Lectotypification of Three Names in Urtica (Urticaceae)

Abstract

Three names in described by A. Steudel are lectotypified: pseudodioica, mollis, and bracteata. Steudel (1850) described several species from South America, using duplicates of the collections of Bertero. For some of these species he cited more than one specimen, and sometimes the syntypes appear to belong to different species; thus lectotypification is necessary. specimens are present in many herbaria. By the same reasoning as that of Phillips et al. (1992) concerning holotypes, the names in question can only be lectotypified using the material from P, where the original Steudel material is now deposited (Stafleu & Cowan, 1985). 1. pseudodioica Steudel, Flora 33: 257. 1850. Lectotype, selected here: Urtica dioica videtur diversa, ad sepes, secus vias Rancagua Chili, 737 (P). There are at least three sets of specimens in the collection numbered 737. One of the specimens deposited at P is named Urtica dioica videtur diversa, and is the specimen cited by Steudel in his description of pseudodioica. However, it is necessary to be extremely cautious in the recognition of isolectotypes in other herbaria, even if they are named Urtica dioica videtur diversa. Such a sheet deposited at G belongs in fact to magellanica Poiret, although the sheet at MO is indeed pseudodioica. 2. Steudel, Flora 33: 258. 1850. Lectotype, selected here: In ruderatis, ad sepes in udis Quillota Chili, 1382 (P). In describing this species, Steudel mentioned Bertero hrbr. 1382 cum sequente mixta. With the next species, bracteata, he cited Bertero nr 737 et 1383 ex parte. Indeed, one sheet of 1383 in P is marked U. mollis and has a Type label (the second 1382 is berteroana Philippi). Nevertheless, to avoid further misunderstanding I propose to follow the author's first choice in the protologue and to select as the lectotype 1382 (P). 3. bracteata Steudel, Flora 33: 258. 1850. Lectotype, selected here: Ad sepes secus vias Rancagua Chili, 737 (P). This is a second sheet of the 737 set. The plant differs from the other sheet by its connate stipules. For details, see comments for the above species. Extended taxonomic discussions are beyond the scope of the present paper, but some comments are necessary. In my opinion the names and pseudodioica (following the lectotypifications here) are applied to the same species. Because both names were published in the same paper and have never previously been synonymized, I accept the name and treat pseudodioica as its synonym. The third sheet of 737 at P was identified by Steudel as leptophylla HBK and in fact belongs to magellanica Poiret sensu lato. Apparently, this is the sheet taken into account by Navas (1961) as the type of pseudodioica, because she treated this taxon as closely related to magellanica. As here defined magellanica sensu lato represents a complex of taxa. But the name pseudodioica cannot be included in this complex, because and magellanica are distinct and probably belong to separate sections. bracteata is closely related to magellanica, but differs in its connate stipules. Such plants occasionally can be found in magellanica, usually with free stipules. At the moment I prefer to treat this taxon as magellanica var. bracteata (Steudel) Weddell; I cannot agree with the suggestions of Navas (1961) to treat bracteata as a synonym of dioica L., a Eurasian species, which is more closely related to than to magellanica. Acknowledgments. Support for my studies on the taxonomy of South American species was provided by the Missouri Botanical Garden and is gratefully acknowledged. I am also grateful to the curators of P and G for sending specimens on loan. Finally, I thank Roy Gereau for review of the manu-