Amaranthus caudatus var. albiflorus Moquin-Tandon (1849: 255)

Iamonico, Duilio, 2016, Nomenclature survey of the genus Amaranthus (Amaranthaceae). 5. Moquin-Tandon’s names, Phytotaxa 273 (2), pp. 81-114 : 93

10. Amaranthus caudatus var. albiflorus Moquin-Tandon (1849: 255)

Type (lectotype here designated):—SWITZERLANND. Hort. Genev., 1840, Candolle 397 (P 04021950 [digital image!], image of the lectotype is available at http://mediaphoto.mnhn.fr/media/1449590548604CQtZ3a9EPqBZWvgC).

= Amaranthus caudatus Linnaeus (1753: 990) . Type (lectotype designated by Townsend 1974: 10):—UNKNOWN ORIGIN. Habitat in Perù, Persia, Zeylonia, Herb. Linn. No. 1117.26 (LINN [digital image!], image of the lectotype is available at http://linnean-online. org/11652/).

Nomenclatural notes:—The var. albiflorus was proposed to distinguish cultivated forms with white flowers (“ floribus albidis ”). Moquin-Tandon (1849: 255) reported ” Cultus in hort. Tolos. Taurin. et Genev. ubi A. pendulinus et A. pendulus (v. v. c.) ” (” v. v. c. ” = vidi viva culta). On the basis of the page titled “ Signori Prodromus Explication ” ( Moquin-Tandon 1849) “ v. v. c. ” means “ Visa viva culta ”, so Moquin-Tandon probably described this variety through the direct observation of living plants, which were cultivated at the Botanical Garden of both Turin (North-Western Italy) and Geneva ( Switzerland). Possible specimens related to the statement in the protologue are to be considered syntypes (Art. 9.5 of the ICN). I found a specimen at P (barcode 04021950) collected by Candolle in “ Hort. Genev. ” (as in the original label) in 1840 (the complete annotation is “ Amaranthus caudatus Linn. | flore albo. | Hort. Genev. 1840 | herb. DC. n°. 397 ”), while no exsiccata were found at TO (L. Guglielmone pers. comm.). I here designated the specimen P 04021950 as the lectotype of the name Amaranthus caudatus var. albiflorus .

Taxonomical notes:—The colour of the inflorescence is a character with low taxonomic value in Am. caudatus and in the whole genus Amaranthus (see e.g., Bojian et al. 2003, Mosyakin & Robertson 2003, Iamonico 2015), so I here synonymized the var. albiflorus with the nominal taxon.

11. Amaranthus caudatus var. alopecurus Moquin-Tandon (1849: 256) . Type (lectotype here designated):— ETHIOPIA. In ruderatis prope Adoam, 01 November 1844, Schimper 1535 (P00482809 [digital image!], image of the lectotype is available at http://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/p/item/p00482809; isolecotytpes: BR0000008357557 [digital image!],image of the lectotype is available athttp://www.br.fgov.be/RESEARCH/COLLECTIONS/HERBARIUM/ detail.php?ID=318744, GH00037040 [digital image!], image at http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen. gh00037040, HAL0110480 [digital image!], image at http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.hal0110480, HOH009263 [digital image!], image at http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.hoh009263, MO357985 [digital image!], image at http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.mo-357985)

= Amaranthus caudatus Linnaeus (1753: 990) . Type (lectotype designated by Townsend 1974: 10):—UNKNOWN ORIGIN. Habitat in Perù, Persia, Zeylonia, Herb. Linn. No. 1117.26 (LINN [digital image!], image at http://linnean-online.org/11652/).

Nomenclatural notes:—This taxon is one of the three varieties recognized by Moquin-Tandon (1849: 255−256) under Euxolus caudatus (L.) Moq., and it differs from the other taxa [ var. albiflorus Moq. , and var. maximus (Mill.) Moq. ] by having “ paniculis valde ramosis densis ”. The author also provided the provenance (“ In Abyssiniae ruderatis prope Adoam ”), the collector (“ Schimp.! ”), and two collection numbers (“ n. 1535 et 1077 ”). Although Sauer (1967: 126) indicated a holotype and some isotypes, his choice is not correct, since according to the Art. 9.5 the specimens cited in the protologue are to be considered syntypes. I have traced ten syntypes all collected by W. G. Schimper in Ethiopia “ prope Adoam ” in the dates 01 November 1844 (specimens at BR, GH, HAL, HOH, MO, P), and 10 November 1838 (specimens at BR, MO, RO- Herb. Cesati, TUB) and originally numbered as “ 1535 ” (the plants collected in November 1844), or “ 1077 ” (the plants collected in November 1838). The sheets bear teminal and/or lateral branches with some leaves and panicle-like synflorescences, which features match the diagnosis. I here designated the exsiccatum preserved at P (barcode 00482809) as the lectotype of the name Amaranthus caudatus var. alopecurus . The specimens at BR (code 0000008357557), GH (code 00037040), HAL (code 0110480), HOH (code 009263), and MO (code 357985) are here designated as the isolectotypes, while the other specimens [BR-0000008357556 (http://www.br.fgov.be/RESEARCH/ COLLECTIONS/HERBARIUM/detail.php?ID=213707), MO-357984 (http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap. specimen.mo-357984), RO (sine code, Fig. 1) TUB-000304 (http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen. tub000304)] are syntypes.

Taxonomical notes:—According to the current concept of Am. caudatus (see e.g., Costea & al. 2001, Bojian & al. 2003, Mosyakin & Robertson 2003), and personal examinations of many exsiccata, the branchness and density of the synflorescence (that was proposed as diagnostic characters by Moquin-Tandon) cannot be considered to separate a different taxon. All the other characteristics of this Moquin’s variety completely match with those of Am. caudatus L. as currently recognized (see e.g., Costea & al. 2001, Iamonico 2015). As a conseguence, the var. alopecurus is here proposed as heterotypic synonym of Am. caudatus .