当前位置: X-MOL 学术TAXON › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
(2777) Proposal to conserve the name Philippodendrum regium (Plagianthus regius) (Malvaceae) against Betula bella
TAXON ( IF 3.4 ) Pub Date : 2020-10-29 , DOI: 10.1002/tax.12342
Clement Earp 1
Affiliation  

(2777) Philippodendrum regium Poit. in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2, 8: 184. Sep 1837 [Angiosp.: Malv.], nom. cons. prop.

Typus: [icon] “Philippodendrum regium” in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2, 8: t. 3. Sep 1837.

(≡) Betula bella Nois. ex Poit. in Ann. Soc. Roy. Hort. Paris 16: 345. Mai 1835 (neotypus hic designatus), nom. rej. prop.

Poiteau (in Ann. Soc. Roy. Hort. Paris 16: 340–353. 1835) published an account of a visit to the commercial gardens of Louis Noisette, a well‐known French nurseryman of the early 19th century. This account included descriptions of selected plants in the gardens, including the following (Poiteau, l.c. 1835: 345): “Betula bella. Charmant petit arbre pyramidal, très rameux, à rameaux flexibles, menus, dont la fructification, non encore observée, pourra bien le faire passer dans le genre Myrica lorsqu'elle sera connue. Après avoir été longtemps cultivé en serre tempérée, voilà trois hivers qu'il supporte bien en pleine terre à l'air libre. M. Noisette en a beaucoup de disponibles.” This original French text translates into English as: “Betula bella. Charming small pyramidal tree, much branched, with thin flexible branches, of which the fructification, not yet observed, might well cause it to pass over to the genus Myrica when it becomes known. After having long been cultivated in a temperate house, there have now been three winters during which it has thrived well outside in the open air. M. Noisette has many for sale.”

Noisette told Poiteau that his plants were propagated from a single example he had obtained in England that had been grown from seeds said to have come from Nepal.

Two years later, the plant did produce flowers and seeds. Poiteau recognised it was not a Betula, but belonged to a genus unknown to him. Accordingly, he created a new genus Philippodendrum and gave the plant the specific epithet ‘regium’ (Poiteau in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 2, 8: 183–190. 1837).

However, because Poiteau (l.c. 1837: 185) cited Betula bella as the name by which the plant had previously been known, the binomial Philippodendrum regium is superfluous and illegitimate under Art. 52.1 and 52.2(e) of the ICN (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Consequently, as Poiteau (l.c. 1837) did not indicate a type for P. regium, the name is automatically typified by the type of B. bella (Art. 7.5), making a lectotype selection by de Lange (in New Zealand J. Bot. 46: 385. 2008) of the illustration in Poiteau (l.c. 1837) ineffective. As no original material of B. bella exists, by designating that same illustration as its neotype, the homotypic status of the two names is retained. Betula bella Nois. ex Poit. (l.c. 1835: 345); neotype, designated here: [icon] “Philippodendrum regium” in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., ser. 2, 8: t. 3 [following p. 384]. 1837.

Noisette's plant was subsequently recognised as being identical to the New Zealand endemic Plagianthus betulinus A. Cunn. (in Ann. Nat. Hist. 4: 25. 1840) [Malvales/Malvaceae], under which name it continued to be known for the remainder of the 19th century. The combination in current use, Plagianthus regius Hochr. (in Annuaire Conserv. Jard. Bot. Genève 10: 16. 1907), was based on Philippodendrum regium Poit. without exclusion of B. bella and is therefore also illegitimate.

It is first necessary to note that Plagianthus regius contains two subspecies (de Lange, l.c.: 381–386): P. regius subsp. regius and P. regius subsp. chathamica. The typical subspecies, described by Poiteau as a Betula, then as Philippodendrum, is heteroblastic. The juvenile stage is a divaricating shrub with many filiramulate branches, to which the description “much branched, with thin flexible branches” referred. The adult stage is a tree with more normal branching habit, to which the description “small pyramidal tree” applied. Plagianthus regius subsp. chathamica (basionym: P. chathamica Cockayne in Trans. & Proc. New Zealand Inst. 34: 319. 1902) is not heteroblastic and always has the form of the adult stage of the typical subspecies.

Consequently, Poiteau's description of B. bella conflated the two growth stages of the typical subspecies while omitting to say that they are separate. His later descriptions of Philippodendrum, in Latin and French, clearly stated that there is first a juvenile divaricating shrub that then develops, after some years, into a tree of more normal appearance.

The description of Betula bella is clearly inadequate as it stands, and also incorrect, but it is probably sufficient to validate the name, given that correctness is not a criterion for a validating description. Further, as discussed by de Lange (l.c.: 385), no specimen exists that can be unequivocally attributed to Poiteau at the time of either publication (l.c. 1835, 1837) and thus qualifies as original material. There is also no illustration of B. bella, prompting the neotypification above. If B. bella is not rejected, this would force a name change to Plagianthus bellus for the two subspecies based on a misleading protologue. At the same time, if Philippodendrum regium is not simultaneously conserved against B. bella, it would remain illegitimate, as would the combination Plagianthus regius.

The name Plagianthus regius is now well established. The tree is a major component of semi‐swamp forest throughout New Zealand (Meurk in Box & al., Veg. Sci. Forest.: 172. 1995), and its pollen is a palaeoclimatic indicator of cold wet conditions (Wood & al. in Shulmeister, Landscape Quatern. Environm. Change New Zealand: 253. 2017). The tree is fast growing and is cultivated ornamentally and for revegetation in New Zealand. There is some limited cultivation in temperate climates overseas, e.g., in France (Tournay in Bull. Assoc. Parcs Bot. France 42: 20–21. 2017).

If the name must be changed to Plagianthus bellus, this would introduce a third specific name into a genus that has only two taxa at specific rank. This would result in a situation similar to that almost 50 years ago when the name in common use had previously been P. betulinus and many non‐systematic texts had to mention both epithets (regius and betulinus) to avoid confusion (e.g., Cooper & Cambie, New Zealand's Econ. Native Pl.: 34. 1991; Graf, Hortica 3: 1139. 1992).

It is therefore proposed to conserve Philippodendrum regium against Betula bella, which will allow the former to be used as a basionym in Plagianthus, something that has long been assumed to be the case. The name Betula bella has not been used (except as a synonym) since it was replaced by Poiteau (l.c. 1837), and its rejection would not have any adverse effects.



中文翻译:

(2777)提议保留针对Betula bella的名称Philippodendrum regium(Plagianthus regius)(Malvaceae)

(2777)凤眼莲(Pohilippodendrum regium Poit)。在安 科学 Nat。,Bot。,ser。2,8:184。1837年9月[Angiosp .:马尔夫],标称值。缺点 支柱。

Typus:Ann中的[icon]“ Philippodendrum regium ”。科学 Nat。,Bot。,ser。2、8:t。1837年9月3日。

(≡)Betula bella Nois。前Poit。在安 Soc。罗伊 霍特 巴黎16:345。1835年清迈(nomeotypus hic designatus),nom。rej。支柱。

Poiteau(在Ann。Soc。Roy。Hort。Paris 16:340–353。1835中)发表了关于参观19世纪初法国著名苗圃路易斯·诺森特(Louis Noisette)商业花园的记录。该记录包括对花园中某些植物的描述,包括以下内容(Poiteau,lc 1835:345):“ Betula bella。Charmant petit arbre金字塔形的,tres rameux的,rameaux的软性材料,菜单,不要进行果糖化,无可观察的观察,流浪者的流浪者,流浪者Myrica lorsqu'elle sera connue。长期的耕种和翻新,voilàtrois使得qu'il supporte bien en pleine terreàl'airre自由。M. Noisette一文不值。” 原始的法语文本翻译为英语:“ Betula bella。迷人的小金字塔树,多分支,具细细的柔性树枝,尚未发现的果糖结实的出现可能会使它移交给杨梅属。在温带的房屋中长期栽培后,现在已经有三个冬天,在露天期间,它在外面生长得很好。M. Noisette有很多待售。”

Noisette告诉Poiteau,他的植物是从他在英格兰获得的一个例子繁殖而来的,这个例子是从据说来自尼泊尔的种子中生长出来的。

两年后,该植物确实产生了花朵和种子。Poiteau意识到它不是桦木,但属于他不认识的属。因此,他创造了一个新属Philippodendrum,给植物种加词“虎奶(在安科学纳特,BOT,SER 2,8 Poiteau。。。:183-190 1837年)”。

但是,由于Poiteau(lc 1837:185)曾以Betula bella作为以前知道该植物的名称,因此根据Art ,二项式Philippodendrum regium是多余的并且是非法的。ICN的52.1和52.2(e)(Turland等人,Regnum Veg。159. 2018)。因此,随着Poiteau(LC 1837)没有说明对于类型P.虎奶,名称是自动型的代表B.贝拉(艺术7.5),由德兰格做出选型选择(在新西兰J.博特(46:385. 2008)的插图在Poiteau(lc 1837)中无效。作为无B.贝拉的原始物通过指定与新类型相同的插图来保留两个名称的同型状态。贝拉诺瓦 前Poit。(lc 1835:345); 新型,在此处指定: [icon] Ann。中的“ Philippodendrum regium ”。科学 Nat。,Bot。,ser。2、8:t。3 [p。384]。1837年。

随后,Noisette的植物与新西兰特有的Plagianthus betulinus A. Cunn相同。(摘自Ann。Nat。Hist。425。1840)[ Malvales / Malvaceae ],在19世纪剩余的时间里,该名称一直沿用至今。当前使用的组合,Plagianthus regius Hochr。(在Annuaire Conserv。Jard。Bot。Genève10:16. 1907中),是根据Philippodendrum regium Poit建立的。不排除B. bella,因此也是非法的。

首先需要注意的是,Plagianthus regius包含两个亚种(de Lange,lc:381–386):P. regius亚种。regiusP. regius subsp。Chathamica。典型的亚种被Poiteau称为Betula,然后称为Philippodendrum,是异种的。幼年阶段是具有许多丝状分支的分枝灌木,对它的描述是“多分支,具有细小的柔性分支”。成年阶段是具有较正常的分枝习性的树,对它的描述为“小金字塔树”。雷根亚种 chathamica别名P. chathamica跨境的Cockayne。&Proc。新西兰研究所 34:319。1902年)不是异胚性的,通常具有典型亚种的成年阶段形式。

因此,波伊托对贝拉芽孢杆菌的描述将典型亚种的两个生长阶段混为一谈,而忽略了它们是分开的。他后来对拉丁文和法文《爱树木的落叶》的描述清楚地表明,首先有一个幼年的灌木丛,然后在几年后发展成外观更正常的树。

的描述显然是不充分的,而且也是不正确的,但是鉴于正确性不是验证描述的标准,因此足以验证该名称。此外,正如de Lange(lc:385)所讨论的,在任何一个出版物发表时(lc 1835,1837),都没有可以明确地归因于Poiteau的标本,因此可以视为原始材料。也没有B. bella的插图,提示上述是新类型化。如果不拒绝B. bella,这将基于一个误导性的前言,将两个亚种的名称更改为Plagianthus bellus。同时,如果爱滋病菌并非同时针对B. bella保守,它将与Plagianthus regius组合一样仍然是非法的。

现在,Plagianthus regius这个名字已经很成熟了。该树是整个新西兰半沼泽森林的主要组成部分(Meurk in Box等,Veg。Sci。Forest.:172。1995),其花粉是寒冷潮湿条件的古气候指示(Wood等。在舒尔迈斯特(Shulmeister),景观季刊(Environm。Change New Zealand:253. 2017)。该树生长迅速,在新西兰有观赏性和重新植被的栽培。海外气候温和,例如在法国,耕种有限(Tournay in Bull。Assoc。Parcs Bot。France 42:20-21。2017)。

如果必须将名称更改为Plagianthus bellus,则这会将第三个特定名称引入到在特定级别仅具有两个分类单元的属中。这将导致类似于近50年前的情况,当时通用名称以前是P. betulinus,为了避免混淆,许多非系统性文献都提到了两个上位词(regiusbetulinus)(例如Cooper和Cambie) ,《新西兰经济》,1991:34;格拉夫,霍尔蒂卡3:1139(1992)。

因此,建议以节省Philippodendrum虎奶桦贝拉,这将使前者用作在基名Plagianthus,一些早已被认为是这种情况。自从被Poiteau(lc 1837)取代后,Betula bella这个名字一直没有被使用(同义词除外),并且它的拒绝不会产生任何不利影响。

更新日期:2020-10-30
down
wechat
bug