See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318024131

(56) Request for a binding decision on the descriptive statement associated with delagoensis ( )

Article in Taxon · June 2017 DOI: 10.12705/663.37

CITATIONS READS 6 113

2 authors, including:

Estrela Figueiredo Nelson Mandela University

267 PUBLICATIONS 2,290 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Estrela Figueiredo on 30 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. TAXON 66 (3) • June 2017: 771 Figueiredo & Smith • (56) Kalanchoe delagoensis

REQUESTS FOR BINDING DECISIONS ON APPLICATION OF THE CODE Edited by John McNeill & John Wiersema

(56) Request for a binding decision on the descriptive statement associated with Kalanchoe delagoensis (Crassulaceae)

Estrela Figueiredo1,2 & Gideon F. Smith1,2

1 Department of Botany, P.O. Box 77000, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, 6031 South Africa 2 Centre for Functional Ecology, Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de Coimbra, 3001-455 Coimbra, Portugal Author for correspondence: Estrela Figueiredo, [email protected] DOI https://doi.org/10.12705/663.37

Kalanchoe delagoensis Eckl. & Zeyh., Enum. Pl. Afric. Austral.: an epithet published in a different genus, Harvey listed “Kalanchoe 305. Apr 1837 [Angiosp.: Crassul.]. Delagoensis, E. & Z ! 1955” as a synonym of his newly established Ecklon & Zeyher (l.c.) catalogued four species of Kalanchoe B. tubiflorum. If the combination K. delagoensis is considered to be Adans. in their book on southern African . Three of the names, validly published, he should, under modern rules of nomenclature, Kalanchoe rotundifolia (Haw.) Haw., Kalanchoe alternans (Vahl) have used that epithet for the species, when treated as a . Pers., and Kalanchoe crenata (Andrews) Haw., that they listed had For this reason Schinz (in Mém. Herb. Boissier 10: 38. 1900) later been published earlier and lacked any descriptive statement, while the created the combination Bryophyllum delagoense (Eckl. & Zeyh.) fourth name, Kalanchoe delagoensis, was newly proposed by them Schinz, which was based on Kalanchoe delagoensis that in our view based on a single fragment collected at “Delagoabay” (“Exem- was not validly published. plum unicum et mutilum Cel. Commodore Owen ad ‘Delagoabay’ Hamet (l.c.) noted that the information given by Ecklon & Zeyher legit et nobiscum communicavit”). W.F. Owen was the leader of an (l.c.) could not satisfy the requirements for valid publication of a spe- expedition to survey the eastern coast of Africa; the collector on the cies name, and that the binomial proposed by Ecklon and Zeyher must expedition was John Forbes. The expedition was in Delagoa Bay be considered as a “nomen nudum” and was therefore legally non- (today regarded as the area around Maputo in southern Mozambique) existent. As a result he created the new name “K. tubiflora Raymond in 1822, and from there sailed to Madagascar where the plant was Hamet nom. nov.” As he clearly stated that he was transferring Bryo- probably collected and wrongly labelled as having originated from phyllum tubiflorum to the genus Kalanchoe, he published a new com- Mozambique. As the descriptive statement associated with this name bination, not a new name. Ecklon & Zeyher only gave “Flores saturate rosei.” Hamet (in Beih. We argue that the correct name to be used for this widely known, Bot. Centralbl., Abt. 2, 29: 41–44. 1912) noted that the information naturalised, and invasive Madagascan species when treated in Kalan- provided by Ecklon & Zeyher (l.c.) was a transcription of the infor- choe should be K. tubiflora (Harv.) Raym.-Hamet. In Bryophyllum mation obtained from the collector (Forbes). It is likely that Hamet the correct name should be B. tubiflorum Harv. reasoned that the information on flower colour could only have been Using the name Kalanchoe tubiflora will not destabilise botani- obtained from the collector, as it is impossible to have determined it cal nomenclature, as K. tubiflora (or Bryophyllum tubiflorum) has from the dried specimen. A copy of the text pertaining to the name been in use by authors who followed Hamet’s (l.c.) view and consid- proposed by Ecklon & Zeyher (l.c.) is affixed to the specimen. At the ered K. delagoensis a nomen nudum (e.g. Fernandes in Fl. Zambes. time that Ecklon & Zeyher (l.c.) proposed the name K. delagoensis, at 7: 67. 1983; Boiteau & Allorge-Boiteau, Kalanchoe Madagascar: 90. least one other species, K. rotundifolia, had been described as having 1995). As noted by Descoings (Ill. Handb. Succ. Pl. Crassulaceae: “floribus […] rufescentibus” (Haworth in Philos. Mag. Ann. Chem. 154. 2003), who adopted the name K. delagoensis, this species is in 6: 304. 1829). most literature and throughout cultivation still known under the name Harvey (in Harvey & Sonder, Fl. Cap. 2: 380. 1862) was the first K. tubiflorum. However, since the publication of the synoptic treat- to provide a name for this species that is unquestionably validly pub- ment of Kalanchoe by Descoings (l.c.), several authors and online lished; this was in the genus Bryophyllum Salisb., as B. tubiflorum databases have been using the name K. delagoensis, (or Bryophyl- Harv. He cited a single collection, the same Forbes fragment from lum delagoensis, for that matter), which we argue was not validly Delagoa Bay, which was then kept in the Sonder Herbarium. It is at published. present regarded as a specimen without an associated collector’s name at S, S-G-10717, and consists of two flowers and a stem fragment. Acknowledgements Probably because he was following the “Kew Rule” (in which com- Prof. John McNeill of the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, binations, not epithets, had priority) and hence saw no need to adopt United Kingdom, kindly commented on this issue.

Version of Record 771

View publication stats