Sedum roberti(Crassulaceae), a New Name forS. multiflorum

Abstract

European seed lists of the 19 century occasionally contained appendices or footnotes in which new species were validly described. Extant copies of these lists tend to be very rare and overlooked, because they were usually discarded after someone ordered from them. In Leiden there is a project initiated by the late L Vogelenzang and his successor C Lut to rediscover these seed lists (http://www.nationaalherbarium.nl/seedlists/home.htm). Sometimes, names appearing in such lists were republished in journals and books without clear reference to their origin. Databases like the International Plant Name Index (IPNI) cite these as the original place of publication. An instance of such an overlooked name is Sedum multiflorum by Von Boenninghausen (1829/1830). In a footnote, the diagnosis is given as “Habitu squarroso, ramoso, capsulisque exiguis potissimum a Sedo Telephio distinctum. Hab. in agris argillosis Guestphalicae” (“Above all distinct from Sedum telephium by the habit of patent and branched stems and by the insignificant capsules. Growing in the clayey fields of Westphalia”). This combination was validly published, but according to IPNI appeared as Sedum multiflorum Boenn. ex Salm-Dyck (end 1834/early 1835). As so often with apparently accepted names in IPNI, this is a reference to a nomen nudum. Salm-Dyck mentioned the name in a list of plants growing in his garden under the heading “Sedum L. §1. (Anacampseros Haw.) Planifolia * Floribus albis aut rubicundis”. After each name there are symbols for duration and these are the same for ten names on this page. According to Art. 32.2 and its Example 3 (McNeil and others, 2006) these symbols are not to be regarded as descriptions validating names. Its taxonomic position is obviously with Sedum telephium L., presently also known as Hylotelephium telephium (L.) H. Ohba. Unaware of this, another S. multiflorum was described by RT Clausen (1978) for a Mexican species of the Cockerelliae Clausen & Uhl. This seems to be rare in the wild, but according to searches on the Internet it is now occasionally cultivated (see also Stephenson 1994). Unfortunately, this is now to be regarded as a later homonym and needs to be renamed. Some correspondents have suggested that it should be proposed for conservation, but because of the species’ minor importance, this seemed an ill-fated idea.