Viola canobarbata Leybold (1866: 285)

Nicola, Marcela Viviana, Salomón, Luciana & Zuloaga, Fernando Omar, 2018, Nomenclatural and taxonomic study in species of Viola (Violaceae) from Argentina, Phytotaxa 338 (2), pp. 151-176 : 156

Viola canobarbata Leybold (1866: 285)

Type (lectotype, designated here):— CHILE. [VI Region:] Rancagua , Piedra lisa in hacienda del Principal, 9000 ft, February, F. Leybold s.n. (SGO 000003277 [digital image!]; isolectotype, SI 004355!) .

Distribution:— Native of Argentina and Chile. In Argentina it is a dubious taxon until locate the specimen identified as Viola canobarbata Leybold (1866: 285) var. albiflora W. Becker (1925b: 360) , collected by Carlos Spegazzini at Cerro de los Cordobeses, Mendoza, Argentina, on January 1906.

Protologue citation:—“Mense Februario capsulas maturas floresque simul exhibit; circiter 9000´supra mare in glareosis ad locum, “Piedra lisa” dictu, in “hacienda del Principal” prov. “Rancagua”.

Notes:—Friedrich Leybold settled in Chile from 1855 onwards ( Stafleu & Cowan 1979). It is not known where he deposited his herbarium material and types, but type materials collected by Leybold between 1854 and 1890 were deposited at SGO ( Stafleu & Cowan 1979; Muñoz-Schick et al. 2012) without evidence that duplicates were sent or not to other herbaria. Given the uncertainty that duplicates may exist in other herbaria, we found the specimen with the barcode number SGO 000003277 in the National Museum of Natural History, Santiago, Chile, and selected it as the lectotype since is a vigorous and complete specimen, agrees with the protologue, and has a label with clear notes handwritten by Leybold himself indicating the location and the identification.

Following the International Code of Nomenclature (Art. 60.9; the use of a hyphen in a compound epithet is treated as an error to be corrected by deletion of the hyphen), the correct spelling of the specific epithet is “canobarbata ” and not “cano-barbata ” as in its original publication ( Leybold 1866). Many competent modern authors of basic reference works spell the epithet correctly without the hyphen (e.g. Marticorena & Quezada 1985; Hoffmann et al. 1998; The Plant List 2013). However, it is still published with the erroneous hyphen in a few influential works and by many sources (e.g. Sanso et al. 2008; The International Plant Names Index 2012).