholm 35: 361–366. 1913) he wrote more extensively on several genera, concludingthat Williamsonia, Weltrichia and Wielandiella “should be confinedto the organs of reproduction only or to the plants as a whole” (l.c.1913: 365). Even though he stated in the case of Williamsonia (l.c.:364) that it “has not yet definitely been proved” that leaf and flowerbelong together, in his use of ‘Williamsonia gigas’ he did not definitelyexclude Zamia gigas Lindl. & Hutton (l.c.), the basionym ofW. gigas(Lindl. & Hutton) Carruth., since he also mentioned the possibility touse Williamsonia “for the plant as a whole”.The fact that one could consider Zamia gigas as the type ofboth Zamites and Williamsonia was critically discussed by Harris(l.c. 1969: 122–127): on p. 122, he cited the type of Williamsoniaas “Williamsonia gigas Carruthers (in part) female flower only”; asthe lectotype ofW. gigas he cited (l.c. 1969: 124): “Specimen figuredbyWilliamson (1870, pl. 5, fig. 4.)”. This must be a printing error fort. 52, fig. 4 of Williamson (l.c.), the article preceding Carruthers’spublication. For Harris, W. gigas was restricted to female flowersand definitely excluded the leaf material that represented the typeof W. gigas (Lindl. & Hutton) Carruth. Harris thus published a laterhomonym that must be attributed solely to him (Art. 48.1 of theICN; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Williamsonia gigasT.M. Harris, a name independent of the earlier usages of the epithet,is proposed here as the conserved type of Williamsonia. See alsoProp. 2792, below.Some important species ofWilliamsonia are:W. asseretoi P.D.W.Barnard & J.C. Mill. (in Palaeontographica, Abt. B, Paläophytol. 155:66. 1976),W. bucklandii (Unger) Saporta (‘bucklandi’) (Paléontol.Franç., Pl. Jurass. 4: 127. 1886) (Podocarya bucklandiiUnger, Gen.Sp. Pl. Foss.: 327. 1850), W. danubii Dragastan (in Dãri Seamã Inst.Geol. Geofiz. 65(3): 86. 1980), W. haydenii Seward (in Mem. Geol.Surv. India, Palaeontol. Indica, ser. 2, 4(4): 26. 1912),W. hildaeHarris(l.c. 1969: 135–139),W. himasHarris (in Ann.Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 12,6: 43. 1953), W. latecostata Semaka (in Argum. Palaeobot. 2: 15–17.1968), W. leckenbyi Nath. (in Öfvers. Kongl. Vetensk.-Akad. Förh.37(9): 39. 1880), W. parvula H.-J. Schweitzer & M. Kirchn. (inPalaeontographica, Abt. B, Paläophytol. 264: 137. 2003).ManydozenspeciesofWilliamsoniaarerecognized,allof themfromMesozoic layers, most of them Jurassic, from many parts of the world:Europe, Asia, North and South America. Without conservation ofWilliamsoniawith a new conserved type, it would have to be consideredas a homotypic synonym of Zamites, thus based on fossil leaves only.(2792) Williamsonia gigas T.M. Harris, Yorkshire Jurass. Fl. 3:123. Feb 1969, nom. cons. prop.Typus: England, Yorkshire, Runswick; female flower, York-shire Museum No. YM1018b; [illustrated in] Trans. Linn.Soc. London 26: t. 52, fig. 4. 21 Mai 1870.(H) Williamsonia gigas (Lindl. & Hutton) Carruth. in Trans. Linn.Soc. London 26: 680, 691. 21 Mai 1870 (Zamia gigas Lindl.& Hutton, Foss. Fl. Gr. Brit. 3: 45. 1835), nom. rej. prop.Neotypus (hic designatus): England, Yorkshire, Whitby(Hancock Museum No. NEWHM: G11.93, Great NorthMuseum: Hancock, Newcastle upon Tyne).When Lindley & Hutton published Zamia gigas, it applied to aspecimen of a large leaf. Later on, also in various other localities inYorkshire, this kind of leaf was found, now and then also associatedwith flowers (and/or stems) supposedly belonging to the same plant.This connection was already made by Young & Bird (Geol. Surv.Yorkshire, t. 2, fig. 2 & 6. 1822) from Saltwick ironstone: fig. 2 ofa leaf and fig. 6 of what they mentioned as “Apparently the head ofthe plant No. 2.” They did not yet publish a name for this species.A thorough investigation of specimens from the YorkshireCoast was carried out by Williamson (in Trans. Linn. Soc. London26: 663–674, t. 52–53. 1870) and Carruthers (in Trans. Linn. Soc.London 26: 675–691. 1870), see Prop. 2791, above. They concludedthat leaves and female or male flowers (and/or stem fragments)clearly belonged together, and they adopted the name Williamsoniagigas (Lindl. & Hutton) Carruth. for the species.Harris (Yorkshire Jurass. Fl. 3: 122. 1969) was the first whoused the term “type”, in his separation of fossil leaves from fossilflowers, citing for Williamsonia “Type Species: Williamsonia gigasCarruthers in part (female flower only).” He also wrote “It wasNathorst (1909) who, while accepting the whole plant with Zamitesleaves, used the name Williamsonia in its modern sense for flowersalone, and I here restrict it still further to the female flower for reasonsVersion of Record 1377TAXON 69 (6) • December 2020: 1376–1378 Zijlstra & al. • (2791–2792) Conserve Williamsonia and W. gigas T.M. Harrisgiven below.” As noted in Prop. 2791 (above) Harris (l.c. 1969: 124)had already designated a lectotype for it, the specimen figured byWilliamson on t. 52, fig. 4; this is housed in the Yorkshire Museum(see type citation above).Lindley & Hutton (Foss. Fl. Gr. Brit. 3: t. 165, p. [45]–46. 1835)described a large fossil leaf as Zamia gigas since its leaflets stronglyresemble those of the “modern Zamias”. They did not mention anexact locality, only that it came from “the Oolitic rocks of Scarbor-ough” – an indication that in those times was regularly used for theentire Yorkshire coast. In the Great North Museum: Hancock inNewcastle (formerly the Hancock Museum), there is in the Lindley& Hutton collection a specimen that strongly resembles that illustra-tion, even though it is not fully identical. In those times, when photog-raphy was still being developed, a drawing was regularly composedfrom a few specimens that would explain the slight discrepancies.Consequently, we designate above the specimen G11.93 fromWhitby,housed in that museum, as the neotype of Zamia gigas (Fig. 1).If this proposal is accepted, Williamsonia gigas T.M. Harriswill not only become a legitimate name, but the various confusingliterature authorships for ‘W. gigas’ can be forgotten; e.g., Dijkstra(in Foss. Cat., Pars Pl. 64: 3593. 1966) presented it asW. gigas “(Wil-liamson) Carruth.”, whereas Van Amerom (in Foss. Cat., Pars Pl. 93:890. 1988) presented it asW. gigas “(Lindl. &Hutton) Carruth.”; otherauthors, e.g., Popa (in Palaeobiol. Palaeoenv. 94: 330. 2014), still haveit asW. gigas “Carruth. 1870”.Author informationGZ, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9894-9967JHAvKvC, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5833-3439AcknowledgementsWe thank Ms Sylvia Humphrey M.Sc., assistant Keeper ofGeology, Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums (that manage theGreat North Museum: Hancock), Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K. forproviding us with the photograph of the Zamita gigas specimen thatnow becomes the neotype of this species name. We are grateful toJohn McNeill (Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, Scotland) for hisvaluable improvements to this proposal.Fig. 1. Specimen NEWHM:G11.93, neotype of Zamia gigas,from Whitby, strongly resemblingthe specimen illustrated by Lindley& Hutton (Foss. Fl. Gr. Brit. 3:t. 165. 1835). Ruler 25 cm. (Photo-graph courtesy of the Great NorthMuseum: Hancock and the NaturalHistory Society of Northumbria.)1378 Version of RecordZijlstra & al. • (2791–2792) Conserve Williamsonia and W. gigas T.M. Harris TAXON 69 (6) • December 2020: 1376–1378

(2791–2792) Proposals to conserve the name Williamsonia with a conserved type and W. gigas T.M. Harris against W. gigas (Lindl. & Hutton) Carruth. (fossil Cycadophyta: Bennettitales)

(2791–2792) Proposals to conserve the name Williamsonia with a conserved type and W. gigas T.M. Harris against W. gigas (Lindl. & Hutton) Carruth. (fossil Cycadophyta: Bennettitales)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Utrecht University Repository