Littorella flexuosa Raf., New Fl. 4: 12-13. 1838 [incorrectly given as 1836], nom. rej. prop.Typus: non designatus. Littorella subgenus Xamotris Raf., New Fl. 4: 12. 1838 [incorrectly given as 1836], nom. rej. prop.Lectotypus (designated here): Littorella flexuosa Raf. In accordance to Art. 56.1, we believe that the best course of action would be to reject the name L. flexuosa, along with Littorella subgenus Xamotris, in order to prevent that a considerably dubious name threaten a well-stablished species name, causing a disadvantageous nomenclatural change.Fil: Hassemer, Gustavo. Universidad de Copenhagen; DinamarcaFil: Moroni, Pablo Daniel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Botánica Darwinion. Academia Nacional de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Instituto de Botánica Darwinion; ArgentinaFil: O'Leary, Nataly Cristina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Botánica Darwinion. Academia Nacional de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Instituto de Botánica Darwinion; Argentin

Hassemer, Gustavo

Moroni, Pablo Daniel

O'Leary, Nataly Cristina

Taxon

English

Moroni, Pablo

O'Leary, Nataly

Copenhagen University Research Information System

(2625) Proposal to reject the name <em>Littorella spicata</em> (<em>Plantaginaceae</em>)

CONICET Digital

648 Version of RecordTAXON 67 (3)	•	June 2018: 648(2625) Proposal to reject the name Littorella spicata (Plantaginaceae)Gustavo Hassemer,1 Pablo Moroni2 & Nataly O’Leary21	 Statens Naturhistoriske Museum, Københavns Universitet, Sølvgade 83 S, 1307 Copenhagen, Denmark2	 Instituto de Botánica Darwinion, Labardén 200, CC 22, B1642HYD, San Isidro, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaAuthor for correspondence: Gustavo Hassemer, gustavonaha@gmail.comDOI https://doi.org/10.12705/673.29(2625)	Littorella spicata	Rojas	Acosta,	Cat.	Hist.	Nat.	Corrientes:	175.	1897	[Angiosp.:	Plantagin.],	nom.	utique	rej.	prop.Typus: non designatus.Nicolás	Rojas	Acosta	(1873–1947)	was	a	botanist	from	Corrientes	Province,	north-eastern	Argentina,	who	made	important	contributions	to the knowledge of the natural history of north-eastern Argentina, especially	of	medicinal	plants	in	the	area	(Polich	de	Calvo,	Hombres	Mujeres	Chaco.	1996).	Nevertheless,	the	nomenclatural	and	taxonomic	situation of many names that he published remains problematic, which is	especially	relevant	because	some	of	these	names	have	priority	over	names in current use. To complicate things further, the authorship of	the	species	described	by	Nicolás	Rojas	Acosta	is	very	frequently	confused with that of the Paraguayan botanist Teodoro Rojas Vera (1877–1954).Our	nomenclatural	revision	of	Littorella	P.J.	Bergius	has	evi-denced that the only species name that Rojas published under this generic name (L. spicata	Rojas	Acosta,	Cat.	Hist.	Nat.	Corrientes:	175.	1897)	is	most	probably	not	a	Littorella, but rather a species of Plantago L. Rojas described L. spicata	(original	spelling:	“littorela	spicata”)	providing	a	scant	morphological	description	(“Plantaginácea	de	larga	espiga”	[Plantaginaceae	with	long	spike])	which	nonethe-less would be enough to distinguish the new species from all other Littorella	species,	and	thus	the	name	is	validly	published	(Art.	38.1(a)	of the ICN	–	McNeill	&	al.	in	Regnum	Veg.	154.	2012).	No	information	was	given	on	original	material,	except	the	implicit	suggestion	(due	to	the	title	of	the	work	in	which	it	was	published)	that	the	species	occurs	in	the	Argentinian	province	of	Corrientes.	No	original	material	for	this name could be located, as is the case with many names published by	Rojas	(María	Silvia	Ferrucci,	CTES	Herbarium,	pers.	comm.).	The morphological description included in the protologue is far too ambiguous to ascertain the identity of L. spicata, although it is enough to rule out that this name refers to a Littorella species. This is further supported	by	the	fact	that	there	is	no	evidence	of	the	occurrence	of	any	Littorella species in north-eastern Argentina. It should be noted that Littorella is sometimes subsumed within Plantago (e.g., Linnaeus, Sp.	Pl.:	112–116.	1753;	Rahn	in	Bot.	J.	Linn.	Soc.	120:	145–198.	1996;	Rønsted	&	al.	in	Bot.	J.	Linn.	Soc.	139:	323–338.	2002).Rojas	attributed	the	Spanish	common	name	“Llantén macho” (male	plantain)	to	L. spicata, which indicates that this species would be	relatively	large	and	robust,	which,	in	the	context	of	Plantago would indicate that the species would be perennial. Careful consideration of the	information	given	in	the	protologue	of	L. spicata on its morphol-ogy and distribution indicates that this name could refer to P. australis Lam.	(Tabl.	Encycl.	1:	339.	1792),	P. napiformis	(Rahn)	Hassemer	(in	Phytotaxa	221:	230.	2015:	P. paralias subsp. napiformis Rahn in Bot.	Tidsskr.	60:	56–57.	1964),	or	P. tomentosa	Lam.	(l.c.:	340),	all	of	which	are	perennial	and	have	long	spikes,	are	native	in	north-eastern	Argentina, and belong to Plantago sect. Virginica	Decne.	&	Steinh.	ex	Barnéoud	(see	Rahn	in	Dansk	Bot.	Ark.	30(2):	1–180.	1974).	A	non-native	species	in	the	area,	P. major	L.	(Sp.	Pl.:	112–113.	1753),	also	is	perennial and has long spikes, but being so well-known and readily recognisable	compared	to	the	native	Plantago species in Corrientes, we	do	not	think	that	Rojas	would	have	confused	specimens	of	P. major with an undescribed species. Considering that L. spicata predates P. napiformis	by	118	years,	 the	former	 is	a	potentially	disruptive	name, which could threaten a well-established species name, causing a	disadvantageous	nomenclatural	change.	This	would	be	undesirable	especially	because	of	the	uncertainties	involving	L. spicata due to the	lack	of	original	material.	Despite	the	fact	that	P. napiformis was only	recently	(2015)	elevated	to	species	rank,	this	taxon	has	been	accepted as a subspecies (P. paralias subsp. napiformis, and later P. tomentosa subsp. napiformis)	in	all	taxonomic	works	on	Plantago for	the	region	since	1964	(e.g.,	Rahn,	l.c.	1964:	47–57,	l.c.	1974,	in	Fl.	Fanerog.	Argentina	269:	1–24.	1995;	Hassemer	&	al.	 in	Phytotaxa	221:	226–246.	2015,	278:	141–152.	2016,	316:	1–21.	2017).	Furthermore,	it should be noted that P. napiformis	is	a	very	frequent	species,	with	a rather wide distribution in north-eastern Argentina, Paraguay and south-western	Brazil,	and	is	commonly	used	as	a	medicinal	plant	by	people	living	in	its	distribution	range	(pers.	obs.).Considering	all	of	the	above,	and	with	the	objective	of	promot-ing	nomenclatural	stability	in	accordance	to	Art.	56.1,	we	believe	that the best course of action would be to reject outright the name Littorella spicata.	Acceptance	of	this	proposal	would	prevent	the	possibility that a new combination for L. spicata in Plantago could become the correct name for the currently accepted P. napiformis. Rejection of this proposal would mean that the name P. napiformis could be threatened by L. spicata.AcknowledgementsThanks	are	due	to	María	Silvia	Ferrucci	(CTES)	for	providing	important	information	on	Rojas,	and	to	John	McNeill	for	greatly	contributing	to	improve	this	proposal.Hassemer & al. • (2625) Reject Littorella spicata

(2625) Proposal to reject the name Littorella spicata (Plantaginaceae)

LAReferencia - Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas Latinoamericanas

https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/bitstream/11336/149876/2/CONICET_Digital_Nro.2bdd6f43-a9b8-42bc-8c6f-1701a6e76464_A.pdf

(2625) Proposal to reject the name Littorella spicata (Plantaginaceae)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Copenhagen University Research Information System

CONICET Digital

LAReferencia - Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas Latinoamericanas