Vriesea ensiformis (Vellozo) Beer (1856: 92)

Kessous, Igor M., Salgueiro, Fabiano & Costa, Andrea F., 2018, Nomenclature and epitypification of Vriesea (Bromeliaceae) species described in Vellozo’s Flora fluminensis, Phytotaxa 350 (1), pp. 24-32 : 27-28

1. Vriesea ensiformis (Vellozo) Beer (1856: 92)

Basionym: Tillandsia ensiformis Vellozo (1829: 133) . Lectotype (designated by Smith [ Smith & Downs 1977]): Original parchment plate of Flora fluminensis in the Manuscript Section of the Biblioteca Nacional, Rio de Janeiro [cat. no.: mss1198652_133], published in 3 rd Iconograph: Vellozo (1831: tab.129).

Epitype (designated here):— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro, Miguel Pereira, Reserva Biológica do Tinguá, trilha a direita da entrada do portão da reserva, 2 February 2015, I.M. Kessous & P. Rodrigues 180 (R!).

Vriesea conferta Gaudichaud (1843: 65) . Holotype:— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro, Gaudichaud 366 (P!, isotype: P!).

Vriesea selloana (Baker) Mez (1894: 547) .

Basionym: Tillandsia selloana Baker (1888: 104) . Holotype:— BRAZIL. Sul do Brasil , Sellow 192 ( BM!).

Vriesea ensiformis var. striata A. Seidel (1963: 89) . syn. nov. Holotype:— BRAZIL. Santa Catarina: Corupá, Morro da Igreja , A. Seidel (US 2427465!).

Excluded names

Vriesea conferta var. recurvata Wawra (1880: 184) . Holotype:— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: Entre Rios (currently Três Rios), Wawra 126-b (W!).

Vriesea crousseana Jacob-Makoy Hortus sensu Bosschère (1893: 117) et sensu Wittmack (1893: 341) nom. nud.

Tillandsia crousseana Jacob-Makoy Hortus sensu André (1893: 203) nom. nud.

Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes: —The names V. conferta and V. selloana were accepted by Mez (1894) in Flora Brasiliensis as being different from V. ensiformis . Mez (1935), in Das Pflanzenreich, maintained V. conferta as accepted, and included V. selloana and V. conferta var. recurvata as synonyms. In this work, V. ensiformis was recognized, however with V. warmingii É. Morren (1884: 260, currently accepted) and V. crousseana as synonyms. Smith (1943), when describing V. ensiformis var. bicolor Smith (1943: 116) , mentioned V. ensiformis as a highly variable taxon with V. conferta as a synonym. He also mentioned Beer (1856) as the first author to recognize both species, but without showing differences between them. Smith & Downs (1977) treated V. ensiformis , V. conferta , V. crousseana , V. conferta var. recurvata and V. selloana as a single taxon. However, the analysis of the protologue and type of V. conferta var. recurvata suggested the exclusion of this name from synonyms of V. ensiformis , mainly because of the shape and apex of their floral bracts, besides the inflorescence disposal. These characteristics are more associated to V. gradata . The taxon V. conferta var. recurvata was described only with fruits. Therefore the synonymization of V. ensiformis var. striata under V. ensiformis is proposed here. This infraspecific taxon was described by Seidel (1963), based on material coming from Corupá, Santa Catarina, distinguished mainly by the presence of discoloured-yellowish lines on the leaves. However, field observations in the same locality (Morro da Igreja) revealed that the population belongs to V. ensiformis var. ensiformis . The specimen collected by Seidel, and used to typify the variety, was probably an isolated case of leaf variegation.

Vriesea crousseana and Tillandsia crousseana are nomina nuda, according to Art. 38 of the Melbourne Code (McNeil et al. 2012). They were cited as a novelty cultivated and first presented to the public by Jacob-Makoy Hortus in the XIIIéme Exposition Internationale de La Societé Royale D’Agriculture et de Botanique de Gand, in Belgium, in April 1893 ( André 1893, Bosschère 1893, 1894, Wittmack 1893). It is excluded here from synonymy of V. ensiformis also because it was later described as an artificial hybrid between V. amethystina É. Morren (1884: 330) and V. warmingii (Anonym 1895; Maréchal & Micheels 1894). These references were misquoted by Mez (1935), Smith & Downs (1977) and Reitz (1983).

Considering the broad morphological variation of V. ensiformis , some of the information provided in Vellozo’s work was used for the election of the epitype. The main features that distinguish V. ensiformis var. ensiformis from V. ensiformis var. bicolor are the persistence of the floral bract apex (persisting vs. deciduous), the colour of the floral bract (red vs. red with yellow apex), and the floral bract width (3–3.5 cm vs. ca. 4 cm) ( Tab. 1). The plate of V. ensiformis in Vellozo’s publication has acute floral bracts ( Fig. 1A–B ), clearly distinguishing the two varieties. Even though both varieties occur in the Serra do Mar adjacent to the border separating the states of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, which is an intensely surveyed region, they have not been registered as sympatric.

In his observations, Vellozo highlights the sword-shaped leaf shapes (ensi-formibus, which justifies the epithet), imbricated bracts and simple inflorescence, along with inland habitat (“ Mediterraneis habitat ”) ( Fig. 1A–D ).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Vriesea ensiformis var. ensiformis and V. simplex. A–D, V. ensiformis var. ensiformis. A, Lectotype (designated by Smith [Smith & Downs 1977]): Original parchment plate of Flora fluminensis in the Manuscript Section of the Biblioteca Nacional, Rio de Janeiro [cat. no.: mss1198652_133], published in 3rd Iconograph: Vellozo (1831: tab.129). B, flower detail of the plate. C, flowering specimen used for the epitype from Miguel Pereira, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. D, flower detail. E–H, V. simplex. E, Lectotype (designated by Smith [Smith & Downs 1977]): Original parchment plate of Flora fluminensis in the Manuscript Section of the Biblioteca Nacional, Rio de Janeiro [cat. no.: mss1198652_134], published in 3rd Iconograph: Vellozo (1831: tab.130). F, bud detail of the plate. G, living specimen in the wild. H, bud detail. Images (A–B, E–F) adapted from Biodiversity Heritage Library. Photos by Igor Kessous (C–D) and Talita Mota (G–H).