(105) Sabatia Adans. (1763) [Angiosp.: Gentian.] Sabbata Vell. (1829) [Angiosp.: Comp.] During our studies on Vellozo's taxa, we found a problem involving the spelling of a generic name described by him. Checking this name more closely, we found that there are at least three generic names honoring the same person, Liberato Sabbati, an 18th-century Italian botanist who was the Keeper of the botanical garden in Rome. All of them were published with different spellings. These names are: Sabatia Adans. (Fam. Pl. 2: 503. 1763), sometimes used as ‘Sabbatia’; Sabbatia Moench (Methodus: 386. 1794), and Sabbata Vell. (Fl. Flumin.: 352. 1829). Sabatia Adans. (Gentianaceae) is accepted as a name in current use, including about 20 species from North America. Sabbatia Moench (Lamiaceae) was described including only Sabbatia corymbosa Moench, a superfluous name, Moench citing as a synonym the legitimate name Satureja juliana L. (Sp. Pl.: 567. 1753) (≡ Micromeria juliana (L.) Benth. ex Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs.: 311. 1831). The generic name Sabbatia Moench, although older, was not considered to threaten Micromeria Benth. (in Edwards's Bot. Reg.: ad t. 1282. 1829), nom. cons., because it was treated as a later homonym of Sabatia Adans. (Babu in Taxon 18: 733–734. 1969), a view reflected in the ING (https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/ing/) entry: “Sabbatia Moench, Meth. 386. 4 Mai 1794 (non Sabatia Adanson 1763)”, which should, therefore, be maintained (second sentence of Art. 53.2 of the ICN; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Sabbata Vell. was originally published including only Sabbata romana, because Florae Fluminensis was only partially published in 1829, ending on page 352 where not only Sabbata appears but also the one binomial, Sabbata romana Vell., at the end of the page. The other name, Sabbata polyphylla Vell., first appeared illustrated in a plate published in Vellozo (Fl. Flumin. Icones 8: t. 95. 1831), but without any detail to be considered an analysis according to Art. 38.9. Sabbata polyphylla was published only in the complete version of Florae Fluminensis in 1881. Therefore, Sabbata romana is the type of Sabbata Vell. Taxonomically, Sabbata romana has been found to be conspecific with Exostigma notobellidiastrum (Griseb.) G. Sancho (in Syst. Bot. 37: 517. 2012), based on Conyza notobellidiastrum Griseb. (in Abh. Königl. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen 24: 177. 1879). Consequently, Sabbata Vell. would have the priority to displace the currently correct generic name, Exostigma G. Sancho (l.c.: 516), with its two species. Therefore, it is important to determine the legitimacy of Sabbata Vell. Sabatia Adans. and Sabbata Vell. are both incorrect Latinizations for honoring “Sabbati”. According to Art. 60, Ex. 7, and Rec. 60B.1(a), both names should have been spelled Sabbatia. However, Sabatia Adans. has been in use with that spelling since it was described. Although listed only in a few dictionaries (e.g., Willis, Dict. Fl. Pl., ed. 4: 579. 1919) or nomenclators (e.g., Steudel, Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2: 489. 1841; Pfeiffer, Nomencl. Bot. 2: 1013. 1874; Jackson, Index Kew. 2: 772. 1895) since it was published, Sabbata Vell. competes for priority with Exostigma G. Sancho, and because of this situation, a binding decision is necessary to decide if Sabatia Adans. and Sabbata Vell. are homonyms or not. If they were considered homonyms, Exostigma is already available to be applied to the genus described by Vellozo, although a new combination, based on Sabbata romana, will be required for its type. JFP, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4134-7345 AS, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5788-2970 AMT, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1370-044X JP, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4783-3125 JFP and JP gratefully acknowledge financial support by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (grants 302972/2020-0 and 307931/2021-8, respectively). AS is thankful for financial support by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brasil (CAPES) via a master's degree scholarship grant.
Read full abstract