Van der Maesen & Zijlstra • (2122) Conserve Dunbaria TAXON 62 (1) • February 2013: 180–181

The generic name Brachypterum is generally treated as the sec- 722–733. 2002), in molecular phylogenetic analyses of the tribe Mil- tion Brachypterum of Lour. s.l. The name was established by lettieae, sampled from cultivation “Brachypterum robustum (Roxb.) Wight & Arnott (Prod. Fl. Ind. Orient.: 264. 1834) as a subgenus of Geesink” [? = Derris robusta (Roxb. ex DC.) Benth., Brachypterum L. f. containing only D. scandens Roxb.; later Bentham robustum (Roxb. ex DC.) Dalzell & A. Gibson], which did not cluster (l.c. 1837; in Ann. Wiener Mus. Naturgesch. 2: 101. 1838) raised it with Derris samples in either analysis. The molecular distinctive- to generic rank but without transferring this species. Five years be- ness of Brachypterum has been confirmed in a recent phylogenetic fore Bentham’s subsequent reduction to Derris sect. Brachypterum study of palaeotropic Derris-like taxa (Sirichamorn & al. in Amer. (Wight & Arn.) Benth. (in J. Proc. Linn. Soc., Bot. 4 (Suppl.): 101. J. Bot. 99: 1793–1808. 2012b), in which more (presumed) species of 1860), it was treated as a genus with four species by Miquel (Fl. Brachypterum were sampled, including the type, B. scandens. The re- Ned. Ind. 1: 137–140. 1855). Later, five more species were added by sults show Brachypterum to be a highly supported monophyletic group various authors: B. canarense Dalzell & A. Gibson and B. robustum with distinct morphological characters, well separate from the rest of Dalzell & A. Gibson (Bombay Fl.: 76. 1861), B. microphyllum Miq. Derris s.str. and Paraderris. In total, Brachypterum will comprise 11 (Fl. Ned. Ind., Eerste Bijv. 2: 296. 1861), and B. benthamii Thwaites species, of which 3 have a “tree-like habit” and 8 are liana species. and B. elegans Thwaites (Enum. Pl. Zeyl.: 93. 1864). However, most Here we propose again to conserve the name Brachypterum later authors seemed to follow Bentham’s (l.c. 1860) idea of treating against Solori for the following reasons. Firstly, although Solori is Brachypterum as a section of Derris. the oldest available name, it was a long forgotten name that has al- Geesink (in Leiden Bot. Ser. 8: 80. 1984), in his intensive study ready been rejected against Derris. Secondly, and more important, of the tribe , found serious problems in circumscribing because Solori has not been used, no combinations with it were ever the complex genera Derris, Millettia and Lonchocarpus and as a so- made, and thus although the name was based on a plate from Rheede’s lution he proposed to recognize definable (in terms of characters) Hortus Malabaricus, no species name in Solori has been established groups by raising infrageneric names to generic rank. Consequently, for this type. Thirdly, the application of Solori is more obscure than Brachypterum was reinstated as a genus. He also found that the spe- Brachypterum, which has a clear type and has been used continuously cies that includes the type of Brachypterum, Derris scandens (Roxb.) as the generic or infrageneric name of a group defined by studies of Benth. [= Brachypterum scandens (Roxb.) Miq.], also included the various authors from Bentham (l.c. 1837) to Miquel (l.c. 1855) and type (Rheede, Hort. Malab. 6: t. 22. 1686) of the older, long-unused Geesink (l.c.). Brachypterum was used or mentioned for a genus in and unknown generic name Solori Adans. (l.c.), which was already some recent molecular phylogenetic studies (Hu & al., l.c. 2000, 2002; rejected against Derris but not against Brachypterum (Vienna Code, Sirichamorn & al., l.c. 2012b) as well as in other recent literature (e.g., McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006). Thus, Geesink (in Taxon Schrire in Lewis & al., Legumes of the World: Tribe Millettieae: 33: 743–744. 1984) proposed to conserve Brachypterum against Solori. 367–387. 2005) and several combinations with this name have already Unfortunately, the proposal was not recommended (in Taxon 36: 739. been made. To preserve nomenclatural stability, it is appropriate to 1987) chiefly because Brachypterum had been seldom used at generic conserve the name Brachypterum against Solori. rank up to then. Adema (in Thai Forest Bull., Bot. 28: 2–16. 2000), in his cladistic analyses based on morphological characters, concluded Acknowledgements that Brachypterum was a synonym of Derris s.str., and this classifica- The authors are very grateful to J.F. Veldkamp for his useful tion was followed by Sirichamorn & al. (in Syst. Bot. 37: 404–436. advice on nomenclatural issues and J. Wiersema for improving the 2012a). Hu & al. (in Amer. J. Bot. 87: 418–430. 2000; in Syst. Bot. 27: manuscript.

(2122) Proposal to conserve the name Dunbaria (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae) with a conserved type

Jos van der Maesen1 & Gea Zijlstra2

1 Naturalis Biodiversity Center (section NHN), Biosystematics Group, Herbarium Vadense, Wageningen University, Generaal Foulkesweg 37, 6703 BL Wageningen, The Netherlands 2 Laboratory of Palaeobotany & Palynology, Budapestlaan 4, 3584 CD Utrecht, The Netherlands Author for correspondence: Jos van der Maesen, [email protected]

(2122) Dunbaria Wight & Arn., Prodr. Fl. Ind. Orient: 258. 10 Oct Agric. Univ. Wageningen Pap. 85(4): 129–133. 1986) that D. heynei 1834 [Dicot.: Legum.], nom. cons. prop. belongs to Cajanus Adans., and he published C. heynei (Wight & Typus: D. ferruginea Wight & Arn., typ. cons. prop. Arn.) Maesen. In an unpublished thesis, Satyanarayana (Tax. Re- vis. subtribe Cajaneae () India: 165. 1993) noticed that When Wight & Arnott published the name Dunbaria, they in- Hutchinson’s type made Dunbaria a synonym of Cajanus, and already cluded three species: D. heynei, D. ferruginea and D. latifolia. Nowa- suggested that D. ferruginea Wight & Arn. would provide a better days, ca. 50 species have been described in this genus. Hutchinson type. This indication was not effectively published, nor could it have (Gen. Flow. Pl. 1: 422. 1964) was the first to designate a type, D. hey- superseded Hutchinson’s earlier typification anyway. In 1998, Van der nei Wight & Arn. In 1986, however, the first author concluded (in Maesen (in Agric. Univ. Wageningen Pap. 98(1): 12. 1998) accepted

180 Version of Record (identical to print version). TAXON 62 (1) • February 2013: 181–183 Pifkó & Shevera • (2123–2124) Conserve Cytisus podolicus and C. blockianus

the 1993 choice of Satyanarayana, who in turn in 2001 (in Bull. Bot. fact that these sheets are a mixture of D. ferruginea and D. latifolia Surv. India 42: 145) continued to consider D. ferruginea as the type was already noticed by Wight and Arnott themselves, who described of Dunbaria. It should be noted that D. latifolia Wight & Arn., often these two species from (among others) these sheets and for both of merged with D. ferruginea (see below), has been transferred to Rhyn- them cited the material as “Wight! cat. n. 878 (partly)”. They also chosia, as R. courtallensis (Van der Maesen in Rheedea 5: 54–59. provided one of the important distinguishing characters: “legume 1995); a nomen novum because a R. latifolia from the U.S.A. already about 4–5-seeded” and “legume 1–2-seeded” respectively. Van der existed in that genus. Maesen (l.c. 1995: 54, 56) listed six characters in which these species Dunbaria is currently accepted for a genus of 20 species (Van der differ, among others “5–6 ovuled ovaries” and “1–2 ovuled ovaries”. Maesen, l.c. 1998: 1–109), with 7 species in India, 11 in Indo-China, Despite this confusion, we think it is best for each of these spe- 10 in China, 1 in Japan, and 9 in Malesia (Indonesia, the Philippines, cies names to continue the tradition to retain Wight 878 p.p. specimens New Guinea, Malaya). Dunbaria ferruginea is the only original spe- as their lectotypes, with lectotypes in K and isolectotypes in other cies that is available to assure stability of names for this well-delimited herbaria. The first-step lectotypifications (to Wight 878 p.p.) were genus, therefore we propose to conserve Dunbaria with D. ferruginea made by Van der Maesen in 1998 (l.c.: 40) and 1995 (l.c.: 56) respec- as the conserved type. tively. At those times the appropriate sheets in Kew were annotated; Since there has been much confusion between D. ferruginea and an action, however, that did not constitute effective publication of D. latifolia (nowadays Rhynchosia courtallensis), and according to this further type indication. Therefore, second-step lectotypifications Art. 10.1 of the ICN (McNeill & al. in Regnum Veg. 154. 2012) the (see ICN Art. 9.17 and Ex. 12) are given here: Wight 878, at Kew with type of a generic name is the type of a name of a species, we provide barcode 000556304 is the lectotype of Dunbaria ferruginea (with additional details on the lectotypes of these species names. The confu- an isolectotype at G) and the same collection at Kew with barcode sion already existed in the original collection of “Wight Herb. Propr. 000556303 is the lectotype of D. latifolia [= R. courtallensis] (with 878”, a collection that consists of many sheets. An old note on one isolectotypes at A, BM, C, G and P). of these type sheets in K states that two species are mixed up. The

(2123–2124) Proposal to conserve Cytisus podolicus (Chamaecytisus podolicus) against Cytisus bucovinensis, and Cytisus blockianus (Chamaecytisus blockianus) against Cytisus kerneri and C. marilauni (Leguminosae)

Dániel Pifkó1 & Myroslav Shevera2

1 Department of Botany, Hungarian Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 222, 1476 Budapest, Hungary 2 M.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Tereschenkivska St. 2, 01001 Kyiv, Ukraine Author for correspondence: Dániel Pifkó, [email protected]

(2123) Cytisus podolicus Błocki in Allg. Bot. Z. Syst. 1: 137–138. in the regional flora works, a taxonomic revision considering their 1895, nom. cons. prop. types is crucial. Typus: “Probabin pr. Horodenka (Galiciae orient.-australis)— Chamaecytisus podolicus (Błocki) Klásk. is an endemic spe- in collibus gipsaceis, 22.V.1891, B. Błocki ” (LW No. 126608). cies of the Podolian Upland in Ukraine and Moldavia (Yakovlev & (=) Cytisus bucovinensis Simonk. in Math. Term. Közlem. 22: al., Legumes N. Eurasia: 724. 1996; Kagalo in Acta Bot. Fenn. 162: 369. 1888, nom. rej. prop. 137–140. 1999). Supposedly it occurs in Romania, its record from Lectotypus (vide Pifkó in Ann. Hist.-Nat. Mus. Natl. Hung. Belarus is doubtful and it has been erroneously reported from the 97: 23. 2005): Bucovina. Ad viam caesaream prope Sereth, Carpathian Basin. The name was lectotypified by Krytzka & al. (in 07.1836, F. Herbich (BP No. 207305; isotypus W-ZooBot No. Bot. Zhurn. (Kiev) 56: 610. 1999) by the specimen at Lviv cited above 1935-0004011). (LW 126608). There are syntypes at KRAM (122818!), LW (208531!, 208532!), and W (1926-0012419!, 0031004!). Chamaecytisus Link (= Cytisus Desf. sensu lato sect. Tubo- Cytisus bucovinensis was described by Simonkai (l.c.) in his cytisus DC.) is regarded here as a monophyletic, morphologically monograph on the genus Cytisus s.l. in Carpathian Basin from the uniform, separate genus, unlike Cristofolini’s treatment of Chamae- southern part of the Podolian Upland near the village “Sereth” (Siret, cytisus as the section Tubocytisus of Cytisus (Cristofolini in Webbia Suceava County, Romania), close to the Romanian–Ukrainian border, 45: 187–219. 1991; Cristofolini & Troia in Taxon 55: 733–746. 2006). i.e., outside of the Carpathian Basin. Cytisus podolicus was described The genus Chamaecytisus is distributed from the Canary Is- by Błocki (Allg. Bot. Z. Syst. 1: 137–138. 1895) from the nearby vil- lands to Anatolia, occurring throughout the entire Mediterranean lage Probabin (Ukraine, Ivano-Frankivska County), ca. 60 km N of region and Europe except for the western and northern parts. More Siret. The names of both species are validly published being accompa- than 200 taxa have been described, representing 28–35 species, and nied by descriptions and their type specimens are available in suitable reflecting different taxonomic interpretations in various publications condition for identification representing the most important mor- (Cristofolini, l.c.; Heywood & Frodin in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur. 2: 90–93. phological characters. [The absence of a number for C. bucovinensis 1968). Since these taxa are treated with different taxonomic concepts and the dagger (†) preceding the name was used by Simonkai (e.g.,

Version of Record (identical to print version). 181