Calendula microcephala

Figueiredo, Estrela, Smith, Gideon F. & Silveira, Paulo, 2018, The nomenclature of two names proposed for Portuguese taxa of Calendula (Asteraceae) by Lange in 1883, Phytotaxa 360 (1), pp. 85-88 : 85-86

1. Calendula microcephala and ‘ Calendula lusitanica var. microcephala ’

For the first name, Henriques (1883: 51) stated that “professor Lange considera, senão como especie nova, pelo menos como variedade muito distincta” [Professor Lange considers it, if not as a new species, as a very distinct variety], and provided the following text for the name of this taxon: “ CALENDULA ( LUSITANICA Boiss ? var) MICROCEPHALA Lange —differt a description C. lusitanicae (Boiss. Diag. pl. orient. I, 10, pag. 83), …”. In the postcard dated 19 March 1881 that Lange sent to Henriques ( Fernandes 1979: 65), Lange wrote “26. (Serra de Monsanto) Je l’apellerai C. lusitanica var. microcephala nob.” [26. (Serra de Monsanto) I will call it C. lusitanica var. microcephala nob.]. It could be due to this statement of intent of the author [Lange], that Fernandes (1979: 67) regarded the name published in 1883 to have been C. lusitanica var. microcephala Lange and did not mention the possibility that, in fact, the name Calendula microcephala was published (at species rank, therefore). However, the postcard does not include the description of the taxon, it was only in 1882 that Lange sent a letter with the Latin description ( Fernandes 1979: 96) that reads “ Calendula ( lusitanica Boiss. ? var.) microcephala mh. differt a descriptione …”. In this letter it is clear that Lange recognised the taxon as a species, and not as a variety.

In IPNI the species name C. microcephala is recorded as validly published by Lange ex Ficalho. However, the combination C. lusitanica var. microcephala , which would therefore alternatively recognise the taxon at the varietal rank is not recorded in IPNI. The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) ( Turland et al. 2018: Article 36.1) is clear that “A name is not validly published […] (b) when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the future acceptance of the […] rank of the taxon (so-called provisional name); […]”. Therefore, the species name C. microcephala was validly published, but ‘ C. lusitanica var. microcephala ’ was not, as the latter designation was merely proposed in anticipation of the possible future acceptance of the rank of the taxon (it is therefore a provisional name). However, even though the name C. microcephala Lange was validly published, it is illegitimate, given the existence of C. microcephala Kral. ex Rchb. , which was published earlier (Reichenbach 1853).

Mariz (1891: 240) cited C. lusitanica Boiss. var. microcephala Lange , referring to its publication by Henriques. This has been interpreted as publication of a new combination based on C. microcephala , and cited as C. lusitanica var. microcephala (Lange) Mariz. Although Mariz made no reference to C. microcephala Lange (the postulated basionym), he referenced C. microcephala as cited by Willkomm (1884). Willkomm in turn mentioned C. microcephala in the notes on another species as “Elle ressemble aussi au C. microcephala LGE. (non KRALIK), espèce nouvelle portugaise, découverte par le même M. MOLLER dans la Serra de Monsanto” [It [the other species] also resembles C. microcephala Lge [Lange] (non Kralik), a new Portuguese species discovered by the same Mr Moller at Serra de Monsanto]. Although the correct basionym ( C. microcephala Lange ) is not cited by Mariz, the reference to Willkomm can be considered to be an indirect reference ( Turland et al. 2018: Article 38.13). Note that, as discussed above, the intended basionym C. microcephala Lange is illegitimate, but the final epithet in an illegitimate name may be re-used in a different name, at either the same or a different rank, the resulting name being then treated either as a replacement name with the same type as the illegitimate name or as the name of a new taxon with a different type ( Turland et al. 2018: Article 58.1). The combination has been recorded in the literature as authored by “(Lange) Mariz” (see for example Coutinho 1913: 642; Coutinho 1939: 759). However, the correct citation of the replacement name is C. lusitanica Boiss. var. microcephala Mariz.

When Mariz published this name in a treatment of the family, reference was not made to a type variety (he referred to the type material simply as C. lusitanica , both in the key and in the treatment), but when listing specimens he used the symbols α, β, and γ for the type variety [ C. lusitanica var. lusitanica ], C. lusitanica var. microcephala , and C. lusitanica var. transtagana , respectively. Coutinho (1913, 1939) referred to the type variety of C. lusitanica as var. genuina , a designation not validly published according to the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018: Article 24.3).

Although Mariz cited several collections for C. lusitanica var. microcephala , the type of a replacement name is the type of the replaced synonym ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 7.4). That type is the collection that Lange used to produce the description, a collection made by Moller in Serra de Monsanto, of which there is one specimen in Lange’s herbarium. This specimen is the holotype [Moller 26 (C C10013039)].