Nordin & Roux • (1861) Conserve farinosa TAXON 58 (1) • February 2009: 292

There is no evidence, that I am aware of, of B. aurea in its there is a diagnosis from B. sanguinea. The only characters current sense being cultivated in U.K. until the 20th Century. given are the plant being two feet high and having yellow Does the committee consider the 1837 instance is validly flowers, but was any intention by the author to describe a published, and if so, do they think it can be rejected in favour new species? However, intent is not a component of Art. 32.1, of B. aurea Lagerh.? and the committee is only required to recommend ‘whether a Alistair Hay, Royal Botanic Garden, Sydney, Australia descriptive statement satisfies the requirement of Art. 32.1(d) for a “description or diagnosis” ’ In the vote, 14 members Committee recommendation. — The 1837 context is considered that there was a description or diagnosis, and that entirely non-scientific and non-taxonomic, and many would the name should, therefore, be treated as validly published, say that the name should not be treated as validly published. while 3 did not. On the other hand, some might make a case for saying that

(1861) Proposal to conserve the name Aspicilia farinosa (: : ) with a conserved type

Anders Nordin1 & Claude Roux2

1 Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 16, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden. anders.nordin@ evolmuseum.uu.se (author for correspondence) 2 Chemin des Vignes vieilles, 84120 Mirabeau, France

(1861) Aspicilia farinosa (Flörke) Hue, Nouv. Arch. Mus. two different taxa were involved in the application of the Hist. Nat. sér. 5, 2: 61. 1910 (Urceolaria calcarea epithet farinosa, one identical or closely related to A. cal- var. farinosa Flörke in Mag. Neuesten Entdeck. carea, with a reduced number of large spores in the asci Gesammten Naturk. Ges. Naturf. Freunde, Berlin (usually four), and one having 8-spored asci and distinctly 1810: 125. 1810 (‘λ’)), nom. cons. prop. smaller spores. Among others, Massalongo (Sched. Crit.: Typus: [France, Île-de-France], ‘Ad saxa calcarea 148. 1855) as Pachyospora farinosa, and Hepp (Flechten prope Moret’, Nylander, [Herb. Lich. Paris. No. 127, Europas No. 628), as Lecanora calcarea β farinosa, referred sub Lecanora cinerea var. calcarea ( farinosa Ach.)] to the former, while the latter was referred to by Nylander (in (UPS), typ. cons. prop. Bull. Soc. Linn. Normandie, ser. 2, 6: 307 (note). 1872) and Aspicilia farinosa (Flörke) Hue is a name that for a long Flagey (Lichenes Algerienses Exsicati No. 244) as Lecanora time has been applied to a widely distributed and well delim- farinosa. The identity and whereabouts of Flörke’s original ited crustose species in southern Europe and northern material remain unknown, Hue chose to base his species Africa, distinguished from A. calcarea (L.) Mudd. mainly concept on the small-spored taxon. This has been widely by its 8-spored asci and the distinctly smaller spores. It is adopted since (see above). included in influential lichen floras and checklists covering Recently a new Aspicilia species, A. substerilis Sip- these areas, such as Ozenda & Clauzade (Les , 1970), man (in Biblioth. Lichenol. 96: 267. 2007) was described. Clauzade & Roux (in Bull. Soc. Bot. Centre-Ouest Numero In connection with this Sipman (l.c.) reported that origi- Special 7: 1–893. 1985), Nimis (Lichens Italy, 1993), Hafellner nal material of Urceolaria calcarea var. farinosa Flörke & Türk (in Stapfia 76: 1–167. 2001), Llimona & Hladun (in had been found in B, and that this material neither agreed Bocconea 14: 1–581. 2001), Clerc (in Cryptog. Helv. 19: 1–320. with A. substerilis Sipman, nor with A. farinosa sensu Hue. 2004), and Nimis (Checkl. Ital. Lich. 3.0. http://dbiodbs.univ Flörke’s material, however, is not in very good condition, .trieste.it/global/italic1; consulted 6 June 2008), although with and it is not possible to judge whether it belongs to A. cal- incorrect author citations, with the combination into Aspicilia carea or represents a distinct species. If this material were attributed to Arnold. Arnold (in Flora 67: 409. 1884), however, to be designated lectotype of Urceolaria calcarea var. fa- used the epithet at subspecific level in a numbered list of spe- rinosa Flörke, the current application of A. farinosa could cies (‘210. Aspicilia calcarea …*A. farinosa Fl.’ followed by no longer be maintained and the application of the name ‘211. A. ceracea’). This way of indicating a subspecific level would be obscure. Consequently, we propose the name was widely used in the 19th century, and it was consistently A. farinosa for conservation with a conserved type, cited used by Arnold in Die Lichenen des fränkischen Jura, of above. The conserved type proposed represents the same which the cited Flora paper was a part. material as was discussed both by Hue (l.c.), Arnold (l.c.) The first valid transfer to specific rank was made by and Nylander (l.c.). Hue (l.c.). Like Arnold (l.c.), Hue was aware of the fact that

292