(106–107) Requests for binding decisions on the descriptive statements associated with Larix archangelica and L. dahurica

Abstract

(106) Larix archangelica P. Lawson & C. Lawson, Agric. Man.: 389. 1836 [Gymnosp.: Pin.]. (107) Larix dahurica P. Lawson & C. Lawson, Agric. Man.: 389. 1836 [Gymnosp.: Pin.]. “IV. LARIX ARCHANGELICA—Archangel or Russian Larch. Native of the north of Russia. Seems a hardy, compact, but not vigorous grower.” “VI. LARIX DAHURICA—Dahurian Larch. Seems a stinted, bushy, and irregular grower; which characteristics it may, however, have partly acquired from being generally propagated by cuttings or layers. Native of Dahuria; from whence it was first introduced to Britain in 1827.” These Lawson names were generally considered nomina nuda by later authors, and thus they have not been taken into general use. The name Larix dahurica was validly published a few years later by Trautvetter (L. dahurica Turcz. ex Trautv., Pl. Imag. Descr. Fl. Russ. 7: 48, t. 32. 1846), and it was accepted by a number of authors in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. However, Trautvetter's name is not the earliest one available for the species in question, as the same species had been described as Abies gmelinii in 1845 by Ruprecht (Fl. Samojed. Cisural. in Beitr. Pflanzenk. Russ. Reiches 2: 56. 1845) and, consequently, by the second half of the 20th century Dahurian larch was generally known under the name L. gmelinii (e.g., Ostenfeld & Larsen in Biol. Meddel. Kongel. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. 9: 1–107. 1930; Chater in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur. 1: 29–35. 1964; Bobrov in Komarovskie Chteniya (Moscow & Leningrad) 25: 1–96. 1972; Khanminchun in Krasnoborov, Fl. Sibir. 1: 76–81. 1988; Koropachinskij in Kharkevich, Sosud. Rast. Sovetsk. Dal'nego Vostoka 4: 9–20. 1989; Moore in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur., ed. 2, 1: 37–44. 1993). The name Larix archangelica is referable to larch populations from the north of the European part of Russia (west of the Urals) that are often considered conspecific with Siberian larch (L. sibirica) (Bobrov in Fedorov, Fl. Evrop. Chasti S.S.S.R. 1: 100–116. 1974; Christensen in Jonsell, Fl. Nordica 1: 91–115. 2000). Only a few authors have recognized those populations as specifically distinct, doing so under the name L. sukaczewii Dylis (in Dokl. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 50: 489. 1946) (e.g., Ukhanov in Sokolov & Shishkin. Derev. Kustarnik. S.S.S.R. 1: 153–176. 1949). The general recognition of the two Lawson names as nomina nuda was challenged by Tsvelev (in Bot. Zhurn. 79(11): 90–91. 1994). He came to the conclusion that the descriptive statements associated with the names in question fulfilled the requirements for valid publication, and thus should be accepted as the earliest legitimate names at specific rank for Dahurian larch and Archangel larch. Tsvelev's publication resulted in the situation in which two conflicting opinions on the valid publication of the Lawson names coexist. The names are still not considered validly published in IPNI (https://ipni.org/), and they are not accepted either in the major taxonomic databases such as POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/), WFO (https://wfoplantlist.org/) or Euro+Med PlantBase (https://europlusmed.org/) (all accessed 18 Mar 2023) nor in such reference works as Fu & al. (in Wu & Raven, Fl. China 4: 11–52. 1999), Christensen (in Jonsell, Fl. Nordica 1: 91–115. 2000), Farjon (Handb. World's Conif. 2010), Urgamal & al. (Consp. Vasc. Pl. Mongol. 2014). The name L. gmelinii is still predominantly accepted for Dahurian larch in scientific publications, with approximately 11,600 publications indexed in Google Scholar (the number is limited to publications that appeared after 1995). Nevertheless, there is a growing number of publications that accept either one or both of the Lawson names. About 120 publications that appeared after 1995 (94 of them appeared after 2012) are listed in Google Scholar, and this number is likely incomplete. The Lawson names have been accepted, among others, in local floristic checklists (e.g., Gafurova, Sosud. Rast. Chuvashskoĭ Respubl. 2014), in regional floristic works (e.g., Orlova in Geltman & Tzvelev, Konsp. Fl. Vost. Evr. 1: 49–90. 2012; Malyshev in Bajkov, Konsp. Fl. Aziatsk. Ross.: 24–26. 2012), and in online resources such as Pan-Arctic Flora (http://panarcticflora.org/; accessed 18 Mar 2023). Some of the most recent examples of publications accepting at least one of the Lawson names are: Byalt & al. in Hortus Bot. 17: 103–138. 2022 (L. archangelica); Firsov & Fadeeva in Vestn. Udmurtskogo Univ., Ser. Biol. Nauki Zemle 32(2): 119–129. 2022 (L. archangelica); Sofronov & al. in Geogr. Nat. Resources 43: 50–58. 2022 (L. dahurica). Even if the number of authors accepting the Lawson names in question remains relatively small, it clearly indicates the existence of two conflicting opinions on the status of those names, and thus cannot be neglected. A binding decision on the descriptive statements associated with those two names will help to resolve this issue and to restore the nomenclatural stability. AK, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8704-4644