Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 25 June 2020 1 SYSTEMATICS OF CALANDRINIA PILOSIUSCULA DC A.K.A. CALANDRINIA COMPRESSA SCHRAD. EX DC (MONTIACEAE–MONTIOIDEAE) MARK A. HERSHKOVITZ Santiago, Chile [email protected] ABSTRACT Calandrinia compressa Schrad. ex DC (Prodr. 3: 359. 1828) is the name currently widely applied to a polymorphic annual species of Calandrinia sect. Calandrinia endemic to the Chilean Floristic Region. A total of ten validly published heterotypic names plus six horticultural designations (and orthographic variants thereof) have been considered at some point as taxonomically the same as C. compressa. Two additional heterotypic taxa and their synonyms and two other designations possibly refer to this species. Two other taxa sometimes referred to this species are excluded. I treat here a total of 77 distinct nomenclaturally valid names and invalid designations and variants thereof. The type of one of the valid and legitimate names, Calandrinia pilosiuscula DC (Rev. Portulac. 9. 1827), is judged here to be taxonomically the same as the type of C. compressa. Because of its chronological priority, Calandrinia pilosiuscula DC must be accepted as the correct name for Calandrinia compressa Schrad. ex DC when the two are considered taxonomic synonyms. Here, the taxonomic history of this taxon is articulated and, where possible, types are identified and/or designated. The natural and anthropogenic history of the species is summarized critically in a theoretical context. [Version corrected 21 June 2020.] KEY WORDS: Calandrinia compressa, Calandrinia pilosiuscula, Montiaceae, Chilean Floristic Region, taxonomy, nomenclature, natural history. 1. Introduction De Candolle (1827, 1828a, b) circumscribed what was to become the polyphyletic Calandrinia Kunth “s. l.,” which prevailed in classical Portulacaceae systematics until the end of the 20th Century (Hershkovitz, 2019a). This genus was distinguished from Talinum Adans. (now Talinaceae) on the basis of the persistent rather than caducous sepals and a shorter style. Spach (1836) later segregated Cistanthe Spach from Calandrinia on the basis of the carinate/keeled (or “crested,” e.g., Reiche 1898a: 347; 1898b: 351) sepals of the latter. This trait was overlooked by Carolin (1987, 1993) and Hershkovitz (1993a), but appears to be nonetheless robust. Carolin (1987, 1993) dissolved Calandrinia s. l. on phylogenetic bases, but cladistically misdiagnosed Calandrinia (Hershkovitz, 1993a). Hershkovitz (1993a) established the current phylogenetic circumscription of Calandrinia on the basis of a unique trichome anatomy, leaf venation, and a combination of inflorescence, stomatal, and pollen characteristics. This circumscription has been corroborated repeatedly in molecular/genomic analyses (Hershkovitz, 2019a). Hershkovitz (2019a) erroneously indicated that C. ciliata (Ruiz & Pav.) DC was the conserved type of Calandrinia. In fact, the conserved type is C. caulescens Kunth, as indicated in Hershkovitz (1993a; cf. Wiersma et al., 2018+). [However, Hancock et al. (2018) applied a unique circumscription of Calandrinia comprising this genus plus the Australian genus Rumicastrum (Hershkovitz, 2019a: 53), many species of which were classified originally in the polyphyletic Calandrinia s. lato. Hancock et al. (2018) provided no scientific justification for this circumscription, it has no historical precedent, and it had no support from multiple morphological/molecular cladistic analyses dating to 1987 (see Hershkovitz, 2019a), © 2020 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license. Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 25 June 2020 2 including those of Hancock et al. (2018). Evidently the circumscription was contrived in order to avoid use of the correct name, Rumicastrum. I reemphasize this issue here only because, despite the criticism of Hershkovitz (2018a, 2019a), new species of Rumicastrum have continued to be described as Calandrinia (Obbens, 2019). Most bewildering, the classification is predicated to be cladistic, yet Obbens (2019) made no mention of his own conclusion (as coauthor of Hancock et al., 2018), much less earlier conclusions, that the described species do not pertain cladistically to Calandrinia. In other words, this is not an “error” or oversight. Obbens (2019) amply discussed the cladistic position of the newly described taxa, but evidently deliberately concealed knowledge, including his own, that the species do not pertain cladistically to Calandrinia. And he acknowledged review by Hancock et al. (2019) coauthors. This is “fake taxonomy,” and, moreover, “fake science.” One justifiably might wonder what else in the “scientific” publications of these authors is fake.] Hershkovitz (2019a) recognized two sections within Calandrinia: Calandrinia sect. Calandrinia (incl. C. sect. Monocosmia Hershk.; Hershkovitz, 1993a), comprising rosettiform annual species with apparently cymose inflorescences (see Hershkovitz, 1993a); and C. sect. Caespitosae Phil. (incl. C. sect. Acaules Reiche), comprising the acaulescent perennials with strictly solitary, axillary flowers. Calandrinia sect. Calandrinia comprises ca. seven currently widely accepted species native mainly to far western North America and South America. Five of the species are incidental to the Chilean Floristic Province (ChFR; Hershkovitz, 2019a), and three of these endemic. One of these, operationally called Calandrinia compressa Schrad. ex DC (Prodr. 3: 359. 1828), is native and endemic to current geopolitical Chile (but see Rodriguez et al., 2018, and below), but also is naturalized New Zealand (see below). I provide here a historical taxonomic analysis of the total of ten validly published heterotypic names and six horticultural designations (and orthographic variants thereof) that currently are and/or have been operationally referred to or associated with C. compressa. I also discuss two additional heterotypic taxa that might pertain to this species and two others that have been referred to this species but here are excluded. The analysis demonstrates that the nomenclaturally correct name for this operational species is Calandrinia pilosiuscula DC (Rev. Portulac. 9. 1827). Because of its strongly preferred application in 20th–21st Century scientific communication, the name C. compressa is an excellent candidate for nomenclatural conservation. But for various reasons, consummation of this nomenclatural procedure may be delayed more than two years. The present work articulates the taxonomy and operational taxonomic history of C. pilosiuscula and also summarizes its diagnostic basis and natural and anthropogenic history in an theoretical framework. 2. Operational diagnostics of Calandrinia pilosiuscula Plants of Calandrinia pilosiuscula (including C. compressa) share a distinctive calyx that in bud appears deltoid to hastate to obcordate or turbinate (Fig. 1). The two sepals are fused laterally for half or more of their length. Closed in bud, the bifid calyx appears flattened or “compressed,” which was the basis for the epithet “compressa” (De Candolle, 1828a: 359). The fused portion of the calyx forms the base of the triangular form and the appressed free portions form the acute to acuminate peak. The margin of the free portion of the abaxial sepal clasps the margin of the adaxial (Volgin and Al Taleb, 1998: 81, Abb. 3: F–H). The base of the calyx in bud is inflated laterally, the basal lobes forming small pouches. The calyx is just as distinctive in fruit, though this is not clear from the apparent “dissection” in Fig. 1. The basal fused portion enlarges allometrically and opens into to a shallow funnelform cup, the two triangular apices of the sepals deflexing laterally. But in pressed herbarium specimens, the entire calyx in fruit appears somewhat rhombic in form, the basal fused portion flabellate and the apical free portions of the sepals triangular. Sepals in other species of C. sect. Calandrinia range from ovate to nearly orbicular, fused only near the base or not at all. They are somewhat spreading after anthesis like an open clam shell. Thus, there is no confusing the taxonomic Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 25 June 2020 3 identity of plants of C. pilosiuscula, except in the case of possible intermediates with Calandrinia ciliata (Ruiz & Pav.) DC in the altiplano of northern Chile and Bolivia (Hershkovitz, 2006: 46), discussed later. As elaborated in the taxonomic section, a total of ten taxa (excluding homotypic synonyms) of Calandrinia corresponding to C. pilosiuscula and sharing the peculiar calyx have been validly named. Besides C. pilosiuscula and C. compressa, these include C. compressa var. adscendens DC, C. gaudichaudii Barnéoud, C. macilenta Barnéoud, C. procumbens Moris, C. tenella Hook. & Arn., C. virgata Phil., Talinum linaria Colla, and Talinum lineare Hoffmanns. As articulated in the taxonomic section, five of these taxa were described on the basis of plants cultivated from seed of undocumented Chilean origin. Two additional validly published and legitimate names possibly refer to C. pilosiuscula: Phacosperma peruviana Haw (and its illegitimate synonym, Calandrinia phacosperma DC), and Talinum gracile Colla. Tutuca chilensis Molina was referred to C. pilosiuscula by Philippi (1867) and Hershkovitz (2019a). This synonymy here is disproven and rescinded. However, the designation “Tutuca Feuillée” does pertain to Calandrinia sect. Calandrinia and possibly to C. pilosiuscula, as discussed later.