A Note on Plantago exigua (Plantaginaceae) and Certain Related Taxa

Abstract

Summary. The typification and nomenclature of Plantago pumila Linn. f., P. exigua Juss. ex Murray and P. indica L. are discussed. The correct name of the plants known as P. pumila sensu Willdenow is P. exigua Juss. ex Murray whose type locality is India, not Egypt. P. indica L. (x759) is an illegitimate synonym of P. psyllium L. (i753) and the latter, a nomen confusum; Psyllium ramosum Gilib. (178I) being an invalid name under Art. 23, item (3) of the Internat. Code Bot. Nomencl. (1972), Plantago arenaria Kit. (18oi) is the next available name for plants hitherto known as P. indica sensu Pilger (I937), non Linn. (I759) and P. ramosum (Gilib.) Aschers. (1847). J. D. Hooker (1885) described a plant grown in a nursery in North India by Royle from seeds purchased from the Bazaar (local market) and identified it erroneously with Plantago pumila Linn. f., although attributing it to Willdenow, rather than to P. exigua Juss. ex Murray. He has been followed by Raizada (I936) and by Bhattacharya (1963) who report the eastward extension of the species from its generally known range 'Afghanistan and Egypt' (see Hooker, l.c.) to Dehra Dun, New Delhi and Mirzapur district in India. Muschler (1912), Pilger (I937) and Patzak & Rechinger (1965), however, have treated P. exigua Murray as the correct name for the species known as P. pumila sensu Willd. (1798). TYPIFICATION (i) Plantago pumila Linn. f. Although Willdenow (1798) treated P. exigua Juss. ex Murray (1779) and P. pumila Linn. f. (1781) as conspecific (the latter mistakenly adopted as the correct name) he repeated from Murray that the former has 'foliis subulatis integerrimis, capitulis foliolis' and the latter, from Linnaeus filius, 'foliis integerrimis carnosis'. The type of P. pumila Linn. f. from 'Europa australi' is not traceable either at LINN or in the Stockholm Herbarium (S) and the description, 'Caule ramoso herbaceo, foliis integerrimis carnosis, ramis laevibus' is too inadequate to be of diagnostic value. The specimen from 'Habitat Egypto' in the Willdenow herbarium at Berlin (B) (see microfiche No. 2987), although labelled Plantago pumila W., cannot be considered as an authentic representative of P. pumila Linn. f., but is a good match for Murray's t. 5, representing P. exigua Juss. ex Murray (I779). Further, there are two specimens mounted on one sheet in the Linnean Herbarium at Stockholm (S) (see microfiche No. 60/19) which, although labelled Plantago psyllium L., bear on the reverse of the page another determination, Plantago loeflingii L. which has been crossed out with P. pumila Willd. substituted. These two plants, preserved with their roots and derived from 'Hispania', ex Herb Gasstr6mii, do not show in the microfiche the characters of diagnostic value nor can they be considered as authentic specimens to represent P. pumila Linn. f. These considerations may explain why Muschler (1912) cited both the species as