Abstract
Lepisorus (J. Sm.) Ching in Bull. Fan Mem. Inst. Biol. 4: 56. 1933 (Drynaria [unranked] Lepisorus J. Sm. in Bot. Mag. 72(Comp.): 13. 1846), nom. cons. Typus: Drynaria sesquipedalis J. Sm., nom. illeg. (Pleopeltis nuda Hook., L. nudus (Hook.) Ching). Macroplethus C. Presl, Epimel. Bot.: 141. Oct 1851; in Abh. Königl. Böhm. Ges. Wiss., ser. 5, 6: 501. Oct 1851, nom. rej. prop. Typus: M. platyrhynchos (Kunze) C. Presl (Hymenolepis platyrhynchos Kunze). The paleotropical fern genus Lepisorus (J. Sm.) Ching (in Bull. Fan Mem. Inst. Biol. 4: 56. 1933) is currently represented by about 60–70 species widely distributed in tropical Africa and Asia, but most diversified in subtropical Asia, one species extending to Hawaii (Wang & al. in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 162: 28–38. 2010a). Based on convincing molecular phylogenetic results (Kreier & al. in Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 48: 1155–1167. 2008; Wang & al. in Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 54: 211–225. 2010b), Wang & al. (l.c. 2010a) merged Belvisia Mirb. (in Lamarck & Mirbel, Hist. Nat. Vég. 3: 473, 5: 111. 1802), Paragramma (Blume) T. Moore (Index Filic.: xxxii. 1857) and Drymotaenium Makino (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 15: 102. 1901) under a broadly circumscribed Lepisorus. Due to the priority of these earlier names, Hovenkamp & al. (in Taxon 60: 591–592. 2011) proposed to conserve the name Lepisorus against Belvisia, Paragramma and Drymotaenium. Their proposal was accepted (Applequist in Taxon 61: 1111. 2012; Wilson in Taxon 65: 381. 2016) and is now included in the online Appendices to the ICN (http://botany.si.edu/references/codes/props/). However, Hovenkamp & al. (l.c.) overlooked the existence of another earlier name, Macroplethus C. Presl (Epimel. Bot.: 141. 1851; in Abh. Königl. Böhm. Ges. Wiss., ser. 5, 6: 501. 1851; apparently published simultaneously) for which Macroplethus platyrhynchos (Kunze) C. Presl (Hymenolepis platyrhynchos Kunze) was the only species name included in the protologue and hence is the original type of the generic name. This species was included in Belvisia (as B. platyrhynchos (Kunze) Copel.) by Hovenkamp & Franken (in Blumea 37: 523–524. 1993) and transferred to Lepisorus (as L. platyrhynchos (Kunze) Li Wang) by Wang & al. (l.c. 2010a) and certainly belongs in that genus as currently circumscribed. Due to the priority of Macroplethus over Lepisorus, all species (about 60–70) currently accepted under Lepisorus (sensu Wang & al., l.c. 2010a) should be transferred to Macroplethus as done in part by Tagawa (in Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 11: 232–235. 1942). However, this would be highly disadvantageous and hence I propose to conserve the name Lepisorus against the additional name Macroplethus. JM, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6127-2737 I sincerely thank Prof. J. McNeill (E) for editing and improving the proposal.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
