Caires, C. S. & C. E. B. Proença (2015). Typification of two Neotropical names of Loranthus Jacq. (Loranthaceae). Candollea 70: 197–199. In English, English and French abstracts. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15553/c2015v702a3
The original specimens of Loranthus cucullaris Lam. (≡ Psittacanthus cucullaris (Lam.) G. Don) (Loranthaceae), collected by Jean-Baptiste Leblond, were located in P and the former neotypification proposal for this name is thus rejected. The identity and typification of Loranthus bracteatus Rich, are discussed and this name is considered a nomenclatural synonym of Loranthus cucullaris. The holotype of Loranthus florulentus Rich. (≡ Oryctanthus florulentus (Rich.) Tiegh.), also collected by Leblond was found in G.
Introduction
Loranthus bracteatus Rich, and L. cucullaris Lam. (Loranthaceae) were both published in 1792 ( Lamarck, 1792; Richard, 1792). They have already been considered as synonyms by Blume (1830:15), Steudel (1841: 69), Drapiez (1853: 496) and Eichler (1868: 42), whereas Candolle (1830), Don (1834) and Schultes & Schultes (1829: 161) treated L. bracteatus as “incertae sedis”. However, none of these authors indicated the types for those names. Richard (1792: 107) in his “Catalogus Plantarum” based on collections made by jean-Baptiste Leblond in French Guiana further published a second Loranthus Jacq.: L. florulentus Rich.
During taxonomic work aiming to understand the systematics and the nomenclature of those names, a critical review of the bibliography (using online libraries) and the historical herbarium collections available (type specimens were obtained through online herbaria, e.g. B, B-W, BM, F, G, MA, MO, P and P-LAM) allow us to address the typification of those names.
Loranthus bracteatus is confirmed as a synonym of L. cucullaris and confrontation of protologues and type collections confirmed that the two species are based on the same Leblond collection but very likely on two different duplicates housed respectively in the Geneva herbarium (G) and in the Lamarck herbarium in Paris (P-LAM). A lectotype is therefore designated for L. cucullaris. Only one collection of Leblond has been found linked to the second species described by Richard in 1792, L. florulentus, and this specimen housed at G is hence considered as the holotype. Previous typifications of those names by Kuijt (1976, 2009) are also discussed in the context of the new findings presented here.
Nomenclature
Loranthus cucullaris Lam. in J. Hist. Nat. 1: 444. June 1792.
— Psittacanthus cucullaris (Lam.) Blume in Schultes & Schultes f., Syst. Veg. 7(2): 1730. 1830 [nom. nud.].
≡ Psittacanthus cucullaris (Lam.) G. Don, Gen. Hist. 3: 416. 1834.
≡ Apodina cucullaris (Lam.) Tiegh. in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 42: 353. 1895.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loc., 1792, J. B. Leblond s.n. (P-LAM [P00381778] image seen; isolecto-: P-LAM [P00381777] image seen, G [G00308092] image seen).
≡ Loranthus bracteatus Rich, in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. October 1792.
Typus: French Guiana: sine loc., 1792, J. B. Leblond s.n. (holo-: G [G00308092] image seen).
Notes. — Loranthus cucullaris was described in the first volume of the “Journal d'Histoire Naturelle” by Lamarck (1792: 444) on June 15th 1792 (Gandhi, pers. comm.) based on a plant from “Cayennas” [French Guiana] collected by Leblond. No specimens of Leblond were found in the general herbarium at P but two specimens [P00381777, P00381778] identified as L. cucullaris were, found in the historical Lamarck herbarium (P-LAM). These specimens are clearly annotated as collected in French Guiana by Leblond. These specimens further include drawings that are similar to the illustration published by Lamarck (1792: tab. 23).
Richard (1792) described L. bracteatus in the same year based on a Leblond collection from “Cayennas”. Richard's main herbarium is deposited at P and several Leblond specimens were acquired when the Franqueville and Drake del Castillo herbaria were incorporated into P and are now in the general P herbarium but according to Stafleu & Cowan (1983: 764), the botanical specimens collected by Leblond and described by Richard are now deposited at G through the Ventenat herbarium bought by Benjamin Delessert in 1809 ( Stafleu & Cowan, 1983: 700). One specimen found at G collected by Leblond in French Guiana is identified as L. bracteatus [G00308092]. This collection bears a label referring to the number “221” but further investigations at G show that this numbering is clearly “post facto” and has nothing to do with Leblond (Callmander, pers. comm.) and will therefore be here referred to as Leblond s.n.
Besides the evidence from the putative type specimen, the diagnoses are also remarkably similar. It is now clear that both names were based on the same material, collected in French Guiana by Leblond but very likely not on the same duplicates and therefore both validly published. Since the specimens were first shipped to Paris to the members of the “Société Botanique de Paris”, Lamarck and Richard, both members, probably described a species in the same genus independently. Since both were published in the same year, the next task was to establish precedence. The first volume of the “Actes de La Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris” was published in October 1792 ( Stafleu, 1963). This establishes precedence of L. cucullaris over L. bracteatus.
In his treatment of Psittacanthus cucullaris, the currently accepted name for both Loranthus cucullaris and L. bracteatus, Kuijt (2007: 46; 2009: 139) designated the neotype Lindeman et al. 651 in the absence of the Leblond collection at P. It is curious that the neotype was designated two times, respectively at US in 2007 and NY in 2009. Although we believe that Lindeman et al. 651 clearly represents our species, locating the original type specimen supersedes Kuijt's neotypification. In fact, it is arguable if neotypification was necessary in the first place, in view of the excellence of the illustration in which all the diagnostic characters were clear.
As we are considering that the specimens used by Richard (1792) and Lamarck (1792) are duplicates from the same collection, we designated the P-LAM specimen [P00381778] as the lectotype and consider the other sheet deposited at P-LAM [P00381777] and the one at G as isolectotypes of L. cucullaris. The latter collection [G00308092] should also be considered as the holotype of L. bracteatus.
Loranthus florulentus Rich, in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
≡ Oryctanthus florulentus (Rich.) Tiegh. in Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris) 2: 339. 1896.
Typus: French Guiana: sine loc., 1792, Leblond s.n. (holo-: G [G00308093] image seen).
Notes. — Loranthus florulentus along with all the species described by Richard in 1792 was based on a Leblond collection. Kuijt (1976: 515) accepted as possible type specimens at P bearing the annotation “J. A. Richard herbarium Guyanum Antillarum”. As Kuijt (1976: 515) correctly pointed out, one of them, that originated from the Drake herbarium with the note “Leprieur. 1840” [P05455496] could not be taken into account. Two other specimens from the Richard herbarium [P05455464, P05455472] make no mention of Leblond but just of “Cayenne”.
However, Kuijt (1976: 517) did cite the G collection Leblond 222 in the examined material. This specimen clearly represents the type material of L. florulentus and should be cited as Leblond s.n. for the reasons mentioned above. This specimen should be considered the holotype of L. florulentus Rich. For a complete list of synonyms, see Kuijt (1976: 515).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank curators of the herbaria consulted, particularly G and P that kindly searched their collections at our request. C. S. Caires thanks CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior) for funding a Doctoral fellowship to the “Programa de Pós-Graduação em Botânica”, Universidade de Brasília. The authors thank Kanchi N. Gandhi for his kind help in getting information on dates of publication and Martin Callmander for suggestions on an earlier draft that improved this paper and relevant information in the G herbarium.
