Eliokarmos thunbergianus (Baker) Mart.

Martínez-Azorín, Mario, Crespo, Manuel B., Dold, Anthony P., Pinter, Michael & Wetschnig, Wolfgang, 2015, New combinations and lectotype designations in Asparagaceae subfam. Scilloideae, Phytotaxa 201 (2), pp. 165-171 : 167-168

Eliokarmos thunbergianus (Baker) Mart. -Azorín, M.B.Crespo, M.Pinter & Wetschnig comb. nov.

≡ Ornithogalum thunbergianum Baker (1873a: 269) ≡ Ornithogalum maculatum Thunberg (1818: 290) , non Ornithogalum maculatum Jacquin (1789: 368) , nec Eliokarmos maculatus Rafinesque (1837: 59) . Type (lectotype, erroneously indicated as holotype by Obermeyer 1978: 339):— SOUTH AFRICA. e Cap. b. Spei, Thunberg s.n. (UPS-THUNB 8289 [digital image!]).

= Ornithogalum maculatum Jacquin (1789: 368) , non Eliokarmos maculatus Rafinesque (1837: 59) ≡ Eliokarmos neomaculatus Mart. - Azorín, M.B.Crespo & Juan in Martínez-Azorín et al. (2011: 29) ≡ Ornithogalum notatum Schult.f. in Roemer & Schultes (1829: 528), nom. illeg.

Ornithogalum maculatum Jacq. is involved in an interesting nomenclatural story. It belongs to Eliokarmos Rafinesque (1837: 24) following Martínez-Azorín et al. (2011). However, Rafinesque (1837) had first used the name Eliokarmos maculatus Raf. for the plant that Redouté (1807: t. 63) illustrated as the Linnaean Ornithogalum arabicum , although the illustration indeed represents Eliokarmos thyrsoides ( Jacquin 1777: 17) Rafinesque (1837: 24) . Therefore, Martínez-Azorín et al. (2011) proposed the new name Eliokarmos neomaculatus to accommodate O. maculatum Jacq. in Eliokarmos , to avoid homonymy with Rafinesque’s 1837 name.

Thunberg (1794: 368) referred the same plant as [ Ornithogalum ] ‘ maculatum ’ with no more information than a brief diagnosis: “ O. foliis lanceolatis , floribus secundis; petalis tribus exterioribus brevioribus fusco-maculatis.” As Thunberg did not use author citations in his names, this reference could be interpreted as an indirect citation of Jacquin’s earlier name, because the plants they both described belong to the same species, the descriptions are compatible, and there is nothing to exclude Jacquin’s type (Greuter pers. comm.). Therefore, Thunberg’s name in 1794 could be treated as a later isonym of O. maculatum Jacq. , without nomenclatural status (Art. 6 Note 2). However, all Ornithogalum names in Thunberg’s Prodromus (1794) were later revisited in his Flora Capensis (Thunberg 1818). In this later work, he connected all cited Ornithogalum names to their respective authors and also included some synonymies. In the case of O. maculatum, Thunberg did not cite Jacquin, but reproduced the same Latin diagnosis which he linked to “Prod. p. 62”, and also added a complete description and a concrete locality: “ Crescit in Saldahna bay prope Compagniepost ” [sic]. That way, Thunberg (1818) explicitly excluded Jacquin’s type from his O. maculatum and thereby created a later homonym for the same species.

However, Baker (1873a) had treated both species as distinct units, and proposed Ornithogalum thunbergianum to replace the illegitimate O. maculatum Thunb. In consequence, Baker’s species has the priority over E. neomaculatus , thus a new combination is here established in Eliokarmos . Ornithogalum thunbergianum can be considered as a replacement name (nomen novum; Art. 6.11) for ‘ O. maculatum Thunb. , non Jacq.’ Therefore, Baker’s name is typified by the type of O. maculatum Thunb. (Art. 7.4). Obermeyer (1978) indicated that the collection UPS-THUNB 8289 was the ‘holotype’, a statement that was accepted by Manning et al. (2007). However, three specimens exist that can be considered original material: S-G-7898!, UPS-THUNB 8289 [digital image!] (both cited in Müller-Doblies & Müller-Doblies 1996), and SBT 11097 [digital image!] (a specimen sent by Thunberg to Bergius which was collected ‘Ex Cap. b. spei’). All three are to be regarded as syntypes. However, Obermeyer’s (1978) citation of UPS 8289 as ‘holotype’ is to be corrected to ‘lectotype’ (Art. 9.9), which agrees with later unnecessary lectotypification by Müller-Doblies & Müller-Doblies (1996). The rest of the cited Thunberg’s materials at S and SBT bear the same collection data as the lectotype, and therefore they are to be regarded as isolectotypes.

Fusifilum montanum (A.P.Dold & E.Brink) A.P.Dold, Mart. -Azorín, M.B.Crespo, M.Pinter & Wetschnig comb.