Amaranthus flavus var. ovalifolius Moquin-Tandon (1849: 258)

Iamonico, Duilio, 2016, Nomenclature survey of the genus Amaranthus (Amaranthaceae). 5. Moquin-Tandon’s names, Phytotaxa 273 (2), pp. 81-114 : 96

14. Amaranthus flavus var. ovalifolius Moquin-Tandon (1849: 258)

Type (neotype here designated):— FRANCE. Hort. Paris., Desfontaines s.n. (P 04021945 [digital image!], image of the neotype is available at http://mediaphoto.mnhn.fr/media/1449590444609gLPV4ActZcQZu8TC).

= Amaranthus cruentus Linnaeus (17959: 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:—A short diangosis (“foliis ovatis aut ellipticis, paniculis majoribus”) was proposed by Moquin-Tandon (1849: 258) for the var. ovalifolius , but neither specimens nor collection localities were cited in the protologue. A specimen is preserved at P (barcode 04021945) and it is part of the Desfontaines’ collection. It bears a distal part of a plant with leaves and a synflorescence. The synflorescence is very large in size with many lateral paraclades as indicated in the diagnosis. The original label (on the bottom-right of the sheet) reports: “ amaranthu paniculatus Linn. | Hort. Paris. | herb. Desfont. ”. It is probably that Moquin-Tandon saw this exsiccatum, but I cannot be sure it is part of the original material since, e.g., the date of collection is lacking. Since no further specimens, which are useful for the lectotypification purpose, were traced, a neotypification is required according to the Art. 9.7 of the ICN. I here designated the P 04021945 as the neotype of the name Amaranthus flavus var. ovalifolius .

Taxonomical notes:—On the basis of the type above designated, the diagnosis of the var. ovalifolius , the description and concept of Am. flavus by Moquin-Tandon, and the current concept of Am. flavus ( Iamonico 2014a) , I here propose to synonymyze this variety with Am. cruentus .

15. Amaranthus gangeticus var. angustifolius Moquin-Tandon (1849: 261) , nomen illeg. et superfl. (Art. 52.1 Ex.11 of the ICN) ≡ Amaranthus lanceolatus Roxburgh (1832: 607) . Type (neotype here designated):— INDIA. Ind. Orient., s.d., Hook s.n. (P00606400 [digital image!], image of the neotype is available at http://science.mnhn.fr/institution/ mnhn/collection/p/item/p00606400)

= Amaranthus tricolor Linnaeus (1753: 989) . Type (lectotype designated by Townsend 1974: 14):—ASIA. Habitat in India, Herb. Linn. No. 1117.7 (LINN [digital image!], image of the neotype is available at http://linnean-online.org/11633/).

Nomenclatural notes:— Moquin-Tandon (1849: 261) provided a short diagnosis for this variety (”foliis angustis sublanceolatis acutis, spicâ terminali subnullâ”) and cited as synonyms “ A. angustifolius Roxb. in herb. A. lanceolatus Roxb. flor. ind. ed. 1832, 3, p. 607, n. 9, Wight, n. 716, ic. t. 713 ”. The name “ Am. angustifolius Roxb. ” was published for the first time in the Candolle’s Prodromus , so it is illegitimate according the Art. 36.1c (pro synonym). On the contrary, Am. lanceolatus was validly published by Roxburgh (1832: 607). As a consequence, Am. gangeticus var. angustifolius is a superfluous and illegitimate name according to the Art. 52.1 (Ex.11) of the ICN. The citation by Moquin-Tandon “ Wight, n. 716, ic. t. 713 ” refers to Wight (1843) who associated the iconography no. 713 to Am. tristis L. It is interesting to note that Moquin-Tandon (1849: 260) also cited this Wight’s image under his new taxon Am. tristis var. wightii . The Moquin’s taxa wigthii, and angustifolius were respectively placed in the Candolle’s Prodromus in two different groups (“ Spica terminalis ramosa; spiculae axillares elongate, paniculatim aproximatae. Calyx 5- sepalus. Stamina 5 ”, and “ Spica terminalis simplex; spiculae axillares breves distantes. Calyx 3-sepalus. Stamina 3 ”). The image by Wight (1843: t. 713) clarly refers to the second Moquin’s group. Based on my observations, Moquin-Tandon seems had confusion about the application of these two names.

All things stated, with the aim to understand the Moquin-Tandon’s concept of the var. angustifolius , it is necessary to investigate the name Am. lanceolatus . Roxburgh (1832: 607) provide a short diagnosis and a detailed description, plus the provenance (“ …native of Bengal ”). There is one specimen at P (barcode 00606400) that bears a terminal branch with flowers, which features match the Roxburgh’s diagnosis and description. Two labels also occur on the sheet: the first one (on the bottom-left) reports “ Amarantus Gangeticus Linn. var. angustifolius Prodr. 13, 2, p. 261 Ind. Orient. Herb. Hook. ”, the other label (bottom-right) includes the annotation (probably more recent than the other one) “ Moquin mentioned no specimen ”. Since the date of collection is lacking, I am not sure that this specimen is part of the original material (see Art. 9.3). Unfortunately, no exsiccata of original material were traced, so I am forced to designate a neotype (Art. 9.7). I here choose the specimen P00606400 as the neotype of the name Am. lanceolatus .

Taxonomical notes:—According to the revision by Mosyakin & Robertson (1996), Am. lanceolatus can be placed into Amaranthus subg. Albersia (Kunth) Gren. & Godr. sect. Pyxidium Moq. The latter section is characterized by axillary inflorescences, female flowers with three tepals and dehiscent fruits. On the basis of the protologues and the lectotypes, Am. lanceolatus is very similar to Am. polygamus L. (lectotype: no. 1117.9 LINN, designated by Iamoinco 2014a: 148). The latter species is currently synonymized with Am. tricolor L. (see Iamonico 2014a: 148) that is very variable from the morphological point of view, with 4–5 infraspecific taxa described based on leaf shape and color, and inflorescence structure (see e.g., Aellen 1959: 495). I treat Am. lanceolatus as a synonym of a broadly circumscribed Am. tricolor .