(2786) Ipomoea L., Sp. Pl.: 159. 1 Mai 1753 [Convolvul.], nom. cons.

Typus: I. triloba L., typ. cons. prop.

Ipomoea L. is the largest (650–900 species, depending on the concept adopted) and most iconic genus in Convolvulaceae, a family of c. 1880 species (data from Staples, Convolvulaceae Unlimited, 2012 at: http//convolvulaceae.myspecies.info), including the important crop sweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. (Tabl. Encycl. 1: 465. 1793), and several ornamental species commonly known as “bindweeds” or “morning glories” (Wilkin in Kew Bull. 54: 853–876. 1999; Mabberley, Mabberley's Plant‐book. 2008). The genus has a long history of taxonomic and nomenclatural problems, mainly for the lack of a clear morphological circumscription and overlap with other genera. In his Species plantarum (1753), Linnaeus distinguished two genera, Convolvulus L. and Ipomoea, whose species suffered numerous re‐arrangements, between Ipomoea and Convolvulus, but especially into numerous more recently described genera, which amount today to a total of 60 (Staples in World Checklist of Vascular Plants, v.2.0. 2020, http://wcvp.science.kew.org/ retrieved 2 Apr 2020).

Linnaeus included 17 species in Ipomoea. However, of these, only the first, I. quamoclit L., truly matched his earlier generic description published in 1737 (Gen. Pl.: 47; “Petalum infundibuliforme; Tubus sere cylindraceus, longissimus”). Linnaeus actually replaced the name Quamoclit of Tournefort (Inst. Rei Herb., ed. 3, 2: t. 39. 1719) with his own Ipomoea (see Manitz in Taxon 25: 193–194. 1976). Hence, I. quamoclit would be the logical type of Ipomoea. However, in the past, some argued for a separation between the genus Quamoclit Mill. and Ipomoea (Roberty in Candollea 14: 11–65. 1952) that would result in an unfortunate recombination of hundreds of Ipomoea names, and which led Manitz (l.c.) to propose to conserve the name Ipomoea with another, conserved, type, I. pes‐tigridis L., which was accepted (see Taxon 30: 145. 1981, 31: 310. 1982).

More recently, molecular phylogenetic analyses have greatly assisted in obtaining a better understanding of the classification and phylogeny of the family as a whole and a much more stable taxonomy is now emerging. These studies have also shown that within the tribe Ipomoeeae Hall. f. s.l., Ipomoea is paraphyletic with 10 genera nested within it: Argyreia Lour., Astripomoea A. Meeuse, Blinkworthia Choisy, Lepistemon Blume, Lepistemonopsis Dammer, Mina Cerv., Paralepistemon Lejoly & Lisowski, Rivea Choisy, Stictocardia Hall. f., and Turbina Raf. (Wilkin, l.c.; Manos & al. in Syst. Bot. 26: 585–602. 2001; Miller & al. in Syst. Biol. 51: 740–753. 2002; Stefanović & al. in Amer. J. Bot. 89: 1510–1522. 2002, in Syst. Bot. 28: 701–806. 2003; Eserman & al. in Amer. J. Bot. 101: 92–103. 2014; Simões & al. in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 179: 374–387. 2015). This furthered the debate about the actual identity of Ipomoea. Wilkin (l.c.) proposed the inclusion of all genera of Ipomoeeae into an Ipomoea s.l. This was recently taken up by Munõz‐Rodríguez & al. (in Nature, Pl. 5: 1136–1154. 2019), soaring the genus to c. 900 species, without proposing any infrageneric classification and allowing huge morphological variation.

As molecular phylogenetic results have also demonstrated, tribe Ipomoeeae can be subdivided into two main clades (Stefanović & al., l.c. 2003; Wood & al. in Phytokeys 143: 1–823. 2020) with the informal names “Astripomoeinae” and “Argyreiinae”. While the first concentrates a large diversity of the Neotropical Ipomoea, the latter is more widely distributed throughout Africa, Asia, Australia, and many of the Pacific islands, and is mostly absent from the Neotropics. Unfortunately, “Argyreiinae” includes the presently conserved type of Ipomoea, I. pes‐tigridis L. Hence, implementing a new classification with the distinction of several clades at genus level would result in around 600 name changes for the Ipomoea within the “Astripomoeinae” clade, affecting mostly the American species of the genus, many of which have ornamental value. Moreover, the most economically important species, I. batatas (L.) Lam., also does not belong to the clade including the type; therefore, a potential segregation of Ipomoea s.l. into smaller genera would result in the renaming of sweetpotato. With an annual production of over 90 million metric tons (data from Shahbandeh, Global sweet potato production volume 2010–2018. 2020, https://www.statista.com/statistics/812343/global‐sweet‐potato‐production) and hundreds if not thousands of registered cultivars (in Asia and the Pacific region alone, there exists an estimated 12,000 landraces, while in 1994 the International Potato Center (CIP) in Peru held a total of 6500 sweetpotato accessions; Takagi & al. in Flach & Rumawas, PROSEA 9, Plants Yielding Non‐seed Carbohydrates: 102–107. 1999), a name change in sweetpotato would certainly result in a very costly and extreme effort by the commercial enterprises involved.

As shown above (Wilkin, l.c.; Munõz‐Rodriguez & al., l.c.), some authors regard the presence of the type of Ipomoea in the “Argyreiinae” clade as an obstacle towards a most useful renewal of the re‐circumscription of the genera in tribe Ipomoeeae because of the sheer amount of necessary name changes and have preferred to advocate the inclusion of all the taxonomic diversity into a mega‐genus Ipomoea. We think nomenclature should not block the development of a more stable and logical classification and here propose to replace the conserved type of the genus with a species included in the “Astripomoeinae” clade. This would permit those who wish to create a new classification to do so with far fewer nomenclatorial consequences. Thus, the generic name Ipomoea would be retained for the clade with the highest taxonomic diversity (c. 600 species), while preventing a name change in the economically important I. batatas.

There are numerous examples of changes in nomenclature that are rejected by the scientific community when they cause significant destabilization. For example, the recent taxonomic changes in “monkeyflowers” (Mimulus, Phrymaceae; Barker & al. in Phytoneuron 39: 1–60. 2012, Lowry & al. in Taxon 68: 617–623. 2019, Nesom & al. in Taxon 68: 624–627. 2019) were rejected by the evolutionary biology community and have brought to the forefront discussions about when nomenclatural changes are appropriate. Most scientists recognize the importance of naming groups based on evolutionary lineages, but to what extent this is applied must be done with the utmost consideration. As it concerns Ipomoea, it is a priority to allow the possibility to subdivide the genus into smaller genera, while maintaining maximal nomenclatural stability.

Manitz (l.c.), in proposing to conserve Ipomoea with a conserved type, identified the early confusion in the circumscription of Ipomoea and Convolvulus and acknowledged the need to stabilize nomenclature. His argument followed previous authors, especially House (in Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 18: 181–263. 1908) in considering that, although I. quamoclit would be the “historically correct” species to be selected, its morphological particularities (red tubular corolla) might have blocked those who wanted to regard Quamoclit as a distinct genus because of the very high number of new names that would then be needed to accommodate the remainder of the Ipomoea species. What Manitz did not know, was that the type House had already proposed, Ipomoea pes‐tigridis L., and which he selected for conservation, would later lead to almost the same situation.

In view of the recent molecular and systematic works that suggest the phylogenetic position of I. pes‐tigridis as distantly related to the largest part of the genus Ipomoea, we would propose alternatively I. triloba L. as the conserved type for the genus. The broad‐scale molecular phylogenetic study of Wood & al. (l.c.) demonstrated with ample sampling that I. triloba is one of the most closely related species to I. batatas. A range of important ornamental species are also fairly closely related to I. batatas and I. triloba, when considering a broader clade (e.g., I. nil (L.) Roth, I. tricolor Cav., and I. purpurea (L.) Roth). Therefore, our proposed type will allow future studies to re‐assess the generic delimitation within tribe Ipomoeeae, without the fear of destabilizing the nomenclature of the group, in particular the species with greatest economic importance.

（2786）Ipomoea L.，Sp。Pl.：159。1 Mai 1753 [ Convolvul。]，nom。缺点

Typus：一，榆叶梅L.，典型值。缺点 支柱。

五爪L.是最大的（650-900种，这取决于所采用的概念）和中最具代表性的属旋花，一个家庭的C。1880种（资料来自Staples，Convolvulaceae Unlimited，2012年：http：//convolvulaceae.myspecies.info），包括重要的农作物甘薯番薯（Ipomoea batatas（L.）Lam）。（Tabl。Encycl。1：465. 1793），以及几种通常被称为“杂草”或“早晨的荣耀”的观赏物种（Wilkin in Kew Bull。54：853-876。1999; Mabberley，Mabberley's Plant-book。2008）。 。该属具有悠久的分类学和命名学问题，主要是由于缺乏清晰的形态学界限并与其他属重叠。林奈（Linnaeus）在他的《植物物种》（Species plantarum）（1753年）中区分了两个属，即空心菜L.和Ipomoea，其物种在Ipomoea和旋花植物之间经历了许多重排，但特别是进入了许多最近描述的属，今天总计达到60个（《世界植物检疫清单》中的钉书针，2020年第2.0版， http://wcvp.science.kew.org/于2020年4月2日检索）。

Linnaeus在Ipomoea中包括17种。然而，在这些之中，只有第一个，I。quamoclit L.确实与他早在1737年发表的一般描述相符（Gen. Pl .： 47；“ Petalum infundibuliforme； Tubus sere cylindraceus，longissimus ”）。林奈实际上取代了名Quamoclit Tournefort的（研究所川香草，ED 3，2：... T 39. 1719）用他自己的蕹菜（见Manitz在分类群25：193-194 1976）。因此，I。quamoclit将是番薯的逻辑类型。但是，在过去，有人主张将Quamoclit Mill属分开。和番薯（Roberty in Candollea 14：11-65。1952），这将导致数百个番薯属名称的不幸重组，并导致曼尼茨（lc）提议将番薯属名称与另一个保守的类型I. pes-一起保存。 tigridis L.，被接受（参见Taxon 30：145。1981，31：310。1982）。

最近，分子系统发育分析极大地帮助人们更好地了解了整个家庭的分类和系统发育，并且正在出现更加稳定的分类法。这些研究还表明，在部落的伊pomoeeae厅内。fsl，Ipomoea是共生的，其中嵌套有10个属：Argyreia Lour。，Astripomoea A. Meeuse，Blinkworthia Choisy，Lepistemon Blume，Lepistemonopsis Dammer，Mina Cerv。，Paralepistemon Lejoly＆Lisowski，Rivea Choisy，Stictocardia Hall。f。和Turbina拉夫 （Wilkin，lc； Manos等人，Syst。Bot。26：585-602。2001； Miller等人，Syst。Biol。51：740-753。2002；Stefanović等人，Amer。J. Bot。 89：1510–1522。2002，Syst。Bot。28：701–806。2003; Eserman等人在Amer。J. Bot。101：92–103。2014;Simões等人在Bot。J. Linn中（Soc.179：374–387。2015）。这进一步加剧了关于番薯实际身份的争论。威尔金（lc）建议将番薯科的所有属都包括在番薯属中。这是最近由Munõz-Rodríguez等人提出的。（《自然》 Pl。5：1136-1154。2019），将属增加到c。900种，不建议进行任何属下分类，并且允许巨大的形态变化。

正如分子系统发育结果也表明的那样，番薯科可以分为两个主要分支（Stefanović等，lc 2003； Wood等在Phytokeys 143：1-2823。2020），非正式名称为“ Astripomoeinae”和“ Argyreiinae”。 ”。尽管前者集中了新近异型的大量多样性，但后者在非洲，亚洲，澳大利亚和许多太平洋岛屿上分布更为广泛，而新近异型则几乎没有。不幸的是，“Argyreiinae”包括目前保守型的五爪，一个PES-tigridis L.因此，实施新的分类与几个分支在属水平的区别将导致对约600名的变化五爪在“ Astripomoeinae”进化枝中，主要影响美洲属，其中许多具有观赏价值。而且，经济上最重要的物种，红大戟I. batatas（L.）Lam。，也不属于进化枝，包括类型。因此，潜在的番薯分离sl进入较小的属将导致甘薯重命名。年产量超过9000万吨（数据来自Shahbandeh，2010-2018年全球红薯产量，2020年，https：//www.statista.com/statistics/812343/global-sweet-potato-production）和数百种如果不是成千上万的注册品种（仅在亚洲和太平洋地区，估计就有12,000种地方品种，而1994年，秘鲁国际马铃薯中心（CIP）总共拥有6500种甘薯； Takagi等人在Flach＆Rumawas ，PROSEA 9，生产非种子碳水化合物的植物：102–107。1999），甘薯的名称更改当然会导致所涉及的商业企业付出非常高昂的代价和极大的努力。

如上所示（Wilkin，lc；Munõz-Rodriguez等，lc），一些作者认为“ Argyreiinae”进化枝中存在Ipomoea类型，是最有效地更新属的障碍。在番薯科中，由于必须进行大量必要的名称更改，因此倾向于提倡将所有的分类学多样性纳入大型番薯科。我们认为命名法不应阻碍更稳定和逻辑分类的发展，在此建议用“ Astripomoeinae”进化枝中包含的物种代替保守的属。这将使那些希望创建新分类的人能够以更少的命名规则后果这样做。因此，通用名称五爪将保留最高的遗传多样性进化枝（约600种），同时防止在经济上重要的一个名称的改变甘薯。

有许多命名法变化的例子，当它们引起明显的不稳定时，科学界就拒绝了。例如，最近的“ monkeyflowers”（Mimulus，Phrymaceae； Barker等人在Phytoneuron 39：1–60。2012； Lowry等人在Taxon 68：617–623。2019； Nesom等人在Taxon中的分类学变化） 68：624–627。2019）被进化生物学界拒绝，并将有关何时命名适当的讨论置于最前沿。大多数科学家认识到基于进化谱系命名组的重要性，但必须在最大程度上考虑将其应用到何种程度。关于番薯，在保持最大命名稳定性的同时，优先考虑将属细分为较小属的可能性。

Manitz（lc）建议以保守类型保存番薯科，他发现番薯科和旋花菜科的界限很早就出现混乱，并承认有必要稳定术语。他的论点遵循了先前的作者，尤其是豪斯（在Ann。New York Acad。Sci。18：181–263。1908中）的考虑，尽管I. quamoclit将是被选择的“历史上正确的”物种，但其形态特征（红色花冠）可能已经阻止了那些希望将Quamoclit视为独特属的人，因为需要大量新名称来容纳其余的五爪菜种类。Manitz不知道是什么，是该类型众议院就曾提出，五爪PES-tigridis L.，而他选择的保护，后来导致几乎同样的情况。

鉴于最近的分子和系统工作表明，tigstigis的系统发育位置与番薯属的大部分密切相关，我们建议将Triloba L.作为该属的保守类型。Wood等人的大规模分子系统发育研究。（1c）通过充分的采样证明了三叶I.是与I. batatas最密切相关的物种之一。重要的观赏树种一系列的也相当密切相关的甘薯和一，榆叶梅，考虑到更广泛的分支（如，一，零（L.）罗斯，一，三色的Cav，和I. purpurea（L.）Roth）。因此，我们提出的类型将使将来的研究可以重新评估番薯科内部的通用划界，而不必担心会破坏该群体的命名法，尤其是对具有最大经济重要性的物种的命名。