(2801) Proposal to conserve the name Coprosma grandifolia (Rubiaceae) with a conserved type

Abstract

(2801) Coprosma grandifolia Hook. f., Bot. Antarct. Voy. 2(1) (Fl. Nov.-Zel. 1): 104. 6 Sep 1852 [Angiosp.: Rub.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: [New Zealand], “Pelaphia grandifolia Mscr”, Banks & Solander (WELT Nos. SP063859/A! & SP063859/B!), typ. cons. prop. The largest-leaved Coprosma (Rubiaceae) in New Zealand was known as C. grandifolia Hook. f. (Bot. Antarct. Voy. 2(1) (Fl. Nov.-Zel. 1): 104: 1852) in the early part of the 20th century (e.g., Cheeseman, Man. New Zealand Fl.: 246. 1906; ed. 2: 858. 1925). Subsequently (e.g., Oliver in Bull. Bernice P. Bishop Mus.: 107. 1935; Allan, Fl. New Zealand: 582. 1961; Moore & Irwin, Oxford Book New Zealand Pl.: 122. 1978), it was referred to C. australis (A. Rich.) B.L. Rob. (in Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts 45: 408. 1910) because of that name's earlier basionym (Ronabea australis A. Rich. in Dumont d'Urville, Voy. Astrolabe 1: 265. 1832). However, Connor & Edgar (in New Zealand J. Bot. 25: 142. 1987) quoted A.P. Druce as pointing out that the syntypes (P barcodes P03819108!, P04023398!) of Ronabea australis were the species known as Coprosma lucida J.R. Forst. & G. Forst. (Char. Gen. Pl., ed. 2: 138. 1776). Druce also stated, “The next available name for the plants known here as C. australis is C. grandifolia Hook. f.” It was, however, not noticed until recently (Gooding & al., Joseph Banks' Florilegium: 150. 2017; Large & al. in Kew Bull. 75(37): 1–5. 2020) that Hooker's Coprosma grandifolia is an illegitimate superfluous name because he cited R. australis in its synonymy (Art. 52.1 and 52.2 of the ICN: Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). After Connor & Edgar (l.c.), the name Coprosma grandifolia was widely adopted once again (e.g., Poole & Adams, Trees Shrubs New Zealand: 174. 1994; Eagle, Eagle's Complete Trees Shrubs New Zealand 2: 676. 2006; Dawson & Lucas, New Zealand Native Trees: 198. 2011; Schönberger & al., Checkl. New Zealand Fl. Seed Plants: 87. 2019). Until Gooding & al. (l.c.), usage of Coprosma grandifolia had become universal. By comparison, Coprosma autumnalis Colenso (in Trans. & Proc. New Zealand Inst. 19: 263. 1887), which is the next available name for the largest-leaved New Zealand Coprosma (Large & al., l.c.), had never been previously used in modern times as an accepted name (searching www.googlescholar.com with “Coprosma autumnalis”, 23 Oct 2020). Furthermore, this largest-leaved Coprosma is one of the most common of New Zealand's indigenous plants. In the citizen science website www.iNaturalist.org, for instance, it was the 18th-most recorded indigenous plant within the five years to 23 October 2020, with 1133 research grade observations. It is hence among the top 1% of observed species within an indigenous vascular flora of some 2500 species. Attitudes to nomenclatural change have shifted markedly in recent decades. McNeill & al. (in Taxon 64: 165. 2015) wrote that “Successive Nomenclature Sections have made it quite clear that indulging in name changes for purely nomenclatural reasons is now reprehensible unless new conservation/rejection avenues have been explored […].” The particularly apt name Coprosma grandifolia is here proposed for conservation to retain prevailing usage. If this is not accepted, then one of the most commonly encountered plants in New Zealand will have its name changed again because of the nomenclatural oversight made by Druce, Connor, and Edgar over three decades ago. This would entail significant disruption for the users of botanical names in New Zealand, fuelling disquiet about the practice of taxonomists. The proposed conserved type accords with Hooker's protologue for Coprosma grandifolia, where he cited “Banks and Solander, etc.” Hooker also cited in synonymy their nomina nuda “Pelaphia laeta” and “P. grandifolia”, with the latter annotated by Solander on the label of the proposed conserved type. The plant material on the A and B sheets was originally stored together unmounted, along with Solander's label now on sheet A (Patrick Brownsey, pers. comm.) and so represents a single specimen (cf. Art. 8.3 of the ICN; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). LP, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2118-3534 I thank Patrick Brownsey and Lara Shepherd for their review of an initial draft.