(2961) Proposal to conserve Bellucia, nom. cons., against the additional names Myriaspora and Loreya (Melastomataceae: Henrietteeae)

Abstract

(2961) Bellucia Neck. ex Raf., Sylva Tellur.: 92. Oct–Dec 1838 [Melastomat.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: B. nervosa Raf., nom. illeg. (Blakea quinquenervia Aubl., Bellucia quinquenervia (Aubl.) H. Karst.) [= Bellucia grossularioides (L.) Triana (Melastoma grossularioides L.)]. (H) Belluccia Adans., Fam. Pl. 2: 344, 525. Jul–Aug 1763 [Angiosp.: Rut.], nom. rej. ≡ Ptelea L. 1753. (≡) Apatitia Desv. ex Ham., Prodr. Pl. Ind. Occid.: 42. 1825, nom. rej. (=) Myriaspora DC., Prodr. 3: 165. Mar 1828, nom. rej. prop. Typus (hic designatus): M. egensis DC. (=) Loreya DC., Prodr. 3: 178. Mar 1828, nom. rej. prop. Typus: L. arborescens (Aubl.) DC. (Melastoma arborescens Aubl.). The woody Neotropical genus Bellucia Neck. ex Raf. (Sylva Tellur.: 92. 1838) is typified by B. nervosa Raf. (l.c.: 93), an illegitimate name (≡ Blakea quinquenervia Aubl., Hist. Pl. Guiane 1: 525, t. 210. 1775) and a taxonomic synonym of B. grossularioides (L.) Triana (in Trans. Linn. Soc. London 28: 141. 1872) (Melastoma grossularioides L., Sp. Pl.: 390. 1753). The genus comprises 22 species as presently circumscribed (Judd & Penneys in Goldenberg & al., Syst. Evol. Ecol. Melastomataceae: 219–234. 2022). Because Necker's Elementa botanica (1790) is a suppressed work under Art. 34 of the ICN (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), the generic name Bellucia, although first appearing in Necker (Elem. Bot. 2: 143. 1790), was not validly published until taken up by Rafinesque (l.c.). Morphological character analyses (Judd & al. in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 76: 476–495. 1989; Renner in Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 50. 1989) have found that Myriaspora DC. (Prodr. 3: 165. 1828) and Bellucia Neck. ex Raf. (l.c.) as previously circumscribed (Renner, l.c. 1989) are phylogenetically nested within Loreya DC. (l.c.: 178). In other words, Loreya is most likely paraphyletic if its circumscription excludes members of the other two genera. Penneys & al. (in Syst. Bot. 35: 783–800. 2010) proposed treating Myriaspora and Loreya as taxonomic synonyms of an expanded Bellucia and accordingly published nine new combinations at species rank. This action was taken because of a change in circumscription, but Myriaspora and Loreya are both clearly older than Bellucia, and either one of them would be the correct name under a strict application of the principle of priority in Art. 11 of the ICN. Between Myriaspora and Loreya there is no priority because both names were published in the same work and on the same date (Stafleu in Regnum Veg. 94. 1976). While it is unfortunate that one of these names was not taken up instead of Bellucia, any attempt to do so now would be for purely nomenclatural reasons and contrary to currently accepted usage. All three genera (Bellucia, Loreya, Myriaspora) were recognized by 19th-century monographers of the family (Naudin in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 3, 16: 83–246. 1850 & Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 3, 18: 85–154. 1852; Triana in Trans. Linn. Soc. London 28: 1–188. 1872; Cogniaux in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 7. 1891) and in the Flora Brasiliensis (Cogniaux in Martius, Fl. Bras. 14(4). 1886–1888). The sole exception was Baillon (Hist. Pl. 7: 1–65. 1877), who considered Loreya to be a section within a broadly defined Bellucia, and Myriaspora as a synonym of Maieta Aubl. (Hist. Pl. Guiane 1: 443. 1775). The tradition of treating Bellucia, Loreya, and Myriaspora as separate genera continued in 20th-century floristic works (Wurdack in Lasser, Fl. Venezuela 8(1–2): 1–819. 1973; Wurdack in Harling & Sparre, Fl. Ecuador 13: 1–406. 1980; Howard, Fl. Lesser Antilles 5: 532–579. 1989; Wurdack & al. in Fl. Guianas, ser. A, Phanerogams 13: 3–301. 1993; Almeda in Fl. Mesoamericana 4: 164–338. 2009) and in the family-wide classification of Renner (in Nordic J. Bot. 13: 519–540. 1993). A notable departure from this trend was the treatment for the Flora of Peru (Macbride in Field Mus. Publ. Bot. 13: 249–523. 1941), which followed Baillon (l.c.) in synonymizing Loreya under Bellucia, but neither of these works contravened the rule of priority because they were published prior to the decision made at the Montreal congress (Rickett & Stafleu in Taxon 8: 256. 1959) to invalidate the name Bellucia Neck. (l.c.). Recent publications that have followed Penneys & al.'s (l.c. 2010) adoption of the expanded circumscription of Bellucia (with Myriaspora and Loreya listed as synonyms) include the Vascular Plants of the Americas (Ulloa Ulloa & al., 2018 onwards. http://www.tropicos.org/Project/VPA), the Catálogo de plantas y líquenes de Colombia (Almeda & al. in Bernal & al., 2019. http://catalogoplantasdecolombia.unal.edu.co), the Flora do Brasil 2020 (Goldenberg & al., 2020. http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/reflora/floradobrasil/FB19607) [all websites accessed 6 Mar 2023), and a guide to curating New World Melastomataceae collections (Michelangeli & al., 2020. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202010.0203.v2) as well as all relevant chapters in the edited book Systematics, evolution, and ecology of Melastomataceae (i.e., Ulloa Ulloa & al.: 3–28; Penneys & al.: 109–165; and Judd & Penneys: 219–234 in Goldenberg & al., l.c. 2022). If Myriaspora or Loreya were to be taken up in place of Bellucia, then this would overturn currently accepted usage and require several new combinations at species rank (i.e., 8 in the case of Loreya and 21 in Myriaspora). Neither of these actions would serve the interest of nomenclatural stability. All needed species names already exist in Bellucia and therefore no new combinations are required. Workers outside the field of plant taxonomy (e.g., horticulturists, ecologists and invasive-species biologists) are more familiar with the name Bellucia than with Myriaspora or Loreya, because Bellucia have edible fruits and one of its species, B. pentamera Naudin (l.c. 1850: 105), has been introduced and become naturalized in the Caribbean islands, central Africa (Congo), Malaysia, and Indonesia (Renner, l.c. 1989; Dillis & al. in Biol. Invas. 19: 1329–1337. 2017 & in Biotropica 50: 598–605. 2018; Bordbar & Meerts in Biol. Invas. 24: 939–954. 2022; Solfiyeni & Syamsuardi in Biodiversitas 23: 3135–3146; 3667–3674. 2022; DeWalt & al. in Goldenberg & al., l.c. 2022: 761–789). Bellucia Neck. ex Raf. (l.c.) is already conserved under Art. 14 of the ICN against the earlier homonym Bellucia Adans. (Fam. Pl. 2: 344. 1763) and against the homotypic Apatitia Desv. ex Ham. (Prodr. Pl. Ind. Occid.: 42. 1825). The best course of action would be to conserve it against the additional names Myriaspora DC. (l.c.) and Loreya DC. (l.c.). DSP, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0727-2829 FAM, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7348-143X WSJ, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2391-2654 FA, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5091-6875 RDS, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2752-7788 Our many thanks are due to John McNeill for useful discussion and to him and John Wiersema for their careful editing of the manuscript.