Lectotypification of names of Himalayan Brassicaceae taxa currently placed in the genus Cardamine.

Lectotypes of twenty-eight names of taxa currently recognized or synonymized in Cardamine are designated as part of the work on the account of the genus for the Pan-Himalayan Flora. Among them, the previous first-step lectotypification of the name Cardaminecalthifolia is finalized. In cases when specimen images are available online, stable identifiers for specimens, other permanent links, or links via JSTOR Global Plants are provided.

Introduction

During the work by the last author on the (Cruciferae) account for the Pan-Himalayan Flora (PHF), it became evident that the majority of accepted names and their synonyms in that flora require lectotypification. The present paper focuses on the lectotypification of names of taxa currently placed in L., a genus with 43 species in the PHF.

Materials and methods

Herbarium specimens, especially types and authentic collections, deposited at B, BM, E, F, G, GH, K, LE, MO, NAS, NY, P, US, W, and WU were examined during the past two decades. In cases when specimen images are available online, stable identifiers for specimens (Hyam et al. 2012, Güntsch and Hagedorn 2013, Hagedorn et al. 2013; in the case of specimens from herbaria B, E, K), other permanent links (herbaria W, WU, see JACQ Consortium 2004 onwards; F, MO, P) or links via JSTOR Global Plants (https://plants.jstor.org/; herbaria BM, GH, NY, US) are provided. We suggest that the practice of providing stable indentifiers or other kind of permanent links to images of herbarium specimens should be adopted as standard one for lectotypification papers. It will make eventual registration or evidence of designated types much easier. The bibliographical citations in the original publications and databases such IPNI (The International Plant Names Index; http://ipni.org/), Tropicos (http://www.tropicos.org/), and The Plant List (http://www.theplantlist.org/) were also checked.

In lectotypifying names of taxa, we strictly followed the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (McNeill et al. 2012) and the recommendations recently presented by McNeill (2014). In cases where a single specimen is known that was used by the describing author and no duplicates were found or were not expected to exist, that particular specimens is considered a holotype, provided that it meets the criteria given in the publications above. In cases where one or more duplicates of the type collection exist (or possibly or likely existed) or more than one syntype was cited in the original publication, we first checked the material housed in the institution where the author(s) of the name worked. For example, for taxa described by Adrien René Franchet, Joseph Dalton Hooker, and Otto Eugen Schulz, we first checked the material deposited in the herbaria P, K, and B, respectively. The best of all duplicates that do not contradict the protologue or the guidelines in the Code is designated as the lectotype. If the home institution of the author of the name does not have any original material and no herbarium was cited, we put emphasis on the material annotated by that name author. If none of the above cases applies, the designation was based on the best representative material.

Entries are arranged alphabetically by their basionyms, and names in boldface are those of currently accepted names of taxa. Bibliographic citations are given for all names and only examined and designated lectotypes and their duplicates are listed. Barcode numbers of lectotypes and isolectotypes are given (if available) following the herbarium acronym.

Results

The type status of the following names of taxa is determined, and justifications for their typification is presented.

1.

Franchet (1879) cited only one unnumbered collection, but the only specimens at P that carry the name and exact locality information as given in the protologue are numbered [U. J. or R. P.] Faurie 23. The duplicate annotated with the species name in Franchet’s handwriting is designated here as the lectotype.

2.

A single collection was cited in the protologue of the name, but none of the three duplicates mentioned above carry the species name nor were they annotated by Hector Léveillé. Lauener (1965) indicated that the type is at E, but he did not specify which of the two sheets there is the type, and therefore a second-step lectotypification is provided here.

3.

The K specimen above was collected at an elevation of 5,000 ft, which is in agreement with the protologue, whereas labels of the B and P sheets indicate the elevation of PageBreak6,000‒10,000 ft. It is questionable whether the three specimens above were collected from the same area, and that is why we feel that the B and P specimens are doubtful isolectotypes.

4.

A single collection was cited in the original publication of this species, but the existence of two duplicates of the same collection at P and one in US annotated by Franchet calls for lectotypification, which is done here.

5.

Two collection numbers by William Griffith from Bhutan, Griffith 1360 and Griffith 1756, are mounted on the same sheet at K. The latter collection carries no determination and is attached by two pins to the sheet of the former collection, whereas the lectotype designated here carries Hooker’s determination as “Card. elegantula Hf. & T.”, has well-developed fruits and is represented by duplicates at B and P.

6.

Five duplicates of the type collection of are housed at P, and the most complete specimen with Franchet’s annotation is designated here as the lectotype.

7.

Schulz (1903) listed a single collection in the protologue and cited only the herbarium B. Currently there is only one specimen of this collection at B. Nevertheless, as considerable part of the Berlin herbarium was destroyed in 1943, we cannot exclude that there was originally more than one specimen of this collection at B in the past. To be on the safe side, extant specimen is treated here as “lectotype, or perhaps holotype.”

8.

9.

10.

11.

Hooker and Anderson (1872) divided into four numbered varieties: “1. ”, “2. ”, “3. ”, and “4. ”. The sheets at K are annotated by Hooker as “, Willd.” followed by α, β, γ, and δ. These clearly correspond to the numbers 1 to 4 cited in the above reference, respectively. The sheets best matching the descriptions of the above four varieties are designated as lectotypes.

12.

The more complete specimen of the two P duplicates of the type collection is designated here as the lectotype. There is a single plant on the sheet and it seems that the year on the printed label is either a typing error or the date of accession at P.

13.

Schulz (1903) listed a single collection in the protologue and cited only the herbarium B. Currently there is only one specimen of this collection at B. Nevertheless, as considerable part of the Berlin herbarium was destroyed in 1943, we cannot exclude that there was originally more than one specimen of this collection at B in the past. To be on the safe side, as in the case of the type of the name dealt with above, extant specimen is treated here as “lectotype, or perhaps holotype”. When publishing the name , Hemsley and Wilson (1906: 153), included in the circumscription of the taxon to which it was applied the only element mentioned in the protologue of (namely collection A. E. Pratt 265), making the name illegitimate (under Art. 52 of the Code, McNeill et al. 2012). Therefore, , following the Art. 7.5 of the Code, should be automatically typified by the type of the name .

14.

A single collection was cited by Franchet (1886), and the best duplicate at P that he annotated is designated here as the lectotype.

15.

Schulz (1903) listed a single collection in the protologue and cited only the herbarium B. Currently there is only one specimen of this collection at B. Nevertheless, as considerable part of the Berlin herbarium was destroyed in 1943, we cannot exclude that there was originally more than one specimen of this collection at B in the past. To be on the safe side, as in the case of the type of the names and dealt with above, extant specimen is treated here as “lectotype, or perhaps holotype.”

16.

Although Handel-Mazzetti (1931) cited a single collection of his, no indication was given as to where the type is deposited. We have been unable to find more than two sheets of the type collection, and both carry identical labels in Handel-Mazzetti’s handwriting. The WU sheet is designated as the lectotype.

17.

Schulz (1926) listed a single collection in his description of the species, and the duplicate at B is designated as the lectotype because it was studied and annotated by him.

18.

Smith (1919) cited two collections by George Forrest, those of Forrest 7947 [E! (E00117483 [http://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00117483]), K! (K000697741 [http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000697741])] were examined by us as well. The above lectotype collection is better than the other, and the E sheet was annotated in Smith’s handwriting as “type”, and it carries the original printed label with Forrest’s handwritten locality data. By contrast, label of the K duplicate was typed at some later time.

19.

Two collections were cited by Handel-Mazzetti (1931) in the original description of the species, and all specimens/duplicates studied were annotated by the author/collector of the species/specimens in his handwriting as “ Hand.-Mazt., sp. nova.” Specimen of his own collection is designated here as the lectotype. Annotated specimen of the collection Forrest 13840 was found at W! (W1929-0013606 [http://herbarium.univie.ac.at/database/detail.php?ID=216904]).

20.

Schulz (1903) cited 10 syntype collections under this species and gave the institutional abbreviations where the duplicates are housed. The lectotype was annotated by him, and we have examined its duplicates in other herbaria (K, LE).

21.

Two of Griffith’s collection numbers from Bhutan, Griffith 1757 and 1359, are mounted on the same sheet. The former collection was cut off and mounted on the sheet of the other, and it is the one with Hooker’s annotation as “, Hf & T” that we designate herein as the lectotype.

22.

Schulz (1903) listed one collection and cited the duplicates at B, G, and GH. We have examined all four sheets that he cited, and any of them could have served as the lectotype, but Schulz’s institutional affiliation was the reason to designate the B duplicate as the lectotype.

23.

According to his annotations on the herbarium sheets, both the B and GH sheets were considerd by Schulz (1903) as a mixed collection of the type variety and var. . The latter variety was said to differ by having slightly lobed vs. unlobed leaves, though this variation is quite frequently encountered in almost every population of the species and, therefore, we considered it trivial and not worth of taxonomic classification.

24.

A single collection was cited in the original publication. Of the three duplicates of the type collection at P, two have Delavay’s handwritten label and Franchet’s annotation. The most complete one is designated here as the lectotype.

25.

Franchet (1885) dealt with Delavay’s collections and listed only collection number 65 under the species. The only material at P with Delavay 65 is a unicate of Franch. (P00136633). However, two sheets at P with the exact locality data (Han tchang-kiou, Ho-Kin) but without any collection number carry Franchet’s annotation as “ Franch.,” and both were collected on May 22 (not 27, as in the protologue) of 1884. The sheet with the original hand-written label by Delavay, which carries the name “ Franch.”, is designated herein as the lectotype. There are no other Delavay specimens of or at P that carry the above information and, therefore, it is safe to conclude that Franchet (1885) made mistakes in collection day and number.

26.

According to Stafleu and Cowan (1988: 37‒38), Nathaniel Wallich’s complete set of Himalayan plants is currently deposited at K, and David Don’s types in the “Prodromus florae nepalensis” (Don 1825) that were based on Wallich’s collections were sent to him by Lambert and partially housed at BM. The duplicate at K is the most complete of all that we examined, and it is designated herein as the lectotype.

27.

No collection number was given by Franchet (1886) in the original publication of , and the only collection carrying Franchet’s annotation of the species and collected on the exact date cited in that publication is Delavay 35. That number was cited by Diels (1912) in renaming the species during transferring it to to avoid the creation of a later homonym of , which is an entirely different species. The lectotype is the more complete of the three sheets at P and has five plants mounted on the sheet, together with author’s drawing of details of flowers and fruit.

28.

Six collections of Joseph Dalton Hooker from Sikkim are mounted on two herbarium sheets at K, and they vary in the elevations and dates of collection. The single collection in which the habitat was given is designate herein as the lectotype. The Sikkim duplicates at B and P do not carry the exact elevations and collection dates of the lectotype and, therefore, we are uncertain if they are part of the same collection.