Chaowasku, T.

Chatrou, L.W.

Zijlstra, G.

English

Wageningen Yield 

2TAXON 19 September 2011: 4 pp.Chaowasku & al. • (2029) Conserve Meiogyne
(2029) Proposal to conserve the name Meiogyne against Fitzalania (Annonaceae)
Tanawat Chaowasku,1 Gea Zijlstra2 & Lars W. Chatrou3
1 Netherlands Center for Biodiversity Naturalis (section NHN), Leiden University, P.O. Box 9514, 2300 RA Leiden, Netherlands
2 Utrecht University, Laboratory of Palaeobotany & Palynology, Budapestlaan 4, 3584 CD Utrecht, Netherlands
3 Wageningen University, Biosystematics group, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, Netherlands
Author for correspondence: Tanawat Chaowasku, cyathostemma@yahoo.com
(2029) Meiogyne Miq. in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugduno-Batavi 2: 12. 
23 Mar 1865 [Annon.], nom. cons. prop.
Typus: M. virgata (Blume) Miq. (Unona virgata Blume)
(=) Fitzalania F. Muell., Fragm. 4: 33. Oct. 1863, nom. rej. prop.
Typus: F. heteropetala (F. Muell.) F. Muell. (Uvaria het-
eropetala F. Muell.)
Meiogyne Miq. is a well-known genus of Asian Annonoceae 
with 17 species presently recognized (Van Heusden in Blumea 38: 
487–511. 1994; Van Heusden in Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., B, Adan-
sonia 18: 77–81. 1996; Jessup in Wilson, Fl. Australia 2: 51–55. 2007; 
Turner in Malayan Nat. J. 61: 247–249. 2009). The number of species 
of Meiogyne, however, will surely increase as there are several new 
species to be described (D.M. Johnson, pers. comm). The genus is 
found from India through southeast Asia to northern Australia, New 
Caledonia, and Fiji (Van Heusden, l.c. 1994, l.c. 1996). Several genera 
(Ancana F. Muell., Chieniodendron Tsiang & P.T. Li, Guamia Merr., 
Oncodostigma Diels, Polyaulax Backer) have been synonymised with 
Meiogyne on the basis of gross morphology (Van Heusden, l.c. 1994). 
Meiogyne, including the synonymized genera, exhibits a corrugated 
or grooved area at the base of the inner side of the inner petals (Van 
Heusden, l.c. 1994; Jessup, l.c.). Moreover, the apex of those stamens 
located in the inner whorls (near the carpels) is usually more elongated 
than those located in the outer whorls (Van Heusden in Blumea Suppl. 
7: 98–103. 1992; Jessup, l.c.). These two important features also occur 
in Fitzalania F. Muell., an Australian endemic genus with two species 
(Van Heusden, l.c. 1992: 108–109; Jessup, l.c.: 45–46). However, the 
colour and appearance of the (inner) petals of Fitzalania (very dark 
purple and more or less boat-shaped) are somewhat different from 
those of Meiogyne and hence are the main reasons to still recognize 
this genus morphologically (Jessup, l.c.: 45–46). In addition, one of 
the two species of Fitzalania, F. bidwillii (Benth.) Jessup & al., pos-
sesses sepal-like outer petals, resembling those of Heteropetalum 
Benth. (now included in Guatteria Ruiz & Pav.), Marsypopetalum 
Scheff. p.p., Miliusa Lesch. ex A. DC., Phaeanthus Hook. f. & Thom-
son, Piptostigma Oliv., and Polyalthia Blume sensu stricto p.p.
Recent molecular phylogenetic analyses have shown that Fit-
zalania is nested within Meiogyne, a relationship that is strongly sup-
ported (Mols & al. in Mols, From Miliusa to Miliuseae to Miliusoid, 
(Ph.D. thesis, Leiden University): 45–46. 2004). This finding is also 
genus Cestichis has the same type as Stichorkis sensu Szlachetko & 
al. and 61 new combinations in Cestichis have been proposed recently 
(Jones & Clements in Orchadian 15: 33–42. 2005).
(2) Szlachetko & al.’s concept of Stichorkis is at odds with the 
concept of Stichorkis as described in a recent, major reference work on 
Orchidaceae (Pridgeon & al., l.c.), and will therefore cause confusion.
(3) Stichorkis sensu Rasmussen is a well-defined, monophyletic 
group, corresponding to Liparis sect. Distichae. Judging from the 
more than 70 new combinations they proposed in it, Stichorkis sensu 
Szlachetko & al. is an ill-defined, paraphyletic or even polyphyletic 
group, as inferred from the molecular phylogeny of Liparis and related 
genera by Cameron (in Amer. J. Bot. 92: 1025–1032. 2005).
(4) Recognition of Stichorkis sensu Szlachetko & al. necessi-
tated the establishing of a new genus for Stichorkis sensu Rasmus-
sen: Disticholiparis Marg. & Szlach., in which no less than 38 new 
combinations were published (Margonska & Szlachetko in Orchidee 
(Hamburg) 55: 175–179. 2004), apparently without critically evaluat-
ing the many extremely similar, problematic species.
(5) The genus name of Stichorkis sensu Szlachetko & al. refers 
to a character state (“flowers arranged in ranks”) which its species 
do not possess; only in Stichorkis sensu Rasmussen are the flowers 
clearly arranged in (two) ranks.
(6.) Epidendrum cespitosum was described by Lamarck based 
on a fruiting specimen without flowers. However, the protologue of 
Stichorkis describes the flowers, while stating about the vegetative 
parts only that they are small and “singular”, with no mention of the 
fruits. Therefore, the type specimen of Epidendrum cespitosum can 
hardly be considered to be the type of Stichorkis in any practical 
sense. When Thouars published Malaxis cespitosa (and Stichorkis 
cestichis) in 1822, he illustrated his own, flowering material.
On these grounds, we consider it desirable that Stichorkis be 
conserved with the type proposed by Rasmussen (l.c.), S. disticha 
(Thouars) Pfitzer (basionym: Malaxis disticha Thouars). Rasmussen’s 
lectotypification was well considered and argued, and in agreement 
with the then valid (Leningrad) Code (Stafleu & al. in Regnum Veg. 
97. 1978) when it was proposed in 1979. Major changes in the perti-
nent part of the Code followed the report of the Special Committee 
on Generic Typification (McNeill in Taxon 30: 200–207. 1981) and 
subsequent readjustments made at the Berlin Congress in 1987. It 
is the retroactivity of the changes in Art. 10 in the later Codes that 
makes our proposal necessary.
It should be noted that we regard Stichorkis distichis Thouars as 
an alternative name that, by Art. 11.5, was implicitly rejected when 
Lindley (in Bot. Reg.: sub t. 882. 1825) chose Malaxis disticha as a ba-
sionym for Liparis disticha (Thouars) Lindl. The epithet distichis was 
deliberately formed by Thouars according to his reformed system; it 
is, in our opinion, not to be regarded as a mere orthographic variant 
of disticha. Therefore, S. distichis Thouars and S. disticha (Thouars) 
Pfitzer are two distinct names; the latter is thus not superfluous.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to John McNeill for his expert advice on no-
menclatural issues.
3TAXON 19 September 2011: 4 pp. Knapp • (2030) Conserve Solanum torvum
(2030) Proposal to conserve the name Solanum torvum (Solanaceae) with a 
conserved type
Sandra Knapp
Department of Botany, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.; s.knapp@nhm.ac.uk
(2030) Solanum torvum Sw., Prodr.: 47. 1788 [Dicot: Solan.], nom. 
cons. prop.
Typus: “Indiae occidentalis”, O. Swartz s.n. (S No. S-R-
5814), typ. cons. prop.
Solanum torvum is the name currently in use for the most wide-
spread non-cultivated species of spiny solanums (subg. Leptostemo-
num); it is found in the Americas, Asia, Australia, and Africa. It is 
thought to be native to the Americas and introduced and naturalized 
elsewhere (Nee, Solanaceae IV: 326. 1999). Solanum torvum is cul-
tivated as the “pea-eggplant” in southeast Asia, and is commonly 
known as “turkey berry” or “devil’s fig” in the United States. The 
name has been in wide and consistent use in local, national and re-
gional floristic works (e.g., Schulz in Urban, Symb. Antill. 6: 236. 
1909; Adams, Fl. Pl. Jamaica: 656. 1972; D’Arcy in Ann. Missouri 
Bot. Gard. 60: 708. 1973; Heine in Aubreville, Fl. Nouv.-Calédonie & 
Dépend. 7: 168. 1976; Symon in J. Adelaide Bot. Gard. 4: 115. 1981; 
Troupin & Bridson, Fl. Pl. Lign. Rwanda: 654, 658. 1982; Whalen in 
Gentes Herb. 12: 237. 1984; Symon in J. Adelaide Bot. Gard. 8: 152. 
1985; Troupin, Fl. Rwanda 3: 375. 1985; Nee in Fl. Veracruz 72: 135. 
1993; Zhang & al. in Fl. China 17: 321. 1994; Knapp in Jørgenson & 
León-Yanez (eds.), Cat. Vasc. Pl. Ecuador 917. 1999; Balick & al. in 
Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 85: 126. 2000; White & al., Evergreen 
Forest Fl. Malawi: 554. 2001; Gonçalves in Exell & Wild, Fl. Zambes. 
8(4): 116. 2005). Solanum torvum is also used in the USDA Natu-
ral Resources Conservation Services Plant Database (http://plants
.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SOTO4) and in the USDA Germplasm 
Resources Information Network (http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/
npgs/html/taxon.pl?101441). It is identified as an invasive weed in 
the U.S.A. (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/
weeds/downloads/weedlist-2010doc.pdf) and has been declared 
noxious in the states of Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota and in Puerto Rico (http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/
html/taxon.pl?101441). Solanum torvum is also listed as a weed in 
32 countries and as a serious weed in 7 of these (Holm & al., Geogr. 
Atlas World Weeds, 1979). It has been declared a high-risk invasive 
by the Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) group (http://www
.hear.org/pier/species/solanum_torvum.htm), and is naturalised and 
considered a pest in Queensland (Batianoff & Butler, Pl. Protect. 
Quart. 17: 27–34. 2002). In agriculture, rootstocks of S. torvum are 
grafted to eggplant/aubergine (S. melongena L.) to confer pest resis-
tance, and crosses between the two species are being undertaken in 
order to introduce disease resistance traits into the cultivated plant.
The original publication of S. torvum and its subsequent use in 
Swartz’s Florae Indiae Occidentalis (1797) were both illegitimate, as 
Swartz cited Solanum indicum L. in synonymy. Gooding (Fl. Barba-
dos: 380. 1965) recognised this and used the name S. ficifolium Ortega 
for S. torvum; S. ficifolium is a synonym of S. ferrugineum Jacq., a 
Mexican species of the Torva group. Heine (l.c.) drew attention to the 
illegitimate publication of the name and noted that although the ap-
plication of S. torvum had never been in question, he could not resolve 
the situation in the context of his flora account for New Caledonia. 
Hepper (in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 76: 289. 1978) suggested the name was 
in fact not illegitimate but that Swartz was explicitly separating the 
New World elements of Linnaeus’s S. indicum; he cited a letter from 
J. Dandy (BM) to C.V. Morton (US) in which Dandy asserted that the 
use of “26–27” before S. torvum indicated that Swartz was placing 
his species between “26. S. insanum” and “27. S. ferox” in Murray’s 
14th edition of Species Plantarum, and apart from “32. S. indicum”. 
Although this explanation is quite plausible, there is no internal evi-
dence in Swartz’s Prodromus (1788) that this is the case, although, 
later, Swartz (Fl. Ind. Occ. 1: 457. 1797) appears to have differentiated 
his S. torvum from S. indicum in the observations following the spe-
cies entry by stating “S. indico simillimum, sed differt foliis superne 
confirmed by the authors (in prep.) as part of the first author’s Ph.D. 
study to understand the phylogenetic relationships of genera in one 
of the major clades of Annonaceae. The genera Ancana, Guamia, and 
Polyaulax, which have been included in Meiogyne by Van Heusden 
(l.c. 1994), are also found to be embedded in Meiogyne with strong 
support. Unfortunately, no suitable material of Chieniodendron and 
Oncodostigma is available for DNA extraction. The two species of 
Fitzalania appeared to be sister to each other with maximum sup-
port. Therefore, the different colour and appearance of the (inner) 
petals are a synapomorphy of Fitzalania. The sepal-like outer petals 
of F. bidwillii is apparently an autapomorphy.
The principle of monophyly is pivotal in the classification of An-
nonaceae, and several genera have been re-circumscribed or newly 
described in the recent past. Applying this principle to the situation 
of Meiogyne and Fitzalania would result in the transfer of species of 
Meiogyne to Fitzalania, according to Art. 11.3 of the International 
Code of Botanical Nomenclature (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 
2006), as Fitzalania antedates Meiogyne.
However, there are good reasons to conserve the name Meiogyne 
against Fitzalania. Firstly, the former genus contains many more 
species. Secondly, Meiogyne is better known as it has a considerably 
larger distribution area covering many more countries. Finally, Meio-
gyne has lent its name to a dimeric sesquiterpenoid, meiogynin A, 
isolated from the bark of Meiogyne cylindrocarpa (Burck) Heusden, 
which has significant potential as an anti-cancer agent (Litaudon & 
al. in J. Nat. Prod. 72: 480–483. 2009; Fotsop & al. in J. Org. Chem. 
75: 7412–7415. 2010). Consequently, to maximize the stability of the 
names, it is appropriate to conserve Meiogyne against Fitzalania. 
Whereas at least 17 new combinations would be required if this pro-
posal is not accepted, only two new combinations will be necessary 
(from Fitzalania to Meiogyne) if it is accepted.


(2029) Proposal to conserve the name Meiogyne against Fitzalania (Annonaceae)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wageningen Yield

Utrecht University Repository

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

NARCIS

NARCIS

Name not available