(034–035) Proposals to amend Article 9.6 and Example 6

Abstract

Article 9.6 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) reads as follows: “A syntype is any specimen cited in the protologue when there is no holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated in the protologue as types (see also Art. 40 Note 1). Reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof, is considered citation of the included specimens.” We feel that it would be better if a cross-reference to Art. 40 Note 2, which explains what does and does not constitute “mention of a single specimen or gathering”, were included in the definition of syntype, after “Reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof”, to make clearer the distinction between syntypes and uncited original material (see also Prop. 010 – Prado & al. in Taxon 69: 629. 2020). “9.6. A syntype is any specimen cited in the protologue when there is no holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated in the protologue as types (see also Art. 40 Note 1). Reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof (see also Art. 40 Note 2), is considered citation of the included specimens.” It is commonly considered that syntypes are plural, but a name can have a single syntype when one specimen is cited in the protologue and there is no holotype (Art. 9.6). In the protologue of Campanula pulla L. (Sp. Pl.: 163. 1753), Linnaeus cited “Burs. IV. 21”, which, according to Jarvis (Order out of Chaos: 39. 2007), precisely refers to the specimen Herb. Burser IV: 21 in UPS (V-173096; image!). There is also an uncited Jacquin specimen associated with C. pulla, Herb. Linnaeus No. 221.4 (LINN; http://linnean-online.org/774/), but it cannot be considered original material for the name, because it lacks the relevant species number (“2”) from the first edition of Species plantarum, which implies a post-1753 addition to Linnaeus's herbarium (see Jarvis, l.c.: 42–46), further supported by Jacquin's correspondence with Linnaeus beginning in 1759 (Jarvis, l.c.: 213). Linnaeus (l.c.) also cited an illustration, “Campanula foliis subrotundis” in Bauhin (Prodr.: 35. 1620). The name C. pulla has no holotype because Linnaeus did not indicate one and he used two elements (Art. 9.1). The one specimen cited in the protologue is therefore a syntype. Because there is no Example under Art. 9 of the Code showing that a name can have a single syntype, we propose to include this case as an addition to Art. 9 Ex. 6, which similarly concerns another Linnaean name that has two Burser specimens as syntypes. “Ex. 6. In the protologue of Campanula pulla L. (Sp. Pl.: 163. 1753), Linnaeus cited “Burs. IV. 21”, referring to a specimen in the Burser Herbarium (UPS), in addition to an illustration in Bauhin (Prodr.: 35. 1620). This single specimen is a syntype because it was cited in the protologue and there is no holotype. In Similarly, in the protologue of Anemone alpina L. (Sp. Pl.: 539. 1753), two specimens are cited under the (unnamed) varieties β and γ, as “Burs. IX: 80” and “Burs. IX: 81”. These specimens, held in the Burser Herbarium (UPS), are syntypes of A. alpina.” We are thankful to the Director, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, and Scientist “E” and Head of the Office, Central National Herbarium, Howrah for providing facilities. We also thank: N.J. Turland (Berlin) for refining the manuscript and for his helpful suggestions; Dr. Stefan Ekman and Dr. Mats Hjertson (Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University) for sending us the image of the specimen Herb. Burser IV: 21 (UPS) and their comments on the specimen; and Dr. Isabelle Charmantier and Dr. Mark A. Spencer (Linnean Society of London) for kindly informing us that the specimen Herb. Linnaeus No. 221.4 (LINN) is not original material of C. pulla.