(1492) Proposal to conserve the name Hibiscus sabdariffa (Malvaceae) with a conserved type

Abstract

The plant known as roselle in English-speaking countries, and as flor de Jamaica in Spanish-speaking countries, has widespread and significant economic importance. Wilson & Menzel (Econ. Bot. 18: 80-91. 1964) summarised the manifold uses of this plant. The dried calyces have recently become commercially important in various herbal teas (e.g., Red Zinger or tea) because of the brilliant red colour and pleasant flavour imparted to the beverage. This plant has long been known by the name sabdariffa L. (Sp. P1. 695. 1753) wherever it is cultivated or where it has become naturalised. However, although Borssum Waalkes (Blumea 14: 64. 1966) discussed the typification of H. sabdariffa and concluded that it required special study, the name had never been typified until, in 1979, Abedin (Fl. W. Pakistan 130: 9) lectotypified it with a Commelin plate (Hort. Med. Amstelod. 1: 35. t. 18. 1697) with the associated phrase name, Alcea benghalensis spinosissima, acetosae sapore, flore luteo pallido: umbone purpurascente, that had been included by Linnaeus (Sp. P1. 1753) under an unnamed variety (var. 6). Abedin perhaps misinterpreted a statement by Borssum Waalkes (l.c.) suggesting that the Commelin plate could designated as the type of H. cannabinus L. instead of a specimen in the Linnaean Herbarium (LINN 875.27) that was in poor condition. Linnaeus (Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 1149. 1759) based H. cannabinus on his 1753 var. 6 of H. sabdariffa. Linnaeus had initially (Hort. cliff. 350. 1737) recognised the species now known as H. sabdariffa under the phrase name Hibiscus inermis, foliis serratis: inferioribus ovatis integris; superioribus trilobis, but in publishing H. sabdariffa in 1753 (l.c.) he broadened his concept to include also spiny/aculeate stemmed plants, omitting inermis in the nomen specificum legitimum (phrase-name) and adding caule aculeato, and recognising five unnamed varieties. In 1759, Linnaeus (I.c.) recognised the heterogeneity of his 1753 concept and rectified it by narrowing his concept of H. sabdariffa to include only the smooth-stemmed elements, recognising, as noted above, H. cannabinus for spiny plants that included Commelin's plate. Obviously the spinosissima of Commelin and inermis are discordant, and Abedin's choice does not accord with Linnaeus's reinterpretation of 1759 and all subsequent usage. However, Abedin's choice is not in conflict with Linnaeus' protologue of 1753 and so his choice must be followed according to Art. 9.17 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Greuter & al., Regnum Veg. 138. 2000). This would be destabilising of accepted usage, involving the names of two