Linnaean System Research Articles

Typification of the Linnaean name Illecebrum paronychia (Caryophyllaceae)

AbstractThe Linnaean name Illecebrum paronychia is discussed and lectotypified with a specimen at LINN. Additional original material was found at BM. Another specimen at LINN, although referable to I. paronychia, cannot be considered original material. Paronychia argentea was introduced by Lamarck as a replacement name for I. paronychia and is the type of the genus Paronychia. The lectotype conforms to the characters in the protologue and the current delimitation of P. argentea.

Typifications of the N.L. Burman and Linnaean names in Polygala, Polygalaceae

AbstractThe historical context and typifications of a number of not yet typified Linnaean names in Polygala (P. acutifolia, P. aspalatha, P. brasiliensis, P. chamaebuxus, P. microphylla, P. penaea, P. sibirica, P. theezans) are presented, along with the identities of P. acutifolia and P. theezans. Bartolomeo di Panigai, a cartographer in the Portuguese boundary commission sent on an expedition to establish borders between Portugal and Spain in accordance with the Treaty of Madrid (signed in 1750), is suggested as the likely collector of P. aspalatha and P. brasiliensis. Three of N.L. Burman's names (P. pinnata, P. thea, P. triphylla) are revised, and two new combinations, Indigofera pinnata and Wiborgia triphylla, the legume species originally described by N.L. Burman in genus Polygala, are presented.

A molecular-based identification resource for the arthropods of Finland.

To associate specimens identified by molecular characters to other biological knowledge, we need reference sequences annotated by Linnaean taxonomy. In this study, we (1) report the creation of a comprehensive reference library of DNA barcodes for the arthropods of an entire country (Finland), (2) publish this library, and (3) deliver a new identification tool for insects and spiders, as based on this resource. The reference library contains mtDNA COI barcodes for 11,275 (43%) of 26,437 arthropod species known from Finland, including 10,811 (45%) of 23,956 insect species. To quantify the improvement in identification accuracy enabled by the current reference library, we ran 1000 Finnish insect and spider species through the Barcode of Life Data system (BOLD) identification engine. Of these, 91% were correctly assigned to a unique species when compared to the new reference library alone, 85% were correctly identified when compared to BOLD with the new material included, and 75% with the new material excluded. To capitalize on this resource, we used the new reference material to train a probabilistic taxonomic assignment tool, FinPROTAX, scoring high success. For the full-length barcode region, the accuracy of taxonomic assignments at the level of classes, orders, families, subfamilies, tribes, genera, and species reached 99.9%, 99.9%, 99.8%, 99.7%, 99.4%, 96.8%, and 88.5%, respectively. The FinBOL arthropod reference library and FinPROTAX are available through the Finnish Biodiversity Information Facility (www.laji.fi) at https://laji.fi/en/theme/protax. Overall, the FinBOL investment represents a massive capacity-transfer from the taxonomic community of Finland to all sectors of society.

Replacing current nomenclature with pre‐existing indigenous names in algae, fungi and plants

AbstractWe recently proposed restoration of indigenous names within scientific nomenclature and briefly outlined how the taxonomic codes could be amended to accommodate this within the Linnaean classification system. Our proposal included a process whereby Indigenous Peoples could submit long‐established indigenous names to replace current names under a modified International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). Here we expand on this proposal with specific recommendations for changes to the ICN.

Epitypification of the Linnaean name Crepis bursifolia (Asteraceae)

AbstractThe epitypification of the Linnaean name Crepis bursifolia is discussed. An illustration from Boccone's Museo di piante rare della Sicilia, Malta, Corsica, Italia, Piemonte, e Germania was correctly designated as lectotype by Jiménez López & al. in 2013 according to Art. 7.11 of the ICN. However, this image lacks some of the important characters required for a critical identification of the species (i.e., hairiness of receptacle, length of achenes, number of ribs on the achene surface, and presence of a distinct apical beak on the achene). Following Art. 9.9 of the ICN, an epitype deposited at HFLA is selected to serve as an interpretative type of the lectotype of C. bursifolia.

The typification of the Linnaean name Atriplex maritima (Chenopodiaceae) revisited

The typification of the Linnaean name Atriplex maritima is revisited according to the Art. 7.8 (Ex. 10) of ICN. A specimen deposited at BM (barcode BM001148306), which is part of the Dale’s collection, is designated as the lectotype superseding the previous proposed neotypification on BM000647540 (Clifford Herbarium). The correct name for this taxon remains A. laciniata L. with A. maritima accepted as heterotypic synonym.

Taxonomic studies in the genus Haplanthodes (Acanthaceae)

The endemic Indian genus Haplanthodes (Acanthaceae) is revised. Four species, viz. H. neilgherryensis, H. plumosa, H. tentaculata and H. verticillata and a new variety, H. neilgherryensis var. toranganensis are recognized. Lectotype is designated for Haplanthodes, Haplanthus plumosus and H. verticillaris. The nomenclature of the Linnaean name Ruellia tentaculata is also discussed. Micromorphology of seed using light microscope (LM) and scanning electron microscope (SEM) is observed for the first time, and two types, reticulate and micro papillate, have been recognized based on surface sculpturing pattern. The genus differs from the related genera Andrographis and Haplanthus by distinctly two grooved seeds with hygroscopic hairs. Pollen grains of the genus are oblate or prolate spheroidal, distinctly triangular, trizonocolporate with reticulate exine ornamentation.

METRICS FOR BIO-INSPIRATION BASED ON TAXONOMIES

AbstractUsing bio-inspiration allows engineers to use the knowledge implicitly built up by natural evolution. Current tools for providing engineers with bio-inspiration yield many biological working principles. Starting from the Linnaean taxonomy, which can be seen as a design revision history, this work proposes metrics for a working principle based on the observations of that working principle in different organisms. A first metric measures the reinforcement of a working principle via the number of observations (publications/submissions to a database) made by biologists. Furthermore, biological strategies that evolve independently and use the same working principle might be more resilient and globally applicable, prompting the proposal of a metric measuring the spread in the taxonomy. Finally, bio-novelty measures the biological novelty, inversely related to the biological diversity employing the working principle. To illustrate the use of the metrics, they are applied to the working principles identified in the ‘temporary attachment’ category of AskNature.

Nomenclatural remarks on Iris orientalis (Iridaceae) and four related names including the Linnaean I. ochroleuca

Nomenclature issues of irises associated with the Turkish flora are discussed. In particular, Iris orientalis and four related names, I. ochroleuca, I. monnieri, I. gigantea, and I. albida, are typified. Lectotypes are designated for I. orientalis, I. monnieri, I. gigantea, and I. albida; a neotype for the Linnaean name I. ochroleuca is designated. Also, further support is provided for the suggestions that I. monnieri is a synonym to I. orientalis, and the author citation of the name I. monnieri is Redouté.

Towards a global list of accepted species IV: Overcoming fragmentation in the governance of taxonomic lists

Governance is the act of governing or organizing, that is a system of rules, norms, or shared strategies to guide or regulate the actions of the governed. Since the initial development of Linnaean taxonomy, a diversity of approaches have been adopted for critical taxonomic decisions, introducing pluralism to taxonomic principles and resulting in disagreements about the development of species lists. These disagreements are in part a product of the fragmented governance structure that has developed for the creation of taxonomic lists. To address these challenges and achieve the goal of a single, accepted list of life on Earth, a new governance structure for the development of taxonomic lists is needed. Here, we introduce three high-level categories of governance structure—fragmentation, monocentric governance, and polycentric governance—which differ in the way decision-making power is distributed and coordinated. We then show the problems caused by the fragmented governance structure currently in place for the development of taxonomic lists and consider the potential for a new approach grounded in either monocentric or polycentric governance. Both monocentric and polycentric approaches have the potential to address the problems inherent in the existing fragmented system. Ultimately, the best governance system for taxonomic lists will be the one that the taxonomic community is prepared to accept.

Typification of two names in the genus Punica L. (Lythraceae)

The typification of the names Punica nana L. and Punica protopunica Balf. f. is discussed. The Linnaean name is neotypified using a modern and complete specimen kept at VAL (Herbarium of the Botanical Garden of the University of Valencia). The name Punica protopunica is lectotypifed from an original specimen collected by Schweinfurth in Socotra and preserved at K (Kew Herbarium).

Typification of fourteen Linnaean names in the genus Hieracium (Compositae)

AbstractThe typification of fourteen Linnaean names in Hieracium, viz. H. aurantiacum, H. auricula, H. chondrilloides, H. cymosum, H. dubium, H. glutinosum, H. hedypnoides, H. incanum, H. murorum var. pilosissimum, H. murorum var. sylvaticum, H. porrifolium, H. pumilum, H. sabaudum and H. tomentosum, is discussed. The designation of the nomenclatural types is based on the consultation of Linnaeus's original material and the literature cited in the respective protologue. The names are lectotypified using specimens preserved at UPS‐BURSER and LINN, and two illustrations of Boccone and Dillenius. Linnaeus's original material of H. pumilum and H. pyrenaicum var. helveticum could not be found. A specimen in S‐LINN that best conforms with the diagnosis for H. pumilum is selected as the neotype for that name. The application of the name H. pyrenaicum var. helveticum appears uncertain, and therefore it is treated as nomen ambiguum. Finally, epitypes are designated for H. porrifolium and H. tomentosum due to ambiguity in the interpretation of the lectotypes.

Linnaean names in the tribe Malveae for North and Central American Floras1

The Linnaean names Malva abutiloides, Sida alba, Sida americana, and Sida triquetra are investigated. Sida alba is a nomen nudum and not validly published according to the Art. 38.1 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. Sida triquetra is a superfluous and illegitimate name, replacement of the legitimate Sida trisulcata by Jacquin. The name S. americana is lectotypified by a specimen kept at LINN (No. 866.25). For nomenclatural purposes, the names Abutilon dentatum (= A. abutiloides), Albutilon ramosissimum (= S. trisulcata), Sida tricuspidata (= A. abutiloides), and Sida lignosa (= A. abutiloides) were also studied. These four names are lectotypified by specimens preserved at US (A. dentatum), PR (A. ramosissimum), and MA (S. tricuspidata and S. lignosa).

(073–075) Proposals to clarify the status of epithets in the ablative case

Article 23 in the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) is unclear about whether species names with epithets in the ablative case are validly published, even though botanical tradition has regarded such names as unacceptable and the Berlin, Tokyo, Saint Louis, Vienna, and Melbourne Codes regarded such names as not validly published (Garland in Taxon. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12455). This lack of clarity arises because Art. 23.6(a) only prohibits phrase names (Linnaean “nomina specifica legitima”), i.e. diagnostic polynomial names usually in the ablative case, not binomial epithets (Linnaean “nomina trivialia”) in the ablative case. Moreover, the Shenzhen Code added Solanum fructu-tecto Cav., which has an epithet in the ablative case, to Art. 60 Ex. 41, implying that the name is validly published. The following proposals are offered to make the Code clearly state that names with epithets in the ablative case are not validly published. Proposal (073) is one alternative. Proposal (074) is another alternative that may better fit the current structure of Art. 23, in which Art. 23.1 is a positive statement about what a species name can be and Art. 23.6 is a series of negative statements about what a species name cannot be. If either alternative is accepted, Prop. (075) should be accepted as well. Proposal (075) makes clear that Art. 23.7 applies only to Linnaean names with epithets in the form of ablative phrases, not to all Linnaean names with phrase epithets, and that, despite the prohibition on epithets in the ablative case, such Linnaean names are validly published and correctable. Proposal (075) also deletes Solanum fructu-tecto from Art. 60 Ex. 41. “23.1. The name of a species is a binary combination consisting of the name of the genus followed by a single specific epithet in the form of an adjective, a noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition, but not a phrase in the ablative case (see also Art. 23.6 and 23.7). […]” “Ex. 1. Adiantum capillus-veneris, Atropa bella-donna, Cornus sanguinea, Dianthus monspessulanus, Embelia sarasinorum, Fumaria gussonei, Geranium robertianum, Impatiens noli-tangere, Papaver rhoeas, Spondias mombin (an indeclinable epithet), Uromyces fabae, but not Solanum “fructu-tecto” (Cavanilles, Icon. 4: 5. 1797).” [23.6. The following designations are not to be regarded as species names:] “(x) Designations consisting of a generic name followed by an epithet in the form of a phrase in the ablative case (but see Art. 23.7).” “Ex. 11bis. Solanum “fructu-tecto” (Cavanilles, Icon. 4: 5. 1797) is a generic name followed by an epithet in the form of a phrase in the ablative case. It is not to be regarded as a species name.” “23.7. Names in which Linnaeus used phrases in the ablative case Phrase names used by Linnaeus as specific epithets (“nomina trivialia”) are to be corrected in accordance with later usage by Linnaeus himself (but see Art. 23.6(c)).” [Art. 60] “Ex. 41. Hyphen to be maintained: Athyrium austro-occidentale Ching (in Acta Bot. Boreal.-Occid. Sin. 6: 152. 1986); Enteromorpha roberti-lamii H. Parriaud (in Botaniste 44: 247. 1961), in which the given name and surname stand independently because they are separately latinized; Piper pseudo-oblongum McKown (in Bot. Gaz. 85: 57. 1928); Ribes non-scriptum (Berger) Standl. (in Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Bot. Ser. 8: 140. 1930); Solanum fructu-tecto Cav. (Icon. 4: 5. 1797); Vitis novae-angliae Fernald (in Rhodora 19: 146. 1917).”

(2806) Proposal to conserve the name Cistus violaceus (Helianthemum violaceum) against C. racemosus (Cistaceae)

(2806) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Cistus violaceus</i> (<i>Helianthemum violaceum</i>) against <scp><i>C</i>. <i>racemosus</i></scp> (<i>Cistaceae</i>)

Back to the starting point: Revised typifications of Linnaean names based on Plumier's Nova plantarum Americanarum genera

AbstractThe typification of 14 Linnaean names is revised. Previous lectotypifications based on Burman's illustrations in Plantarum Americanarum must be superseded since those elements were not available to Linnaeus before the publication of the first edition of Species plantarum. As a result, 12 Linnaean names, Bellonia aspera, Bucephalon racemosum, Columnea scandens, Cupania americana, Mentzelia aspera, Ovieda spinosa, Renealmia paniculata, Rondeletia americana, Thalia geniculata, Tillandsia serrata, Tournefortia hirsutissima and Tournefortia humilis, are hereby typified based on original material currently held at the Library of the Rijksuniversiteit in Groningen, the Netherlands, whereas a drawing included in Plumier's Nova plantarum Americanarum genera is selected as lectotype of the name Alpinia racemosa. In addition, supporting information about the type material of a name already typified by Robert Kiger (Samyda guidonia) is provided.

(2798) Proposal to conserve the name Cistus laevis (Fumana laevis) against C. pilosus (Cistaceae)

(2798) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Cistus laevis</i> (<i>Fumana laevis</i>) against <scp><i>C</i>. <i>pilosus</i></scp> (<i>Cistaceae</i>)

Attaching Names to Biological Species: The Use and Value of Type Specimens in Systematic Zoology and Natural History Collections

Biological type specimens are a particular kind of voucher specimen stored in natural history collections. Their special status and practical use are discussed in relation to the description and naming of taxonomic zoological diversity. Our current system, known as Linnaean nomenclature, is governed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The name of a species is fixed by its name-bearing type specimen, linking the scientific name of a species to the type specimen first designated for that species. The name-bearing type specimen is not necessarily a typical example of the species, while establishment of the boundaries of a species requires empirical taxonomic studies. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature allows for the naming of new species in the absence of preserved specimens. However, photos and DNA sequences should not function as primary type material, while new species should not be described and named without deposition of at least one type specimen in a collection. Philosophically, species are individuals, spatiotemporally restricted entities. Therefore, Linnaean species names are proper names, which do not define the taxon but serve as a label, providing an ostensive definition of a species. Paratypes have no name-bearing function but, nevertheless, are highly valued specimens in natural history collections. Paratypes should be restricted to those specimens originating from the same sample as the holotype. Diagnosis of a species taxon involves establishment of a connection between a Linnaean name and determination of the boundaries of the species. A first step in this process is the choice of an appropriate species concept. It is not the examination of holotypes and paratypes that necessarily provides the best estimate of the taxonomic boundaries of a species, but this is facilitated by a set of voucher specimens known as the hypodigm. Dissatisfaction with the present nomenclatural code led some researchers to propose emendations. Other taxonomists suggested abandoning Linnaean nomenclature and proposed the alternative PhyloCode, albeit that it relegates the naming of species taxa to the traditional nomenclatural codes.

Folk Taxonomy of the Inter- and Intraspecific Edible Plant Diversity of Huastec Mayan Farmers in Mexico

Understanding how Indigenous people classify their edible plants enriches current knowledge of food crop diversity. The Huastec Mayan or Tenek people in Mexico manage a highly diverse food biota. The aim of this study was to describe and analyze their nomenclature and taxonomy of edible plants in their agroecosystem. We determined descriptor types for the terminal taxa of the different ethnobiological categories. As a novel approach, contrasting descriptors of terminal taxa that represent inter- or intraspecific diversity were analyzed separately. The descriptors, expressed in the names and labels of 347 terminal taxa managed by the Tenek, were grouped into descriptor sets. The average number of folk descriptor types that farmers use to distinguish inter- and intraspecific diversity is 1.82 (SD 0.88) and 2.78 (SD 1.68), respectively. A comparison with data from a previous study illustrates how the incorporation of additional species and variants into the Tenek farming systems leads to more specification in naming and, thus, to changes in classification. Our results lead to three main postulates: (1) Tenek people have a deep and specific knowledge about their edible plant diversity; (2) a high correspondence exists between folk taxonomy and Linnaean taxonomy; and (3) to distinguish inter- and intraspecific diversity, they use a practical and minimalistic classification system. The information provided here can be used as a basis for future agrobiodiversity inventories in the study region (called Huasteca Potosina) and other Indigenous regions in the tropics and subtropics.

(034–035) Proposals to amend Article 9.6 and Example 6

Article 9.6 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) reads as follows: “A syntype is any specimen cited in the protologue when there is no holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated in the protologue as types (see also Art. 40 Note 1). Reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof, is considered citation of the included specimens.” We feel that it would be better if a cross-reference to Art. 40 Note 2, which explains what does and does not constitute “mention of a single specimen or gathering”, were included in the definition of syntype, after “Reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof”, to make clearer the distinction between syntypes and uncited original material (see also Prop. 010 – Prado & al. in Taxon 69: 629. 2020). “9.6. A syntype is any specimen cited in the protologue when there is no holotype, or any one of two or more specimens simultaneously designated in the protologue as types (see also Art. 40 Note 1). Reference to an entire gathering, or a part thereof (see also Art. 40 Note 2), is considered citation of the included specimens.” It is commonly considered that syntypes are plural, but a name can have a single syntype when one specimen is cited in the protologue and there is no holotype (Art. 9.6). In the protologue of Campanula pulla L. (Sp. Pl.: 163. 1753), Linnaeus cited “Burs. IV. 21”, which, according to Jarvis (Order out of Chaos: 39. 2007), precisely refers to the specimen Herb. Burser IV: 21 in UPS (V-173096; image!). There is also an uncited Jacquin specimen associated with C. pulla, Herb. Linnaeus No. 221.4 (LINN; http://linnean-online.org/774/), but it cannot be considered original material for the name, because it lacks the relevant species number (“2”) from the first edition of Species plantarum, which implies a post-1753 addition to Linnaeus's herbarium (see Jarvis, l.c.: 42–46), further supported by Jacquin's correspondence with Linnaeus beginning in 1759 (Jarvis, l.c.: 213). Linnaeus (l.c.) also cited an illustration, “Campanula foliis subrotundis” in Bauhin (Prodr.: 35. 1620). The name C. pulla has no holotype because Linnaeus did not indicate one and he used two elements (Art. 9.1). The one specimen cited in the protologue is therefore a syntype. Because there is no Example under Art. 9 of the Code showing that a name can have a single syntype, we propose to include this case as an addition to Art. 9 Ex. 6, which similarly concerns another Linnaean name that has two Burser specimens as syntypes. “Ex. 6. In the protologue of Campanula pulla L. (Sp. Pl.: 163. 1753), Linnaeus cited “Burs. IV. 21”, referring to a specimen in the Burser Herbarium (UPS), in addition to an illustration in Bauhin (Prodr.: 35. 1620). This single specimen is a syntype because it was cited in the protologue and there is no holotype. In Similarly, in the protologue of Anemone alpina L. (Sp. Pl.: 539. 1753), two specimens are cited under the (unnamed) varieties β and γ, as “Burs. IX: 80” and “Burs. IX: 81”. These specimens, held in the Burser Herbarium (UPS), are syntypes of A. alpina.” We are thankful to the Director, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, and Scientist “E” and Head of the Office, Central National Herbarium, Howrah for providing facilities. We also thank: N.J. Turland (Berlin) for refining the manuscript and for his helpful suggestions; Dr. Stefan Ekman and Dr. Mats Hjertson (Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University) for sending us the image of the specimen Herb. Burser IV: 21 (UPS) and their comments on the specimen; and Dr. Isabelle Charmantier and Dr. Mark A. Spencer (Linnean Society of London) for kindly informing us that the specimen Herb. Linnaeus No. 221.4 (LINN) is not original material of C. pulla.