Corrigendum to: (2855) Proposal to conserve the name Lilium humboldtii against L. puberulum (Liliaceae) [in Taxon 71: 231–232. 2022

Abstract

In the publication, “(2855) Proposal to conserve the name Lilium humboldtii against L. puberulum (Liliaceae)” (Compton in Taxon 71: 231–232. 2022), the places of publication of these two names were given as: Lilium humboldtii J.H. Krelage (in Gard. Chron. 1870: 1402. 22 Oct 1870) and Lilium puberulum (Torr.) Leichtlin (in J. Soc. Imp. Centr. Hort., ser. 2, 4: 217. Mai 1870), based on L. canadense var. puberulum Torr. (Pacif. Railr. Rep. 4 (5 [No. 4]): 146. Aug–Sep 1857). Since publication of the proposal, Johan van Scheepen of the Royal General Bulbgrowers’ Association (KAVB) has forwarded to me a single-sheet catalogue from Max Leichtlin's bulb nursery in Karlsruhe dated “fin Mai 1870” (Leichtlin, P. P. [Praemissis Praemittendis: Liliacées du jardin Leichtlin]. 1870). In that catalogue, apparently an addendum on new Californian lilies ready for commerce, there are the following two descriptions: “2. Lilium humboldtii voisin du précédant d'une beauté remarquable à tiges atteignant jusqu’à 5 pieds de hauteur garnies de nombreuses et larges fleurs, jaune d'or tigrées de pourpre.” “3. Lilium puberulum à grands clochettes jaunes ornées de grandes macules pourprées et noires.” The species preceding Lilium humboldtii in Leichtlin's catalogue was L. washingtonianum Kellogg (in Hesperian (San Francisco) 3: 340. 1859), a species that differs in having white or pale to dark pinkish flowers. As the descriptive material provided by Krelage (l.c.) in his publication of the name (“from California, 5 feet high, golden flowers spotted with purple”) was no more extensive than that in Leichtlin's catalogue, it is evident that the name was validly published five months earlier than stated in the conservation proposal and in the same month as the competing name, L. puberulum. There is circumstantial evidence pointing to the month of May as being that in which the name Lilium puberulum was first published. This was in Duchartre's account of Max Leichtlin's lily collection that included a list of lily species by Leichtlin (in J. Soc. Imp. Centr. Hort., ser. 2, 4: 217). The April issue in which the name occurs ran from page 193, commencing with the Séance dated 14 April 1870 and including the Séance of 28 April 1870, and ended on page 255. The following page 256 introduces the May issue with the Séance of 12 May. In the “Annuaire de la Société pour 1870” that is included ahead of the main text in at least some copies of J. Soc. Imp. Centr. Hort., ser. 2, 4, there is, on p. [xciv], the statement under the general heading “Avis”: “Le Journal de la Société impériale et centrale d'Horticulture de France paraît du 5 au 15 de chaque mois, par cahiers de 32 à 64 pages.” The implication being that the instalments were due to have appeared by the 15th day in each month. This would mean that L. puberulum was intended to have been published by the 15th of the following month, i.e., by 15 May 1870. If this assumption is correct and this intention was achieved, then L. puberulum predated L. humboldtii by some two weeks. Hence, although L. puberulum was published again at the end of the month simultaneously with the first publication of L. humboldtii (Leichtlin, l.c., Mai (sero) 1870), the proposal to conserve L. humboldtii against L. puberulum (Compton in Taxon 71: 231–232. 2022) remains necessary. The corrected proposal is, therefore: (2855) Lilium humboldtii Leichtlin, P. P. [Praemissis Praemittendis: Liliacées du jardin Leichtlin]: [1]. Mai (sero) 1870 [Angiosp.: Lil.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: [icon] “Lilium Humboldtii Roezl et Leichtlin” in Gartenflora 21: t. 724. 1872. (=) Lilium puberulum (Torr.) Leichtlin in J. Soc. Imp. Centr. Hort., ser. 2, 4: 217. Mai (med) 1870 (L. canadense var. puberulum Torr., Pacif. Railr. Rep. 4 (5 [No. 4]): 146. Aug–Sep 1857), nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (vide Compton & Skinner in PhytoKeys 182: 49. 2021): U.S.A., California, Hartweg 2004 (GH barcode 00106407).