176176 Version of Record (identical to print version).

(2117) Proposal to conserve the name Pabstiella against Phloeophila (Orchidaceae)

Guy R. Chiron1 & Cassio van den Berg2

1 Herbiers, Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, 9 rue Dubois, 69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France2 Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Departamento Ciências Biológicas, Av. Transnordestina s.n.,

44036-900 Feira de Santana-BA, BrazilAuthor for correspondence: Guy R. Chiron, g.r.chiron@wanadoo.fr

(2117) Pabstiella Brieger & Senghas in Orchidee (Hamburg) 27: 195. 1976 [Monocot.: Orchid.], nom. cons. prop.Typus: Pabstiella mirabilis (Schltr.) Brieger & Senghas (Pleu-rothallis mirabilis Schltr.).

(=) Phloeophila Hoehne & Schltr. in Arch. Bot. São Paulo 1: 199. 1926, nom. rej. prop.Typus (vide Garay in Orquideologia 9: 117. 1974): Phloeophila paulensis Hoehne & Schltr.

The name Phloeophila was originally proposed to accommodate two species, P. echinantha (Barb. Rodr.) Hoehne & Schltr. and a new species described at the time, P. paulensis. The authors did not choose a type in the original publication. However both species names are nowadays treated as synonyms of P. nummularia (Rchb. f.) Garay. The generic circumscription was first enlarged by Garay (in Orquideologia 9: 118. 1974), who transferred to it eight additional species and desig-nated P. paulensis as type of the generic name. Luer (in Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 20: 17. 1986) treated Phloeophila species as members of a section of Pleurothallis subg. Acianthera, adding one extra species. Based on their extensive molecular phylogenetic study (Pridgeon & al. in Amer. J. Bot. 88: 2286. 2001), Pridgeon & Chase (in Lindleyana 16: 235. 2001) resurrected the genus and transferred to it all the species treated by Luer in the above section as well as further spe-cies that were recognized in the genera Luerella Braas and Ophidion

Luer. Despite these transfers, Pridgeon & al. (l.c.) included in their analysis only one taxon from each of these groups, and none of the taxa associated with the type (P. echinantha, P. nummularia or P. paulen-sis). Besides, half of the species transferred to Phloeophila by Garay (l.c.) were embedded in this analysis in Acianthera. Luer (in Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 105: 191. 2006) accepted Phloeophila, however with only four species, in addition to the genera Luerella and Ophidion.

In their work on phylogenetic relationships in Brazilian Pleuro-thallidinae, Chiron & al. (in Phytotaxa 46: 34. 2012) included two extra species of Phloeophila sensu Pridgeon & Chase (l.c.): P. num-mularia and P. bradei (Schltr.) Garay. Neither of them falls into the Phloeophila group as defined by these authors. Phloeophila bradei has already been accommodated in a new genus (Chiron in Richardi-ana 12: 78. 2012) and P. nummularia, of which the type of Phloeophila (P. paulensis) is a synonym, falls within the genus Pabstiella. The lat-ter species is represented by two different samples and both are sister taxa, deeply embedded within various successive nodes of Pabstiella with good bootstrap support.

Pabstiella was proposed as a monotypic genus to accommodate Pleurothallis mirabilis Schltr., characterized by a very long column foot and an elongate mentum. Luer (l.c. 1986: 47) accommodated P. mirabilis in a subgenus of Pleurothallis and the genus was forgot-ten. Pridgeon & Chase (l.c.) found that two of their taxa formed a clade

TAXON 62 (1) • February 2013: 176–177Chiron & Van den Berg • (2117) Conserve Pabstiella

“definitely included” (as qualified in Art. 52.2) in the protologue of the former. In the absence of a holotype or any syntypes, or any previously designated type (and in 1753 I. xiphium had none of these) Art. 52.2 states that inclusion of the type of an earlier name requires “citation of the name itself or any name homotypic at that time …” In association with his X. vulgare, Miller (l.c. 1768) did not cite any other name (as defined in Art. 6.3) or any specimen, and therefore X. vulgare is clearly legitimate. [Although not relevant for names of species Miller did not even include all elements from which types might be sought since he assigned three of them to another species, X. latifolium.] This appar-ently parallels the case of legitimacy of Plantago indica L. under Art. 52.2, which was favourably voted by the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants (cf. Brummitt in Taxon 58: 281. 2009).

Xiphion vulgare does certainly represent at least part of Iris xiph-ium, as deduced from the shared synonymy, but that does not make the name illegitimate. Crespo (l.c.: 56) has, however, recently lecto-typified I. xiphium by the only element of original material, “Herb. Clifford: 20, Iris: 12” (BM 000557649), which absolutely makes the two names taxonomic synonyms. Consequently, should the Linnaean I. xiphium be transferred to Xiphion on the basis of its priority, the yet to be published and perhaps undesirable paratautonymic new

combination, “Xiphion xiphium (L.) Xxx”, would be needed. This would be most disruptive, threatening the currently well-established X. vulgare. Therefore, for the reasons set out before and because this name is being accepted in the forthcoming account of Iridaceae for Flora iberica vol. 20 (http://www.floraiberica.es/floraiberica/texto/imprenta/tomoXX/20_185_00_IRIDACEAE.pdf), we formally pro-pose to conserve X. vulgare (Art. 14.1 & 14.2) against I. xiphium, which is perhaps the best choice both to avoid the real threat of eventual disadvantageous nomenclatural changes and to best serve stability of nomenclature. Because of the existence of the heterotypic Iris vulgaris Pohl (Tent. Fl. Bohem. 1: 46. 1809), generally considered a synonym of I. germanica L., acceptance of the present proposal would not pre-clude the use of I. xiphium when Xiphion is included in Iris, whereas failure to accept would create a permanent and unnecessary threat to Miller’s generally accepted name, which would be highly undesirable.

AcknowledgementsJohn McNeill (RBG Edinburgh) is, as always, thanked for his

nomenclatural advice and help. This research was partly supported by Flora iberica project, parts VIII and IX (CGL2008-02982-C03 and CGL2011-28613-C03-01), from the Spanish Government.

177177Version of Record (identical to print version).

(2118) Proposal to conserve Torricellia with that spelling (Cornaceae / Torricelliaceae)

James L. Reveal1 & Kanchi N. Gandhi2

1 Department of Plant Biology, Cornell University, 412 Mann Building, Ithaca, New York 14853-4301, U.S.A.2 Harvard University Herbaria, 22 Divinity Ave, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.Author for correspondence: James L. Reveal, jlr326@cornell.edu

(2118) Torricellia DC., Prodr. 4: 257. 1830 (‘Toricellia’), nom. et orth. cons. prop.Typus: T. tiliifolia DC. (‘tiliaefolia’)

The generic name “Toricellia” was proposed by A.P. de Candolle (l.c.) to honor Italian physicist and mathematician Evangelista Torri-celli (1608–1647), best known for his discovery of the principle of the barometer and the successor to Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) as professor of mathematics at the University of Pisa. There is no ambiguity as to whom Candolle intended to honor: “dicavi cl. physico Toricelli, qui Barometri inventione montium mensurationem praeparavit et ideò de Geographiâ botanicâ benè meritus est”. Likewise, there is no question as to how Torricelli spelled his name (e.g., Torricelli, Opera geometrica, 1644) as there are several extant manuscripts and contemporary refer-ences to his name (Baroncelli in Nuncius Ann. Storia Sci. 8: 601–606. 1993; Jervis-Smith, Evangelista Torricelli, 1908; Robinson in Math. Gaz. 78: 37–47. 1994). Nor, too, should there have been any confusion on Candolle’s part about the spelling given the contemporary literature (e.g., Saumarez, Princ. Physiol. Phys. Sci., 1822), although on occasions Torricelli’s name was spelled with a single “ r ” (e.g., Zeiher in Novi Comm. Acad. Sci. Imp. Petrop. 8: 274–278. 1763, as “Toricelliano”).

The early spellings of the plant name varied: Toricellia by G. Don (Gen. Hist. 3: 388. 1834); Spach (Hist. Nat. Vég. 8: 113. 1839); Endlicher (Ench. Bot.: 393. 1841); Reichenbach (Deut. Bot. Herb.-Buch: 143. 1841); C.B. Clarke (in Hooker, Fl. Brit. Ind. 2: 748. 1879) and Torricel-lia by Wight & Arnott (Prodr. Fl. Ind. Orient. 1: 376. 1834), Lindley (Nat. Syst.: 25. 1836, but see the index, p. 518; Veg. Kingd.: 780. 1846), Royle (Ill. Bot. Himal. Mts.: 233. 1839), Röper (in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 6: 251, footnote. 1848), Miquel (in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugduno-Batavi 1: 4. 1863), Pfeiffer (Nomencl. Bot. 2(2): 1428. 1873), Baillon (Hist. Pl. 7: 82 1879), Harms (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(8): 250–270. 1898), Kuntze (Lex. Gen.: 679. 1904 who attributed [p. 564]

the correction of the orthography to Lindley), and Wangerin (in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 38: 1–88. 1907; in Engler, Pflanzenr. 41: 1–110. 1910). The last-named author (1910) specifically stated that the generic name was proposed to honor “Dicata physic celeberr. Torricelli” when he revised the genus and proposed Torricellieae as a new tribe (p. 31). Some modern authors, such as Clement (in Grierson & Long (eds.), Fl. Bhutan 2(1): 331. 1991), Manandhar (Pl. & People Nepal: 460. 2002), Xiang & Boufford (in Wu & al. (eds.), Fl. China 14: 233. 2005) used Toricellia. Others, such as Wielgorskaya & Takhtajan (Dict. Gen. Names Seed Pl.: 538. 1995), Smitinand & Larsen (Fl. Thailand 9(1): 7. 2005), Heywood (Fl. Pl. Fam. World: 322. 2007), Mabberley (Pl.-Book, ed. 3: 863. 2008), Gledhill (Names Pl.: 382. 2008), and Friis & al. (Early Fl. Angiosp. Evol.: 386. 2011) have retained Torricellia.

Nomenclatural innovations based on Torricellia have resulted in the establishment of Torricelliaceae Hu (in Bull. Fan Mem. Inst. Biol., Bot. Ser., 5: 311. 1934) and Torricelliales Takht. ex Reveal & Doweld (in Novon 9: 550. 1999).

As shown above, both spellings are in current use. A Google search (on 1 Dec 2012) for Toricellia results in 11,500 hits whereas that for Torricellia shows 40,200, although neither search results (especially the latter) dealt strictly with the plant. When search-ing for Torricellia without Toricellia the number of hits is reduced to 11,200 whereas the opposite shows a mere 3180 hits. Searching Google Scholar, 110 hits are reported for Toricellia while 116 are listed for Torricellia. As of 1 Dec 2012, GRIN (http://www.ars-grin.gov/), Index Nominum Genericorum (http://botany.si.edu/ING/), The Inter-national Plant Names Index (http://www.ipni.org/) and The Plant List (http://www.theplantlist.org/) all list Toricellia, although TROPICOS (http://www.tropicos.org/Home.aspx) accepted both!

Given the confusion in the orthography of this generic name, and the wide use of both spellings in present-day literature, it seems para-mount to establish firmly a single, correct spelling. Article 60.1 of the

TAXON 62 (1) • February 2013: 177–178 Reveal & Gandhi • (2118) Conserve Torricellia

sister to Pleurothallis and gave it the generic name Anthereon. One of these taxa was P. mirabilis, so Anthereon was a superfluous name for Pabstiella and Barros (in Bradea 8: 293. 2002) resurrected Pabsti-ella, transferring to it four additional species. Luer (in Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 112: 119–121. 2007) transferred 68 more taxa, most of them having been allocated in Stelis Sw. by Pridgeon & Chase (l.c.). In the last four years, another 8 new combinations and 20 new species were registered. The results obtained by Chiron & al. (l.c.) confirmed that all these taxa belong to Pabstiella, not to Stelis. The genus is nowadays generally accepted and at least one hundred combinations have already been validly published in it.

Thus, applying the principle of priority would require the transfer of all these Pabstiella species to Phloeophila, thus promoting consid-erable nomenclatural confusion. Moreover, it would not prevent the

need of a new generic name to accommodate the ten “Phloeophila” species, as defined by Pridgeon & Chase (l.c.), which would have to be transferred to Luerella, and in the end only the name Phloeophila nummularia would remain unchanged. Besides, the application of the name Phloeophila has become extremely confusing: P. bradei is a Sansonia—P. asaroides, P. cryptantha, P. hystrix, P. pubescens are Acianthera—P. pelecaniceps could be a Luerella.

In our opinion, conserving the name Pabstiella against Phloeo-phila—as proposed here under Art. 14.1–2 of the ICN (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012)—presents the following advantages: (1) it would maintain a name that, although more recent, has already been widely used and applied to a monophyletic group; and (2) it would avoid the use of a generic name infrequently used and applied to taxa scattered in various genera.