Cryptogamie,Bryologie,2010,31(1):75-94 ©2010Adac.Tous droits réservés Philonotiscapillaris Lindb.and P.arnellii Husn.; one moss,twonames Timo KOPONEN* &PekkaISOVIITA BotanicalMuseum(bryology),P.O.Box7, FI-00014 University of Helsinki,Finland (Received 10September2009,accepted 30 September2009) Abstract – Philonotiscapillaris, described byS.O.Lindbergin1867,hasbeen variously treated. Some authors considered ittobeasmall formof P.marchica,but Lindberghimself combined itas P.fontana var. capillaris on the basisof its spreading perigonialleaves,which areerectin P.marchica. P.T.Husnotwasconfused byLindberg’ssolution and described the same taxon as P.arnellii in 1890.Manynewrelated speciesweresoon described,and for awhile some authors accepted both P.capillaris and P.arnellii.H.N.Dixon provisionally synonymised P.arnellii with P.capillaris in 1896,while L.Loeske (1906)and M.G.Dismier (1908) did thisdefinitively.Nonetheless,while NorthAmericanflorasand checklists unanimouslyusethe correctname P.capillaris, the name P.arnellii isstill used in almost all recentEuropeanflorasand checklists.The lattername hasuntil nowbeen cited from Husnot’s“MuscologiaGallica”(Jun-Jul1890),but the valid publication byHusnotin Revue Bryologique(Apr-Mai1890)antedatesthis.Hereweclarify,based on thatcorrect protologueand Husnot’sletters toS.O.Lindbergand V.F.Brotherus,whyHusnot described P.arnellii. V.F.Brotherus /History /T.Husnot/S.O.Lindberg/Mosses/Philonotisarnellii / Philonotiscapillaris /Nomenclature/Synonymy INTRODUCTION Thiscircumpolar,temperateand borealmoss wasdescribed and named Philonotiscapillaris byLindberg(1867)from Danishand Swedishmaterial; however,the validity of thatfirst publication hasbeen questioned. Crum etal. (1973)attributed the name toLindb. ex C.J.[sic] Hartm. (1871),while Crum& Anderson (1981) and Allen (2002)explained that Philonotiscapillaris Lindb. (1867)isa nomen nudum and thatthe name wasonlyvalidated byHartman(i.e. C.Hartman,1871). Alatername, Philonotisarnellii, waspublished byHusnot(1890a, b)on the basisof specimensfrom Sweden. P.arnellii Husn. hasbeen synonymized with P . capillaris bynumerous contemporary European(e.g. Dixon &Jameson,1896 provisionally; Dismier,1908,1910; Brotherus,1909,1923,1924;Mönkemeyer, 1927)and recent,especiallyAmerican,authors (Anderson etal.,1990; Allen, 2002),doubtless on taxonomicallygood and nomenclaturallycorrectgrounds.In spiteofthe unanimous acceptanceof P.capillaris byAmericanbryologists,the *Correspondenceand reprints:[email protected] 76 T.Koponen &P.Isoviita name P.arnellii isstill used bythe majority of recentEuropeanauthors.The presentarticle aimstoelucidatethe reasonsforthisconfusing practiceand to encourage auniformusage on bothcontinents. PHILONOTIS CAPILLARIS LINDB. Inthe protologueof Philonotiscapillaris, Lindberg(1867)did notcite specimensaccurately,stating onlythatthe plantgrows in Denmarkand Sweden. The description of P.capillaris issimilarlyvery short.Inthe same paragraph Lindbergfirst statesthatthe moss named byhim as P.parvula [ nomen nudum ]in 1859 must beregarded asavariety of P.muehlenbergii (Schwägr.) Brid. and then continuesasfollows: “Ob aber Ph. Mühlenbergii von Ph. marchica hinlänglichveschieden sei,wage ich nochnichtzuentscheiden;esscheintmirjedochso. Desgleichen ist mirnocheine andereArt derselben Gattung etwasunklar,welche aufnacktem Boden Schwedensund Dänemarkswächst; sie ist beinahe haarfein mitäusserst schmalen Trieben und sehrausgezeichnet,stehtaberuntereuropäischen Formen deroben genannten amnächsten. Von dieser,welche ichinmeinem Mss.von 1865als Ph. capillaris beschrieben habe,besitzeichleidernur ein einzigesund unvollständigesFruchtexemplarund sehrwenig männliche,dagegen sind die sterilen weiblichen minderselten.” Lindberg’s(1867)characterisation of Philonotiscapillaris, “sie ist beinahe haarfein mitäusserst schmalen Trieben und sehrausgezeichnet”,isa sufficientdescription,and the name wasaccepted in “IndexMuscorum” (Wijk et al.,1967,1969) asthe basionymof P.fontana (Hedw.) Brid. var. capillaris (Lindb.) Lindb.Crosby etal. (1999) alsoattributed P.capillaris to“Lindberg,1867”,and itiscertainlynotabare nomen nudum .Nonetheless,the name isnotvalidly published if itisobvious that“itisnotaccepted bythe author[Lindberg]in the originalpublication” (see Art.34.1(a )ofthe Code,McNeill etal. 2006). Astothis nomenclaturalpointof view,insteadofdirectlypresenting hiscurrentopinion Lindbergstated thatin amanuscriptof 1865hehaddescribed the speciesas P.capillaris .Similarexpressionsof namesnewlyestablished in hisearlier manuscripts arenotunusualinLindberg’sprotologues.Hewasanabsolute defenderof the priority principle and approved nominanuda and otherinvalidly published namesaswell asmanuscriptnames(Isoviita, 1966:209). Lindberg’s referencetohis“Mss.von 1865” isintended toshowthatthe name P.capillaris gotpriority in 1865. Thereisno doubtthatLindbergstill accepted itin the 1867 publication. Onthe otherhand,hisslighttaxonomichesitation in 1867 concerning the somewhatunclear(“etwasunklar”) speciesstatus seemstobeduemerelyto him nothaving available aspecimen withcompletesporophytes, i.e. withold capsules.Inanyevent,the last sentenceofthe Article cited abovestates:“Art. 34.1(a )doesnotapplytonamespublished withaquestion markorother indication of taxonomicdoubt,yetaccepted bytheirauthor”. Thisprovision confirmsthatsuchahesitation alone cannotinvalidatethe 1867 publication. Even if Lindberg’s(1867)first publication isnotconsidered acceptable, Philonotiscapillaris wasvalidated as Bartramiacapillaris “S.O.Lindberg(in litt.)” byT.Jensen (1868) and,independently,as Philonotiscapillaris (Lindb. ex T.Jensen) Milde byMilde (1869). Inspiteofthe latternotciting T.Jensen (1868), underArt.33.3of the Code Milde’sname canberegarded asavalidlypublished combination based on Bartramiacapillaris .Furthermore,Milde alsoascribed Philonotiscapillaris Lindb.and P.arnellii Husn.;one moss,twonames77 P.capillaris toLindbergand evidentlyknewLindberg’s(1867)original publication. InhislettertoS.O.Lindberg(in the archivesof FinnishNational Library,see Koponen &Isoviita, 2005),dated in Breslau“d. 16.Febr.68.”,Milde wrote:“ Hylocomiumsubpinnatum und Philonotiscapillaris haben wirjetzt auch in Schlesien.” The citation Philonotiscapillaris Lindb. ex C.J.Hartm. or P.capillaris Lindb. ex Hartm.,frequentlyused byAmericanauthors,refers toC.Hartman’s (1871) treatmentin the 10thedition of the Scandinavianflorafounded byhis father,C.J.Hartman(1790-1849). Thispublication of P.capillaris hasno nomenclaturalstanding sinceamerehomotypicisonym(asdefined in Art.6 Note2of the 2006 Code) isinvolved. AfterHartman’s(1871) flora, and beforethe description of Philonotis arnellii (see below),differentopinionsof the status of P.capillaris werepublished. Intheirlist of all of the mossesof the world,Jaeger&Sauerbeck(1875) cited Lindberg(1867)withaquestion mark,and mentioned alsoMilde (1869). Schimper(1876)thoughtthatspecimensfrom Germanyand Scotland are differentfrom the Danishplant,whichisagracile formof P.marchica (Hedw.) Brid. Limpricht(1876)and Molendo (1875) considered P.capillaris tobeavariety of P.marchica, and Geheeb(1878) did notaccept P.capillaris asaspecies. Zetterstedt(1876)maintained the specificstatus and presented P.parvula Lindb. [ nom. inval.]asits synonym. Gravet(1883)marked P.capillaris Lindb.asan uncertain and insufficientlyknowntaxon. PHILONOTIS ARNELLII HUSN. Instandardindicessuchas“Indexbryologicus”(Paris,1896,1905) and “Indexmuscorum” (Wijk etal.,1967),aswell asearlyand laterfloras(e.g., Limpricht,1893; Warnstorf,1905;Möller,1925;C.Jensen,1939;Nyholm,1960, 1998;Lawton,1971;Smith,1978,2004),the name Philonotisarnellii iscited from the 9thpart (“livraison”) of Husnot’s“ MuscologiaGallica”(1890b). However,in the same yearHusnotpublished anarticle on dioicous speciesof Philonotis (Husnot,1890a)in RevueBryologique 17(3):42-47,and P.arnellii isdescribed alsointhatarticle. Ifpublished earlierthan“MuscologiaGallica”,the article in RevueBryologique constitutesthe realprotologue. Podp{ ra(1954) cited alsothe article in the “ Revue ”and Möller(1925) mentioned itin the text. InTL-2’sentry “ 3154. MuscologiaGallica”,Stafleu&Cowan(1979) state: “Datesbased on notesin Nat.Nov.,Hedwigia, Bot.Gaz.,Bot.Zeit,and Rev. Bryol.”. The dateTL-2providesforLivraison 9and forp. I-VIII of the entire volume including its reissued Plates1-10isJun-Jul1890,whereasall of the other 13parts havemoreprecisedates.Among the sourcesmentioned above,only Bot. Gaz .15:275(Oct1890), Nat.Nov .12:360 (2nd half of Aug1890),and Rev.Bryol. 17(4):60-61(ca Jul-Aug1890)canservefordating the 9thlivraison;and apparently itisthe latterfrom whichthe approximatedateJun-Jul1890hasbeen drawn. Inthe context involved,areviewof Husnot’snewcontribution,the pagesI-VIII arealso mentioned and the following information isprovided:“Lessouscripteurs recevront en même tempsquecettelivraison unnouveautirage des10premièresplanches…” (Husnot,1890c). Afterall,itisquitelogicalthatthe first reviewof Husnot’sbook waspublished in the journalfounded and edited byHusnothimself, Revue Bryologique ,and assoon asthe completebook became available. 78T.Koponen &P.Isoviita Philonotiscapillaris Lindb.and P.arnellii Husn.;one moss,twonames79 Fig. 1. P.T.Husnot’slettertoS.O.Lindberg. Originalinthe Archivesof the NationalLibrary of Finland. All lettercopiesarethe courtesy of the NationalLibrary of Finland. Ifwesupposethatthe sixparts of eachjournalvolume werepublished atregularintervals,then the publishing dateof RevueBryologique 17(3)mightbe May-June. However,the deathofthe HungarianProf.