What isCalypogeia sprengelii?

Abstract

Few bryophyte genera have been involved in so many nomenclatural problems and have had epithets used in so many different senses as Calypogeia (Stotler & Crotz, 1983; Grolle, 1983). A further source of confusion may be the name Jungermannia sprengelii Mart. which appears as a nomen nudum, in the index of Macvicar (1912) as Calypogeia sprengelii Pears., possibly as a synonym of C. fissa although Macvicar's interpretation is obscure since it seems to be at variance with that of Pearson's (1902) Kantia sprengelii (Mart.) Pears. Jungermannia sprengelii was described by Martius (1817) and antedates and might take priority over many later names such as Calypogeia muelleriana (Schiffn.) K. Miill.,. C. neesiana (Mass. et Carest.) K. Miill. or C.azurea Stotler et Crotz. Since being described, the name J. sprengelii has been applied to, or synonymized with, many distinct taxa (Bischler, 1957). The only way to settle the question would be to select a type and decide to what taxon it belongs. This task, however, turned out to be very difficult. Since Martius (1817) used several elements, one specimen and illustrations, J. ~prengelii cannot have a holotype, and we are free to choose a lectotype (Greuter et al., 1988). For such it is permissible to use the following material: anyone of two or more specimens cited by the author (syntype), which takes precedence, or any specimen or figure studied by the author and associated by him with the new taxon (original material). Because Martius cited only one specimen, I am unsure whether it can be called a syntype, though it clearly is not a holotype either. To call specimens or figures original material, it should be demonstrated that they really were used by the author. Martius cited one specimen as: 'in saltu Norimbergensi' (in the forest of Niirnberg). He further stated that he had not seen any other material: 'Reliqui per Germaniam loci natales me fugiunt' (further localities in Germany unknown to me). The main part of the Martius herbarium is at Bruxelles (BR). There the only material of J. sprengelii in the Martius herbarium was collected from 'Hercyniae' (Hartz), a locality that can hardly be matched with the originally cited material, and lacks more precise collection data. These are probably the same specimens that were cited by Hiibener (1834). They are C. muelleriana. Miiller (1913) wrote that 'Ein Originalpr6bchen' in Nees' herbarium at Strasbourg with the label data 'J. sprengelii Flora Erlangensis Dr Martius' is C. neesiana. The herbarium of Nees (STR) does not, however, contain any suitable type material. Miiller further stated that 'autentischen Pr6bchen' in Jack's herbarium in Geneva are C. fissa. According to Dr P. Geissler (personal communication, 4 June 1986) there is no type material there (G). Familler (1917) cites specimens of C. fissa and C. neesiana from 'Niirnberger Wald bei Erlangen, Martius'. At Miinchen (M) there is only one C. neesiana specimen which might be associated