In the Calymperaceae, original collections of ‘new species’ have often included intimately associated material of two or more closely related congeners, which has resulted in the misunderstanding of the taxa involved (see Ellis 2018a, 2018b). Calymperes exlimbatum Müll.Hal. ex Besch. supplies a further example of this phenomenon. In this case, most parts of the original material consisted either largely of Calymperes erosum Müll.Hal. with a few shoots of Calymperes boulayi Besch., or of C. boulayi with a few shoots of C. erosum. This complicates the typification and potentially undermines the hitherto accepted synonymy of C. exlimbatum. For C. exlimbatum, mixed collections were not the only confusing issue. As discussed by Ellis (2018b), Bescherelle (1895), in his pioneering (if flawed, see Edwards 1980) essay on Calymperes, validated several ‘new species’ that had been proposed, but not published by other authorities. His validation of these species, although unusually formatted, included formal citations of their names, citations and descriptions of original material and otherwise usually met the requirements of the nomenclatural code (Turland et al. 2018). Calymperes exlimbatum was one such species, validated by Bescherelle (1895). It had originally been conceived of (but not published) by C. Müller (Halle), and in Bescherelle’s opus appeared as an independent, numbered entity that was described in his key to Calymperes (on p. 267), and formally cited as: ‘73. C. exlimbatum C. Muell. Asie: Ile Andaman merid. (Man) = C. Manii.’ (p. 284). Unfortunately, the final part of this citation introduced an ambiguity. While otherwise presenting C. exlimbatum as a good species, Bescherelle undermined it by the addition to his citation of ‘= C. Manii’. The latter name, Calymperes manii Müll.Hal. ex Besch., was itself presented as a valid new species in the same paper (Bescherelle 1895), described in his key to species (p. 267), and formally cited in his synopsis as ‘72. C. Manii C.Muell. Mss, in herb. Levier’ (p. 291), where no mention was made of C. exlimbatum. Reese et al. (1986) placed Calymperes manii in synonymy with Calymperes erosum Müll.Hal. after examining original material of C. manii held in FH, H, NY and S. Indeed, all other extant original material of C. manii (South Andaman Island, Tytler’s Ghat, leg. Man s.n.) seen by the present author, unambiguously represented C. erosum, with duplicates containing either pure specimens, or C. erosummixed with fragments of moss from completely different genera or families. However, as with C. exlimbatum, the typification of C. manii required attention, and is clarified below. Bescherelle (1895), while alluding to C. exlimbatum and C. manii as being conspecific, failed to make this effectively clear. As a result, if these entities were to be considered as conspecific, no conclusive indication was given by Bescherelle as to which of the names should be accepted for the species. When taking into account the complete work of Bescherelle (1895) his presentation of C. exlimbatum indicated that he accepted the taxon, as he numbered and described it in the same way as other new species of Calymperes originally named by other authors and which he regarded as valid; taxa he regarded as synonyms were not numbered, nor were they described in his synopsis of species or included in his key to the species that he recognised. The inclusion of ‘= C. Manii’ in the otherwise uncontroversial protologue citation for C. exlimbatum, if not just a carelessly introduced anomaly, could be interpreted in the nomenclatural code (Turland et al. 2018, Art. 36.1) as ‘an indication of taxonomic doubt, yet [the species is] accepted by the author’, and this would not invalidate his publication of C. exlimbatum or C. manii. The mixture of congeners in the original collection of C. exlimbatum (including material in Herb. Bescherelle, some derived from the herbarium of C. Müller, Halle), caused an inevitable divergence of opinion with regard to its synonymy, depending on which particular specimen or specimens were seen. Reese et al. (1986) accepted C. exlimbatum as a validly published name (as did Ellis 1989; Menzel and Schultze-Motel 1990; O’Shea 2001), and based on original material in FH and H, placed the name in synonymy with what was cited as ‘Calymperes dozyanum Mitt.’, but actually referred to Calymperes dozyanum sensu M.Fleisch. =

中文翻译：

---

关于 Calymperes erosum Müll.Hal 的两个同义词的典型化的说明。(Calymperaceae) 来自南安达曼岛

在 Calymperaceae 中，“新物种”的原始集合通常包括两个或多个密切相关的同源物的密切关联材料，这导致对所涉及的分类群的误解（参见 Ellis 2018a、2018b）。Calymperes exlimbatum Müll.Hal。前贝施。提供了这种现象的另一个例子。在这种情况下，原始材料的大部分部分主要由 Calymperes erosum Müll.Hal 组成。带有一些 Calymperes boulayi Besch. 的枝条，或带有一些 C. erosum 枝条的 C. boulayi 枝条。这使典型化复杂化，并可能破坏迄今为止公认的 C. exlimbatum 同义词。对于 C. exlimbatum 来说，混合收集并不是唯一令人困惑的问题。正如 Ellis (2018b)、Bescherelle (1895) 在他关于 Calymperes 的开创性文章（如果有缺陷，请参见 Edwards 1980）中所讨论的那样，验证了一些已提出但未由其他权威机构发表的“新物种”。他对这些物种的验证，尽管格式异常，包括对其名称的正式引用、原始材料的引用和描述，否则通常符合命名法的要求（Turland et al. 2018）。Calymperes exlimbatum 就是这样一种物种，由 Bescherelle (1895) 验证。它最初是由 C. Müller (Halle) 构思（但未发表），并且在 Bescherelle 的作品中作为一个独立的编号实体出现，在他的 Calymperes 钥匙（第 267 页）中被描述，并正式引用为： '73。C. exlimbatum C. Muell。Asie：Ile Andaman 子午线。(Man) = C. Manii.' （第 284 页）。不幸的是，此引文的最后部分引入了歧义。而另外呈现 C. 作为一个好的物种，Bescherelle 通过引用“= C. Manii”来破坏它。后一个名称，Calymperes manii Müll.Hal。ex Besch.，在同一篇论文 (Bescherelle 1895) 中作为一个有效的新物种被提出，在他的物种钥匙 (p. 267) 中进行了描述，并在他的概要中正式引用为 '72。C. Manii C.Muell。女士，在草药中。Levier' (p. 291)，其中没有提到 C. exlimbatum。里斯等人。(1986) 将 Calymperes manii 与 Calymperes erosum Müll.Hal 同义。在检查了 FH、H、NY 和 S 保存的 C. manii 原始材料之后。事实上，本文作者看到的所有其他现存的 C. manii 原始材料（南安达曼岛，Tytler's Ghat，leg. Man sn），明确表示C. erosum，带有包含纯标本或 C. erosum 与来自完全不同属或科的苔藓碎片混合。然而，与 C. exlimbatum 一样，C. manii 的典型化需要注意，并在下面澄清。Bescherelle (1895) 虽然暗示 C. exlimbatum 和 C. manii 是同种的，但未能有效地阐明这一点。因此，如果这些实体被认为是同种的，那么 Bescherelle 没有给出关于该物种应该接受哪些名称的结论性指示。当考虑到 Bescherelle (1895) 的完整著作时，他对 C. exlimbatum 的介绍表明他接受了这个分类群，因为他用与其他作者最初命名的 Calymperes 的其他新物种相同的方式对其进行编号和描述，并且他认为有效；他认为是同义词的分类群没有编号，它们也没有在他的物种概要中描述，也没有包含在他识别的物种的关键中。将“= C. Manii”包含在 C. exlimbatum 的其他无争议的原始文献引用中，如果不仅仅是一个粗心引入的异常，可以在命名法代码（Turland 等人，2018 年，第 36.1 条）中解释为“一个指示”分类学怀疑，但[物种]被作者接受'，这不会使他发表的 C. exlimbatum 或 C. manii 无效。C. exlimbatum 原始收藏中的同类物混合物（包括 Herb. Bescherelle 中的材料，一些来自哈雷 C. Müller 植物标本馆），导致对其同义词的看法不可避免的分歧，这取决于哪个特定标本或看到标本。里斯等人。(1986) 接受了 C. exlimbatum 作为一个有效出版的名称（Ellis 1989；Menzel 和 Schultze-Motel 1990；O'Shea 2001），并基于 FH 和 H 中的原始材料，将该名称与引用为“Calymperes dozyanum Mitt”的名称同义。 '，但实际上指的是 Calymperes dozyanum sensu M.Fleisch。=