AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Dear Author, During the preparation of your manuscript for publication, the questions listed below have arisen. Please attend to these matters and return this form with your proof. Many thanks for your assistance.

Query Query Remarks References

Q1 Please confirm that given names (blue) and surnames/family names (vermilion) have been identified and spelled correctly. Journal Code Article ID Dispatch: 23-JUL-20 CE: No TAX 12300 No. of Pages: 2 ME: No TAXON 00 (00) • 1–2 Hershkovitz • (2751–2753) Reject Tutuca, T. chilensis, T. fistulosa

PROPOSALS TO CONSERVE OR REJECT NAMES 1 57 2 58 3 (2751–2753) Proposals to reject the names Tutuca, T. chilensis, and T. fistulosa 59 4 () 60 5 61 6 62 Q1 Mark A. Hershkovitz 7 63 8 Santiago, Chile 64 9 Address for correspondence: Mark A. Hershkovitz, [email protected] 65 10 DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12300 66 11 67 First published as part of this issue. See online for details. 12 68 13 (2751) Tutuca Molina, Sag. Stor. Nat. Chili, ed. 2: 135, 288. 1810 1919), to which the is referred also in current taxonomic data- 69 14 [Gram.], nom. utique rej. prop. bases (GBIF Secretariat, GBIF Backbone , Checklist data- 70 15 Typus: non designatus. set. 2017, https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei; International 71 16 (2752) Tutuca chilensis Molina, Sag. Stor. Nat. Chili, ed. 2: 135. Names Index. 2012. www.ipni.org; of the World Online. 72 17 1810 [Angiosp.: Gram.], nom. utique rej. prop. http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org; World Flora Online. http:// 73 18 Typus: non designatus. www.worldfloraonline.org [all accessed May 2020]). This placement 74 19 (2753) Tutuca fistulosa Molina, Sag. Stor. Nat. Chili, ed. 2: 288. evidently stems from Molina’s annotation “post Kalmiam” to 75 20 1810 [Angiosp.: Gram.], nom. utique rej. prop. “Tutuca gen. nov.” (Molina, l.c.: 288) in his “Flora selecta Regni Chi- 76 ” – 21 lensis juxta Systema Linneanum (Molina, l.c.: 277 301). However, 77 22 Typus: non designatus.As articulated in Hershkovitz Molina placed Tutuca in the Decandria Monogynia of Linnaeus 78 – (Sp. Pl.: 373–397. 1753), in which Kalmia is included, and so no 23 (in EcoEvoRxiv, May 29: 48 50. 2020 [https://doi.org/10.32942/ 79 osf.io/wgaf3]), the taxonomic identity of Tutuca Molina (Sag. Stor. modern taxonomic significance can be afforded to this annotation. 24 80 Nat. Chili, ed. 2: 135, 288. 1810) and its single but evidently twice- Gunckel (in Not. Mens. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. 42: 3–11. 1972; 25 81 named (first in a “Vegetabili del Chili” section and differently republished/reformatted in Chloris Chil. 10(1). Jul 2007) referred 26 in a floristic synthesis in the same work; see below) has remained Tutuca to “Senecio fistulosa (Molina) Poeppig ex Lessing” (Astera- 82 27 unresolved for more than two centuries. Hershkovitz (l.c. 2020) con- ceae). This is bizarre, because this combination does not exist, Les- 83 28 cluded that the generic name pertains to Kunth (in J. Phys. sing (in Linnaea 6: 246. 1831) made no reference to Tutuca or 84 29 Chim. Hist. Nat. Arts 95: 151. Aug 1822, Syn. Pl. 1: 254. 9 Dec Molina, and nothing in Molina’s (l.c.) protologue or, for that matter, 85 30 1822) (Poaceae-Bambusoideae), and that both of the species names Feuillée’s (l.c.) description (much less illustration) of “Tutuca Feuil- 86 31 pertain to Chusquea culeou É. Desv. (in Gay, Fl. Chil. 6: 450. lée” remotely suggests Asteraceae. Gunckel may have surmised this 87 32 1853). Rodolfo Philippi (in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 22, Beil. 1: identity on the basis of the epithet ‘fistulosa’ shared with another 88 33 8. 1864) first surmised this identity but later (in Anales Univ. Chile Chilean species, but the explanation is inconsequential to the present 89 34 29: 773–774. 1867) rejected it. proposal. 90 35 Another suggested identity was Calandrinia pilosiuscula DC. Calandrinia Kunth (in Humboldt & al., Nov. Gen. Sp. 6, 91 36 (Montiaceae) (Philippi, l.c. 1867 [as C. compressa Schrad. ex DC.]; ed. fol.: 62. 1823) had appeared to be the best-supported affilia- 92 tion, since Molina cited Feuillée’s work and adopted his taxon 37 Hershkovitz in Phytoneuron 2019-27: 49. 2019 [as C. compressa]). 93 This was based on the identity of “Tutuca Feuillée” (J. Obs. 3: name and much of its description. This led Hershkovitz 38 94 65, t. 41. 1725), not, of course, validly published being pre-1753 (Art. (l.c. 2019) to list formally Tutuca as a synonym of Calandrinia. 39 95 13.1(a) of the ICN; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). This was an error, in part because Tutuca is the older name. Regard- 40 Feuillée’s description and illustration unequivocally pertain to an annual less, an early draft of Hershkovitz (l.c. 2020) was poised to propose 96 41 calandrinia, possibly C. pilosiuscula (Hershkovitz, l.c. 2020). Molina to typify Molina’s Tutuca species names with Feuillée’s (l.c.: t. 41) 97 42 (l.c.: 288) erroneously attributed the name T. fistulosa (with typograph- illustration of an annual calandrinia. But re-examination of the 98 43 ical error “V.” for “T.”) to Feuillée, and most, but not all, of his two question (motivated by comments from J. McNeill, written comm., 99 44 treatments (l.c.: 135 & 288) clearly derive from Feuillée’s (l.c.) corre- 24 May 2020) led Hershkovitz (l.c. 2020) to conclude that Molina 100 45 sponding description. But there are significant discrepancies as noted had seen Feuillée’s (l.c.) text but not his illustration. This, in turn, 101 46 by Philippi (l.c. 1867) and Hershkovitz (l.c. 2020) (see below). Hooker shed new light on the discrepancies between the descriptions of 102 47 & Arnott (Bot. Beechey Voy.: 24. 1830; in Bot. Misc. 3: 335. 1833) Feuillée and Molina. Logically, anything in Molina’s description 103 48 listed “Tutuca Feuill.” in the synonymy of Calandrinia pilosiuscula but absent in Feuillée’s must have been based on Molina’sown 104 49 DC. This was copied by Federico Philippi (Cat. Pl. Vasc. Chil.: 86. observations. The principal discrepancy, as emphasized by Philippi 105 50 1881; in Anales Univ. Chile, I, Mem. Ci. Lit. 59: 129. 1881) and Reiche (l.c. 1867), was that Molina described Tutuca not as a small annual 106 herb, but as an evidently woody plant with hollow stems used 51 (Fl. Chile 2: 347. 1898; in Anales Univ. Chile, I, Mem. Ci. Lit. 100: 107 351. 1898). locally to make musical wind instruments. The only candidate 52 108 Tutuca also has been classified in Ericaceae (Dalla Torre plant in southern Chile is Chusquea culeou and, not coincidently, 53 & Harms, Gen. Siphon. 9: 910. 1907; Willis, Dict. Fl. Pl.: 666. the instrument is known in the indigenous language as “tutuca” 109 54 110 55 111 56 © 2020 International Association for Plant Taxonomy 112

Version of Record 1 Hershkovitz • (2751–2753) Reject Tutuca, T. chilensis, T. fistulosa TAXON 00 (00) • 1–2

1 or “trutruca” (Finot & al. in Grillo & Venora, Dynam. Processes I consider definitive and unequivocal the taxonomic identity of 57 2 Biodivers. Case Stud. Evol. Spatial Distrib.: 85. 2011; cf. Perez Tutuca Molina as Chusquea culeou. However, this creates nomencla- 58 3 de Arce in Rev. Music. Chilena 40: 74. 1986). Why Feuillée chose tural inconvenience, because, neotypified, Tutuca would have 59 4 this name for an annual calandrinia is not clear. nomenclatural priority over Chusquea and, likewise, either 60 ’ 5 However, the partial correspondence between Molina s descrip- T. chilensis or T. fistulosa over Chusquea culeou. Priority of Tutuca 61 ’ 6 tion and Chusquea culeou does not explain Molina s attribution of would have applied as well in the case of the newer name 62 the name Tutuca to Feuillée, or his co-opting of Feuillée’s descrip- Calandrinia. 7 63 tion, which pertains to Calandrinia and not Chusquea. This Hershko- Chusquea is the largest genus of , and the name has 8 64 vitz (l.c. 2020) explained in terms of the phenology of Chusquea been applied relatively uncontroversially for two centuries (Finot 9 culeou, which flowers about every 62 years (Guerreiro & Vega. & al., l.c.). Likewise, the name Chusquea culeou has been applied 65 10 in. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 104: 235. 2019). Hershkovitz calculated stably to this common and well-known Patagonian 66 11 that Molina would not have been able to study the reproductive mor- (Guerreiro & Vega, l.c.). Molina’s names do not appear to have been 67 12 phology of Chusquea culeou. Having seen neither this nor Feuillée’s applied ever by anyone other than Molina. Moreover, with the excep- 68 13 illustration, he would have had no reason to doubt that Tutuca Molina tion of Philippi (l.c. 1864) and Hershkovitz (l.c. 2020), no other ref- 69 14 and “Tutuca Feuillée”, from the same region, were not the same plant. erences to these names associated them with Chusquea. Molina’s 70 15 Hence, he co-opted Feuillée’s description of the reproductive three validly published names retain historical significance, but I can- 71 16 morphology—of an annual calandrinia—to describe a sterile bam- not imagine a more clear-cut case for their formal and outright 72 17 boo. Molina would have seen the leaves of Tutuca Molina, and he nomenclatural rejection. 73 18 described these as alternate, linear, and amplexicaul. Fortuitously 74 19 but unfortunately, this corresponds reasonably well to the stem leaves Author information 75 20 of annual calandrinias, as described by Feuillée (l.c.). MAH, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8828-7995 76 21 77 22 78 23 79 24 80 25 81 26 82 27 83 28 84 29 85 30 86 31 87 32 88 33 89 34 90 35 91 36 92 37 93 38 94 39 95 40 96 41 97 42 98 43 99 44 100 45 101 46 102 47 103 48 104 49 105 50 106 51 107 52 108 53 109 54 110 55 111 56 112

2 Version of Record