Amaranthus blitum var. nanus Moquin-Tandon (1849: 263)

Iamonico, Duilio, 2016, Nomenclature survey of the genus Amaranthus (Amaranthaceae). 5. Moquin-Tandon’s names, Phytotaxa 273 (2), pp. 81-114 : 91-92

8. Amaranthus blitum var. nanus Moquin-Tandon (1849: 263) , syn. nov.

Type (lectotype here designated):— SAUDI ARABIA. Ad cisternas Dschedda Arab feliz, 02 January 1836, Schimper 857 (MPU022388

[digital image!], image of the lectotype available at http://www.herbier-mpu.org/zoomify/zoomify.php?fichier=MPU022388). = Amaranthus blitoides S.Watson (1877: 273) . Type (lectotype designated by Fernald 1945: 139):— U.S.A. Iowa: Ames, gravelly or sandy soils especially around buildings and along roads, Bessey s.n. (GH!).

Nomenclatural notes:— Moquin-Tandon (1849: 263) described the var. nanus providing a short diagnosis (“planta parvula, prostrata, folii minutis oblongis obtusis”), and listing four exsiccata (“ In Arabia (Schimp.! 857), Galliâ (Babey! n. 262, partim), in America merid. Ad ripas flum . Rio de la Plata (herb. Artaud!), in Ludoviciana (Drummond! n. 272 ”) that are syntypes (Art. 9.5). I have been able to find only two of these syntypes, both collected by G.H.W. Schimper and numbered as “ 857 ” (these sheets are preserved at MPU, barcode 022388, and MO, barcode 247463). The plants beared in these two sheets (probably part of the same gathering, so the Art. 9.17 can be applied) show features that match the diagnosis by Moquin-Tandon (1849). The original annotation are “ Amaranthus pusillus…Schimper Dschedda Arab feliz ad Cisterna ” (MPU), and “ Circa cisternas Dscheddenses in Arab. ” (MO). On the MPU specimen there are also two other printed labels, the first one (on the bottom of the sheet) is a copy of the protologue by Moquin-Tandon (1849: 263) probably pinned by the staff of the herbarium, while the second label (on the top of the sheet) represents a reindentification by P.A. Schäfer as Am. graecizans L. I here designated as the lectotype of the name Amarnathus blitum var. nanus the specimen MPU-022388 since is is better preserved and earlier collected (1836 vs. 1837). The specimen at MO (image available at http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.mo-247463) is a syntype.

Taxonomical notes:—Although the var. nanus was placed under Am. blitum , it cannot be ascribed neither to the Linnaean species, nor to any member belongs to the A. blitum aggregate (see Iamonico & Das 2014). On the basis of the lectotype and the description of the var. nanus , two characters are in contrast with the current concept in the A. blitum aggregate: pistillate flowers have usually 4 tepals, and the synflorescences are arranged in axillary glomerules in the var. nanus , while all the species included in the Am. blitum aggregate have pistillate flower with 3 tepals, and mostly terminal spike-like synflorescence [only Am. emarginatus Moq. ex Uline & Bray s.str. has sometimes synflorescences in axillary glomerules, but in this case flowers have always 3 tepals, and the leaves blade are clearly bilobed ( var. nanus have blades obtuse, never bilobed)]. On the basis of the number of tepals in the pistillate flower (4), the var. nanum cannot be also identified with A. graecizans (3 tepals) as stated by P.A. Schäfer in the label. If I consider the characters of leaves blades (which show a clear marginal white vein), and bracts (which are shorter than the perianth segments), I can also exclude the similar A. albus which, although has sometimes a marginal white vein on the leaf blade, it shows always bracts awned, 2(−2.5) longer than the perianth. Eventually, Am. blitum var. nanus is identifiable as A. blitoides S.Watson (for the diagnostic characters of the above cited species, see e.g. Carretero 1990, Costea & al. 2001, Bojian & al. 2003, Mosyakin & Robertson 2003, Iamonico 2009, 2015). The latter name ( Am. blitoides ) was first published by Watson (1877) 28 years later than Moquin-Tandon. Although the Moquin-Tandon’s name represents the first available basyonym, the Watson’s name was published at different rank (species vs. variety), and, according to the Art. 6.10, a new combination of the var. nanus is not necessary.

9. Amaranthus brasiliensis Moquin-Tandon (1849: 266) nomen novum pro Amaranthus hybridus Vellozo (1829) non Linnaeus (1753: 990), syn. nov.

Type (lectotype here designated):—[Icon] Tab. 28 from Vellozo (1827, image available at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/ 15451#page/30/mode/1up).

= Amaranthus cruentus L. (1759a: 1269).

Type (lectotype designated by Townsend 1974: 12):— CHINA. Habitat in China, Herb. Linn. No. 1117.25 (LINN [digital image!], image of the lectotype is available at http://linnean-online.org/11651/).

Nomenclatural notes:— Moquin-Tandon (1849) proposed a new name for Am. hybridus published by Vellozo (1829) in his Florae Fluminensis. Actually, the Velloso’s name is a later homonym of the Linnaeus’ one ( Linnaeus 1753: 990), and it is therefore illegitimate according to the Art. 53.1. Vellozo (1829) provided a short diagnosis (“ A. racemis pentandris , decompositis, congestis, nudis; spiculis conjugatis ”), some additional morphological details, the habitat (“ Habitat maritimis ”), the provenance (“ …Tagua… ”), and a reference to an iconography (“ Tab. 28. T. 10 ”) that was published in the later Florae Fluminensis Icones (Vellozo 1931: 400). The latter image is original material for the name Amaranthus brasiliensis . Since I have not been able to trace exsiccata of original material, I here designated the Vellozo’s image as the lectotype of the name Amaranthus brasiliensis . As made in other cases for the Velloso’s names associated to plates not clearly recognizable as known species (see discussion below under “Taxonomicl notes”), epitypes designation could be useful to fix the taxon concept (see e.g, Pastore 2013). However, no specimens collected in the type locality were traced, and therefore, I prefer to avoid the selection of an epitype.

Taxonomical notes:—On the basis of the Vellozo’s image and description ( Vellozo 1929, 1931) I have no doubt that the Vellozo’s species refer to the subgenus Amaranthus (sensu Mosyakin & Robertson 1996) showing the synflorescence in a terminal panicle-like structure, and the flowers (magnification on the bottom-right of the plate) with five acute tepals. However, since the pistillate flowers lack the bracts, it is difficult to identify the image at species level. I can compare the description and images of the three Amaranthus species published by Vellozo (1929, 1931), Am. viridis Vellozo (1929: 400 , 1931: Tab. 27, nom. illeg. non Linnaeus 1763: 1405), Am. hybridus Vell. (1931: Tab. 28), and Am. sanguineus Vellozo (1929: 400 , 1931: Tab. 29, nom. illeg. non Linnaeus 1763: 1407). Only the description of Am. sanguineus include information about the bracts (“ Bractea setacea ”) and the associated iconography (Tab. 29) clealry shows these awns that are longer than the perianth. On the contrary, any bract can be observed in the Velloso’s plates of Am. viridis and Am. hybridus . As a conseguence, I can hypothize that Am. hybridus Vell. (and also Am. viridis Vell. ) has bracts not longer than the tepals. In this case, I can propose to synoymize Am. brasiliensis with Am. cruentus that differs from Am. hybridus L. in having the bracts as long as or slightly longer (up to 1.5 times) than the perianth (see e.g. Mosyakin & Robertson 2003, Iamonico 2015).

Concerning the literature, the Vellozo’s name was rarely cited and differently treated along the time. In some cases (e.g., Quattrocchi 2012: 229) it was synonymized with Am. hybridus Linnaeus (1753: 990) , while other authors (e.g., The Plant List 2013) proposed the synonimization with Am. hypochondriacus Linaneus (1753: 991) . The Flora Brasiliensis by Martius (1875: 238) reported The Vellozo’s Am. hybridus as doubtful synonym of Am. flavus Linnaeus (1759a: 1269) , which is currently considered as synonym of Am. cruentus Linnaeus (1759a: 1269) (see Iamonico 2014a), while the recent Flora do Brazil ( Marchioretto 2014) does not cited the name.