Formation-to-fall: natural history and the journey of a lesser-known genus of orchids, Monomeria

Abstract

This article investigates the history of a genus of orchids, Monomeria Lindl., known to science since its first collection in 1821, with the aim of highlighting the reasons for the loss of its original identity due to compelling nomenclatural changes. Monomeria remained a monotypic genus with its nomenclatural type, Monomeria barbata Lindl. until Reichenbach founded Monomeria crabro C.S.P.Parish & Rchb.f. in 1874. The only other accepted taxon, which was originally formed under Monomeria, was M. fengiana Ormerod in 2011. The systematic botanists treated Monomeria as an ally of Bulbophyllum Thouars and differentiated it on the basis of reproductive unit, the gynandrium. The historical investigations reveal that five species of Bulbophyllum, viz., B. longipes, B. gymnopus, B. kingii, B. dichromum and B. digitatum and one species of genus Acrochaene, viz., A. rimannii were renamed, at least once, under Monomeria. However, the altered names failed to sustain for long and got reduced to synonyms. In 2014, Monomeria, along with allied genera, was transferred to Bulbophyllum which effected restoration of founding binomials of five species of Bulbophyllum and offered new binomials for two taxa, i.e., B. fengianum for M. fengiana and B. rimannii for A. rimannii. The remaining taxon, M. barbata, suffered major loss of identity in terms of generic name, epithet, credit to founding author, basionym, homotypic synonym, nomenclatural type and locality, as it was offered a new combination, B. crabro (C.S.P.Parish & Rchb.f.) J.J.Verm., Schuit. & de Vogel. The generic name Monomeria was degraded to the rank of a Section within the genus Bulbophyllum. Hence, a provision in plant nomenclature to protect the credit of original authority is proposed in terms of a new label, ‘First Basionym’ as promising remedy.