Cohen & Reveal • (2007) Conserve Trigonotis TAXON 60 (2) • April 2011: 598–599

mentioned above, A. echinatum Willd. cites Herb. Amboin. 6: t. 61, Laos as its type (Art. 14.9). This will fix the application of this name fig. 1 but it also cites a collection of Koenig from Peninsular Thailand, on the medicinal species of Continental Asia, following Loureiro’s which led Burtt & Smith (in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 31: 202. intention, and preserve nomenclatural stability. The effect of not ac- 1972) to place it in synonymy under A. globba J.F. Gmel. The status cepting this proposal would be slight in Indonesia since so little is of A. echinatum, not yet lectotypified, remains ambiguous. known of the species of Amomum there. In China, Thailand, Vietnam It seems clear that Loureiro made a simple mistake in saying that and Laos, however, A. echinosphaera would have to be taken up for the Indochinese and Indonesian elements were one species but, in the this species, overturning established usage of over 30 years. absence of Loureiro’s own specimen from Indochina, Rumphius’s figures are the only original material which could serve as the lecto- Acknowledgements type of Amomum villosum. If A. villosum were lectotypified on either Vichith Lamxay was supported by Sida-SAREC through their “Globba crispa rubra” or “Globba crispa viridis”, then the name bilateral programme with Laos. We thank R.K. Brummitt (K) and could no longer be available for use for the species of Vietnam and J. McNeill (E) for comments on early drafts of this proposal, and H.J. China, and would apply to a species in Indonesia. Thus, we propose de Boer (UPS) and J.F. Veldkamp (L) for discussions and translations to conserve the name A. villosum Lour. with a recent collection from of Rumphius.

(2007) Proposal to conserve the name Trigonotis against Endogonia (Boraginaceae)

James I. Cohen1 & James L. Reveal2

1 Department of Biology and Chemistry, Texas A&M International University, 5201 University Blvd., Laredo, Texas 78041-1900, U.S.A. 2 L.H. Bailey Hortorium, Department of Biology, 412 Mann Bldg., Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-4301, U.S.A. Author for correspondence: James L. Reveal, [email protected]

(2007) Trigonotis Steven in Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006) by indirect reference to Turczaninov’s 24(1,II): 603. post 30 Jun 1851 [Boragin.], nom. cons. prop. sectional name. This was recognized by Farr & al. (in Regnum Veg. Typus: T. peduncularis (Trev.) Benth. ex F.B. Forbes & Hemsl. 100: 615. 1979), who noted (l.c. 102: 1796. 1979) that Trigonotis was (in J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 26: 153. 1890) (Myosotis peduncularis nomenclaturally superfluous. Nevertheless, recent authors, including Trev.). Wielgorskaya (Dict. Gen. Names Seed Pl.: 545. 1995) and Mabberley (≡) Endogonia (Turcz.) Lindl., Veg. Kingd.: 656. Jan-Mai 1846 (Mabberley’s Pl.-Book: 872. 2008) simply ignored the problem by not (Myosotis sect. Endogonia Turcz. in Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturali- mentioning the Lindley name. Even Lindley himself did this in his stes Moscou 13: 257. 1840), nom. rej. prop. 1853 edition of Vegetable Kingdom. There Lindley cited Endogonia in the index (p. 858) but the name is nowhere to be seen on page 656 Both Lindley (l.c.) and Steven (l.c.) based their respective names there referenced, where the name supposedly was listed as a member on the same Turczaninov sectional name when each established a of Boraginaceae. name at the generic rank. Unfortunately, Steven seems to have been An interesting aside that needs to be addressed is the question unaware of the Lindley combination, although occasionally it was Steven raised. Is Endogonia sufficiently alike to be confusable (Art. mentioned elsewhere (e.g., Craig, Univer. Etymol. Tech. Pronoun. 53.3) with Endogone ? The same question can be asked about En- Dict. 1: 632. 1848) but even so he was reluctant to propose the same dogona Raf., as Farr & al. (l.c.: 615) appended that name with the combination as he considered Endogonia confusable with Endogone expression “non Endogone Link ex E. M. Fries 1823” as if they too Link ex Fr. (Syst. Mycol. 2: 295. 1823) and believed a different name were curious about the nomenclatural status of the Rafinesque name. was required. Steven also was not aware of Endogona Raf. (Fl. Tell. Trigonotis is an Old World genus of some 60 species found 2: 27. 1837) which, by lectotypification, is a homotypic synonym of throughout Asia and the eastern edge of Europe. Its center of di- Anthericum L. (Sp. Pl. 1: 310. 1753). versity is China where more than half of the species are endemic Hooker & Jackson (Index Kew. 1: 840. 1893) listed Endogonia (Zhu & al. in Wu & Raven, Fl. China 16: 361–373. 1995). Trigonotis as a synonym of Trigonotis, despite recognizing that Endogonia was is well established in both the floristic (e.g., Popov, l.c.; Chater in an earlier name (a “nomen prius”, fide Index Kew. 2: 1118. 1893). Valentine & Chater, Fl. Europ. 3: 118. 1972; Kitagawa, Neolin. Fl. Von Royez (in Pacific Sci. 29: 81. 1975) noted that the Lindley name Manshur.: 536–537. 1979; Czerepanov, Vasc. Pl. Russia: 126. 1995) predated that of Steven, considering it a “nomen solis”. Popov (Fl. and the horticultural literature (e.g., Phillips & Rix, Bot. Gard. 2: S.S.S.R. 19: 260. 1953) declared Endogonia to be a nomen nudum 244. 2002; Bennett, Pulmonarias Borage Fam.: 213. 2003; Cullen, while Pfeiffer (Nomencl. Bot. 1: 1203. 1873) and a century later Airy Pract. Pl. Identif.: 214. 2006), although members of the genus are only Shaw (Dict. Fl. Pl. Ferns, ed. 8: 414. 1973) simply declared Endo- infrequently cultivated. Even though Trigonotis has long been known gonia a synonym of Trigonotis. Although Lindley had only listed as an illegitimate name, it was accepted without question by Gunn & “Endogonia, Turcz.” among other genera of Boraginaceae, this is al. (U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 1796: 112. 1992; see also GRIN, http://www. valid publication under ICBN Art. 32.6 (see Ex. 8; McNeill & al. ars-grin.gov/ and ITIS, http://www.itis.gov/) and proposed for NCU

598 TAXON 60 (2) • April 2011: 599–600 Andrés-Sánchez & al. • (2008) Conserve

protection by Greuter & al. (in Regnum Veg. 129: 1174. 1993) without 409–419. 2010)—and has been subdivided into a series of subtribes comment. Historically, Trigonotis has consistently and unfailingly including Trigonotidinae (Riedl in Österr. Bot. Z. 115: 291–321. 1968). been recognized, as not a single specific epithet has been proposed The purpose of our proposal is two-fold. If Endogonia is judged within Endogonia. Indeed, on 11 Mar 2011 a web search for Trigonotis under Art. 53.5 to be treatable as a homonym of Endogone or Endo- resulted in more than 63,000 hits, whereas one for Endogonia resulted gona, and is thus not a legitimate name, then the above proposal to in a mere 432 hits. Finally, Trigonotis is the type of Trigonotideae, conserve Trigonotis is not necessary. On the other hand, if Endogonia one of the larger tribes of Boraginaceae (Riedl, Fl. Iranica 48: 53. is a legitimate name, we urge approval of our proposal, as adoption 1967; Al-Shehbaz in J. Arnold Arbor. 1(Suppl.): 7. 1991)—although of Endogonia and the wholesale creation of new combinations in a the tribe does not appear to be monophyletic (Långström & Chase genus that never has been adopted in the systematic literature since in Pl. Syst. Evol. 234: 137–153. 2002; Weigend & al. in Syst. Bot. 35: its proposal in 1846 would greatly upset nomenclatural stability.

(2008) Proposal to conserve the name Filago arvensis () with a conserved type

Santiago Andrés-Sánchez,1 Mercè Galbany-Casals,2 Enrique Rico,1 Gerhard Wagenitz3 & M. Montserrat Martínez-Ortega1

1 Departamento de Botánica, Universidad de Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain 2 Departament de Biologia Animal, Biologia Vegetal i Ecologia, Facultat de Biociències, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain 3 Abteilung Systematische Botanik, Albrecht von Haller Institut, Universität Göttingen, Untere Karspüle 2, 37073 Göttingen, Germany Author for correspondence: Santiago Andrés-Sánchez, [email protected]

(2008) Filago arvensis L., Sp. Pl.: [Add. post indicem]. 1 Mai 1753 France 2: 325. 1937), Smoljaninova (in Schischkin, Fl. URSS 25: [Dicot.: Comp.], nom. cons. prop. 322. 1959), Clapham & al. (Fl. Brit. Isles, ed. 2: 836. 1962), Wa- Typus: “Filago altera Dod. Pempt. by Inst. R. h. / Filago genitz (in Hegi, Ill. Fl. Mitt.-Eur., ed. 2, Band VI, 3: 119. 1966; in vulgaris, floribus per caulem sparsis Inst. R. h. Hist. Plant. Rechinger, Fl. Iranica 145: 24. 1980), Fiori (Nuov. Fl. Italia 2: 665. Paris / majus, angusto oblongo folio C. B. Pin. 1969), Holub (in Davis & al., Fl. Turkey 5: 108. 1975; in Tutin & 263”, Vaillant (P), typ. cons. prop. al., Fl. Eur. 4: 123. 1976), Feinbrun-Dothan (Fl. Palaestina 3: 308. 1978), Guinochet & Mangenot (Fl. France 4: 1408. 1982), Pignatti This proposal aims to prevent displacement of Filago arven- (Fl. Italia 3: 33. 1982), De Langhe & al. (Nouv. Fl. Belgique, ed. 2: sis L., a name in general use today for an annual member of Astera- 621. 1983), Devesa (in Valdés & al., Fl. Vasc. Andalucia Occid. 3: ceae widely distributed in the Northern Hemisphere. 27. 1987), Adler & al. (Exkursionsfl. Österr.: 802. 1994), Bolòs & The species was first described as Gnaphalium arvense L. by Vigo (Fl. Països Catalans 3: 725. 1995), Chambers & Sundberg (Or- Linnaeus in the first edition of his Species Plantarum (1753: 856), egon Vasc. Pl. Checkl., 2000: Asteraceae, http://www.oregonflora. but in the same work (Linnaeus 1753: Addenda post indicem) he org/asterlist/Asteraceae.html) Wagenitz (Fl. Pakistan 210: 133–143. transferred it to Filago L. According to Greuter (in Boissiera 13: 2003), Stepanek & Stepankova (in Slavik & Stepankova, Kvet. Ceske 136–139. 1967) these names (G. arvense and F. arvensis) are nomina Republ. 7: 95. 2004), Morefield (in Flora of North America Editorial alternativa. The current proposal is, however, independent of this Committee, Fl. N. Amer. 19: 443–445. 2006), Martincic & al. (Mala interpretation of the status of G. arvense. Fl. Slovenije: 648. 2007), Greuter (in Greuter & al., Med-Checklist Filago arvensis was later included in the genus Oglifa Cass. 2: 219. 2008), and Greuter (published on the internet http://ww2 (Cassini in Cuvier, Dict. Sci. Nat., ed. 2, 23: 564. 1822), and then .bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?NameCache=Filago%20 transferred to by Holub (in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh arvensis&PTRefFk=7000000). Also several weed reports and cata- 33: 432. 1975). logues of exotic or invasive confirm the current use of F. arven- A molecular phylogenetic survey of the “Filago group” (sensu sis: Haussmann & al. (Plante Infestanti e Metodi di Lotta: 442. 1971), Anderberg in Opera Bot. 104: 5–195. 1991) associated with the pres- Carretero (Flora Arvense Española: 141. 2004), Randall (Global Com- ent proposal (Galbany-Casals & al. in Taxon 59: 1671–1689. 2010), pend. Weeds, 2007: http://www.hear.org/gcw/species/filago_arven- shows that this species should be included in a newly circumscribed sis), Stark (Rev. Exotic Pl. in Wilderness: 12. 1987), Steward (Bound- Filago. In an additional associated work (Andrés-Sánchez & al., in ary Invasive Pl. Managem. Strategy: 12. 2007: http://www.for.gov Taxon 60: 572–576. 2011—this issue), F. subg. Oglifa (Cass.) Gren. .bc.ca/hfd/library/FIA/2008/LBIP_4805009b.pdf). has been also newly circumscribed. Filago arvensis is the type of this Unfortunately, there is a problem with the neotype chosen for subgeneric name, being the original type of the generic name Oglifa. F. arvensis. The name was formally typified by Wagenitz (in Rechin­ The current widespread use of the epithet “arvensis” (as F. ger, l.c.) on a specimen lodged at the herbarium at the Linnean So- arvensis, Logfia arvensis (L.) Holub or Oglifa arvensis (L.) Cass.) ciety (LINN), No. 1041.7 (see also, Jarvis, Order out of Chaos: 520. may be illustrated by, among others: Holmboe (Stud. Veg. Cyprus: 2007). This specimen was designated as a neotype since no original 178. 1914), Bonnier (Fl. Ill. France 6: 20. 1923), Coste (Fl. Descr. elements were found at that time (Jarvis, l.c.). During our research

599