Introduction

Early authors of plant names often noted only the origin of the plants they described, without specifying any type (holotype). They very often described the taxon from several gatherings or made duplicates and distributed to several herbaria. For all those names, unless it can be demonstrated that there exist only ‘a single specimen conserved in one herbarium’ (ICN2018 Art. 8.1; McNeill et al. 2018), a lectotype must be selected. After 1990 a holotype must be specified for a name to be validly published and the need to select any lectotypes for newer names do not exist unless it can be demonstrated that the selected holotype consists of several taxa.

Before 1 January 2001, the mention of a ‘type’ or ‘holotype’ citing a single gathering can be accepted as a lectotypification, but after that date a statement as ‘lectotype here designated’ or equivalent is required (ICN2018 Art. 7.11).

It can be difficult to trace all possible type material among the world's herbaria, and if the original publication does not state what the holotype is, it is best to lectotypify the name. If only one possible type is known to the typifying author, but it cannot be out ruled that there exist more material not traced, the ‘best practice’ recommended by McNeill (2014) should be followed and a statement like ‘lectotype here designated, if not a holotype’ would permanently attach the name to a single specimen, irrespective of if more possible type material will be found later or not. See also Renner (2021) for further discussion on typification.

Uribe (2008) ‘selected’ a ‘holotype’ of Frullania convoluta Lindenb. et Hampe and mentioned several ‘isotypes’. However, since Lindenberg and Hampe (in Hampe 1851) did not select any holotype and there exists type material in several herbaria, a lectotype must be chosen. Uribe’s use of the term ‘holotype’ cannot be taken as an inadvertent lectotypification as it is after 2001. Thus, we here formally designate the specimen as a lectotype.

Herzog (1951) described Frullania convoluta var. ampliata Herzog from seven gatherings and Frullania piliflora Steph. var. appendiculata Herzog from two gatherings collected by P. C. Standley in Costa Rica. The taxa have never been mentioned since then and never formally lectotypified or synonymized. Material of the syntypes exists at least in JE and US and we here lectotypify the two names. We tentatively synonymize the two names with species in the Frullania convoluta/peruviana complex, although the whole complex needs further studies, preferably also molecular, to separate the taxa.

When Stephani described Frullania herzogiana Steph. (1911: 673) he only mentioned ‘Bolivia, Rio blanco’ as type locality. Later he described Frullania herzogiana Steph. (1916: 246) again mentioning a Herzog specimen ‘Tablas, 3400 m, no. 2829’ as the only specimen. Beauverd described Frullania controversa Beauv. in Stephani (1924: 549) basing his new species on ‘F. Herzogiana St. mss., non Sp. Hep. IV [1911] 673’ giving ‘Bolivia (Herzog legit)’ as a possible type specimen. The latter has been taken as a new name for Frullania herzogiana Steph. (1916). None of those names seems to have been typified before. Uribe (2008) confused the two names and synonymized them with Frullania convoluta Steph. However, the earlier name is different and belongs to Frullania rio-janeirensis (Raddi) Ångstr. (S. R. Gradstein pers. comm.), which is a new synonym.

Formal treatment

Data availability statement

There are no additional data for this paper.