Acnida sect. Montelia Moquin-Tandon (1849: 277)

Iamonico, Duilio, 2016, Nomenclature survey of the genus Amaranthus (Amaranthaceae). 5. Moquin-Tandon’s names, Phytotaxa 273 (2), pp. 81-114 : 88

1. Acnida sect. Montelia Moquin-Tandon (1849: 277)

Type (lectotype, designated here):— Acnida tuberculata Moquin-Tandon (1849: 277) .

= Amaranthus subgen. Acnida sect. Acnida (L.) Aellen ex K.R. Robertson (1981: 283) ≡ Acnida L. sect. Acnida [autonym automatically created by the publication of the sect. Montelia Moq. (Art. 22.3)].

Holotype:— Acnida cannabina Linnaeus (1753: 1027) 5.

Nomenclatural notes:— Moquin-Tandon (1849: 277−278) described this new section by a short diagnosis (“ Fructus submembranaceis , utriculato-capsulares ”), also suggesting a possible treatment at genus level (“ An genus proprium? ”). Two species, Ac. tuberculata and Ac. rusocarpa Moquin-Tandon (1849: 277) , were listed and they are syntypes (Art. 9.5). Gray (1856: 369) recognized the sect. Montelia at genus rank proposing the new combination Montelia (Moq.) Gray, and listing one species, M. tamariscina (Nutt.) Gray (there proposed as new combination) with the following synonyms: Ac. tamariscina Nutt. (basyonym), Ac. rusocarpa Michx. , Ac. altissima Michx. ex Moq. , Amaranthus altissimus Riddel , and Am. miamensis Riddel.Although Gray (l.c.) cited the earlier name Ac. rusocarpa (1803) against Ac. tamariscina (1874), this does not make the name M. tamariscina illegitimate since it has the basyonym (see Art. 52.3 Ex. 16, and Ex. 16). Moreover, the citation of Ac. rusocarpa cannot be considered as type (lecto-) of Montelia (and of Acnida sect. Montelia ): when a pre-1958 name was not typified at the time of its publication, any later typification (deliberate or inadvertent) must have the term “type” or its equivalent term (see Art. 7.10). All things stated, the Moquin-Tandon’s section need to be typified. I here designated as lectotype of the name Acnida sect. Montelia , the name Acnida tuberculata that is currently accepted as good species [sub Am. tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer (1955: 18) ].

Taxonomical notes:—The sect. Montelia was estabilished by Moquin-Tandon (1849: 277) to separate the taxa characterized by “ Fructus submembranacei , utriculato-caspulares ” (the other sect. Acnidiastrum includes species with “ Fructus carnosi , subbacati ”). 2 species were recognized, Ac. tuberculata Moq. , and Ac. rusocarpa Michx. , which differ each other on the basis of the structure of the synflorescence (“ paniculis fructiferi densissimis ” vs. “ paniculis fructiferi subdensis ”), ratio bract/fruit (<1, or> 1), and shape and surface of the fruit (“ fructibus…obovatis obtusissime…tuberculato-rugosis ” vs. “ fructibus…ellipticis obtusiuscule…punctato-rugosis ”). Mosyakin & Robertson (1996) recognized three sections under Amaranthus subgen. Acnida (L.) Aellen ex K.R. Robertson ( Robertson 1981: 283) on the basis of characters of bracts (foliaceous or not), number of tepals of the pistillate flower (0−2 or 5), and fruit (dehiscent or indehiscent). The species without foliaceous bracts, 0−2 tepals, and fruit mostly indehiscent (features that characterized the Moquin-Tandon’s Acnida species) were placed into the sect. Acnida (L.) Mosyakin & K.R. Robertson 1996: 277), and they are: Am. cannabinus (L.) J.D.Sauer, Am. australis (A.Gray) J.D. Sauer , Am. tuberculatus (Moq.) J.D. Sauer (≡ Ac. tuberculata ), Am. floridanus (S. Watson) J.D. Sauer , and Am. rudis J.D. Sauer. As a consequence, the authors indicated the sect. Montelia as synonym pro parte of the sect. Acnida . Waiting further investigations of the subgen. Acnida (e.g. the recognition of new subsections), I provisionally accept the scheme proposed by Mosyakin & Robertson (1996).

5 Mosyakin & Robertson (1996: 277) reported the term “Type”, clearly referring to the holotype.