(1561‐1563) Proposals to conserve the names Erica calycina, E. corifolia, and E. imbricata (Ericaceae) with conserved types

Abstract

Linnaeus published this name in the second edition of his Species Plantarum, giving it a new phrase name and citing just one synonym, from Seba (Locupl. Rer. Nat. thes. 2: 13, t. 11, f. 7. 1735). Studies ofLinnaean and associated herbaria have located no herbarium specimens which could be considered original material for this name and, consequently, the cited plate from Seba is the sole original element. Erica calycina is a very common and widespread species throughout the Western Cape Province in South Africa. It is extremely variable in both vegetative characters and in the colour of the flowers, but the application of its name is today undisputed, with up to four varieties being recognised. We have examined the Seba plate and it definitely does not correspond to E. calycina as currently understood. The flowers as represented by Seba are too large, as is the corolla/calyx size ratio, the corolla lobes are not reflexed as they should be, and the typical exserted or partially exserted stamens are not shown. We think the plate may be a poor representation of E. dianthifolia Salisb., although this species has many more flowers in a terminal inflorescence, not the solitary flower shown in Seba's plate. Although we are unable to identify definitively the plate, we are completely sure that it cannot be E. calycina and would not be a suitable lectotype even with the support of a designated epitype of undisputed identity. The name Erica calycina has enjoyed a long tradition of uncontroversial usage, for example by Thunberg (Prodr. P1. Cap.: 74. 1794 & Fl. Cap.: 569. 1823) and Guthrie & Bolus (in Thiselton Dyer (ed.) Fl. Cap. IV: 293. 1905). It is also very much a name in current use, for example by Adamson & Salter (Fl. of Cape Pen.: 656. 1950), Baker & Oliver (Ericas in S. Afr.: 169. 1967), Maytham Kidd (Cape Pen. S. Afr. Wild Fl. Guide 3: 142. 1983), Schumann & al. (Ericas of S. Afr.: 229. 1992), Oliver (in Arnold & de Wet (ed.) P1. S. Afr.: Names & Dist.: 536. 1993), Bohnen (More Fl. Plants of the S. Cape: 51. 1995) and Oliver & Oliver (in Goldblatt & Manning (ed.) Consp. Cape Fl. S. Afr.: 432. 2000). Lectotypification of E. calycina using the Seba element, which is probably identifiable as E. dianthifolia, would therefore result in E. calycina becoming the correct name for the species known as E. dianthifolia. This latter name is also in use for a rare species found on the mountainous slopes of the southern Cape coastal area, for example by Bentham (in Candolle (ed.) Prodr. Syst. Nat. Regni Veg. VII: 649. 1839), Guthrie & Bolus (in Thiselton Dyer (ed.) Fl. Cap. IV: 252. 1905), Schumann & al. (Ericas of S. Afr.: 199. 1992), Oliver (in Arnold & de Wet (ed.) P1. S. Afr.: Names & Dist.: 536. 1993), Bohnen (More Fl. Plants of the S. Cape: 50. 1995) and Oliver & Oliver (in Goldblatt & Manning (ed.) Consp. Cape Fl. S. Afr.: 432. 2000). Further, the species now known as E. calycina would become E. nigrita L. (Syst. Nat., ed. 12: 270. 1767), the next available name, which has not been in use since 1839. Such disruption of two names in current usage, one of which (E. calycina) is one of the most common species of Erica in South Africa cannot, we believe, be justified and is certainly not desirable. Consequently we propose the name E. calycina for conservation with a conserved type that reflects current usage, in accordance with Art. 14.1 of the ICBN (Greuter & al., Regnum Veg. 138. 2000).