Application of the Name Goniophlebium and a New Subgeneric Name in Polypodium

Abstract

In publishing the new generic name Goniophlebium, K. Presl (1836, pp. 185-186) provided a description based on five New World species, which he transferred to his genus. He also included the apparent synonym spuriorum sectio 1, Goniophlebium. Blume, which was based on three Old World species. (On examining Blume's work (1830, p. 132), one finds this section to be a rankless name, but one valid under Art. 35.2 and so available for transfer.) He also transferred each of Blume's species with a query. Presl's concept clearly applied to American material, for he saw no Asiatic material and he included Blume's name and species only ex auctoritate clar. Blume . It is very likely that Presl intended to establish a name independent of Blume's, as the preponderance of evidence indicates: American species described and transferred without doubt, Asiatic species not described, transferred with doubt, and only on the authority of Blume. J. Smith (1841, p. 56; 1875, p. 92) recognized the difference between New World and the Old World species. He mentioned their articulate pinnae and proposed that they be placed in Goniophlebium sect. Schellolepis or in Schellolepis. Pichi Sermolli (1973, pp. 465-468) agreed with that disposition, chose one of Presl's American species as lectotype, and cited the genus as Goniophlebium K. Presl. Had Presl excluded Blume's name (by not citing it) or Blume's species (by placing them in another genus), there would be no problem in considering Presl's name to be independent of Blume's. However, according to the present Code (Arts. 48.1, 63.2), by including Blume's name and his species even with doubt it is mandatory to base Presl's name on Blume's, to choose a lectotype from among Blume's species, and to cite the genus as Goniophlebium (Blume) K. Presl, as Rodl-Linder et al. (1990, p. 105) recently did. Only an act of conservation can override this disposition. In my opinion, the American species are different from the Asiatic ones, most notably in lacking articulate pinnae and in having sori in several series, as well as in a single series. These species seem best retained in a subgenus of Polypodium (Lellinger, 1981, p. 93). Hennipman, Veldhoen and Kramer (1990, pp. 205-206, 224-225) held the same viewpoint; they pointed out several hybrids that occur between the subgenera of American Polypodium. In addition, they illustrated dissected lamina scales and paraphyses of Polypodium (Goniophlebium) verrucosum (Hook.) J. Smith, neither of which I have observed in New World species, whose laminae are rarely pilosulous and perhaps never paleaceous or paraphysate. Because the names Goniophlebium (Blume) K. Presl and Polypodium subg. Goniophlebium (Blume) C. Chr. must be applied to Old World material that is not clearly allied to material from the New World, the New World subgenus traditionally called Polypodium subg. Goniophlebium requires a new name: Polypodium subg. Polygoniophlebium Lellinger, subg. nov. Rhizoma late repens, frondibus distantibus; laminae pinnatae pinnatisectae vel pinnati37