Sibbaldianthe imbricata (Kar. & Kir.) Mosyakin & Shiyan, 2017

Mosyakin, Sergei L. & Shiyan, Natalia M., 2017, The genus Sibbaldianthe (Rosaceae): a nomenclatural overview and new combinations, Phytotaxa 296 (2), pp. 101-117 : 105-108

4. Sibbaldianthe imbricata (Kar. & Kir.) Mosyakin & Shiyan , comb. nov.

Basionym: Potentilla imbricata Karelin & Kirilov (1841: 416) .

≡ Schistophyllidium imbricatum (Kar. & Kir.) Soják (2004: 307) , nom. inval. (nom. provis., cited as “in press”; Art. 36.1(b) of ICN); Soják (2012: 40, 109), nom. inval. (Art. 41.5 of ICN: no direct citation of the basionym; the combination was erroneously cited as validated in Soják 2004: 307).

Type (lectotype, here designated):— KAZAKHSTAN [East Kazakhstan Region; in Kazakh — Шығыс ҚаЗақстан облысы, Şığıs Qazaqstan oblısı]: “698. Potentilla imbricata Kar. et Kir. In arenosis deserti Soongoro-Kirghisici trans fl. Kurtschum. Fr. Juli. Kar. et Kir. 1840.” ( KW001002800 , KW, Figure 1 ). According to the protologue: “Hab. in arenosis deserti Soongoro-Kirghisici trans fl. Kurtschum [Kurshim or Kurchum River ; in Kazakh: КҮршім— S. M. & N. S.] et ad littera [a typo: should be “littora”— S. M. & N. S.] Septentrionalia lacus Noor-Srissan [a typo: should be “Noor-Saissan”, now Lake Zaysan or Zaisan; in Kazakh—Зайсан көлі, Zaysan köli; in Mongolian—Зайсан нуур, Zaisan nuur— S. M. & N. S.], rarior. Julio deflorata” (Karelin & Kirilov 1841: 417) .

Heterotypic synonyms:

Potentilla bifurca L. var. canescens Bongard & C. A. Meyer (1841: 32, separate reprint; 1845: 188, bound volume). Type:— KAZAKHSTAN: [East Kazakhstan Region, Kurshim District; in Kazakh—КҮршім ауданы] according to the protologue: “ Ad fl .

Irtysch supra fl. Kurtschum in arenosis”; lectotype not designated.

Potentilla bifurca L. var. rytidocarpa Ledebour (1844: 44) .

Type (lectotype, here designated):— KAZAKHSTAN [East Kazakhstan Region; in Kazakh— Шығыс ҚаЗақстан облысы, Şığıs Qazaqstan oblısı]: Typographically printed label: “698. Potentilla imbricata Kar. et Kir. In arenosis deserti Soongoro-Kirghisici trans fl. Kurtschum et ad littora septentrionalia lacus Noor-Saissan rarior. Leg. Karelin et Kirilloff a. 1840. Soc. Imp. Nat. Cur. Mosqu.”, with the added handwritten text “Herb. Ledebour” ; additional handwritten identification label: “Herb. Ledebour. Potentilla imbricata Karel. & Kiril. — bifurca δ. rytidocarpa » ( LE00050304 , LE) .

Potentilla porphyrii Sobolevskaya (1953: 4 , descr. ross.; 5, descr. lat.).

Type (holotype, TK):— RUSSIA [Tyva Republic (formerly Tuva); in Russian— Республика Тыва (formerly Тува, ТувинскаЯ АССР)]: “in steppis ad ripam borealem lacus Ubsa-Nor, cum fl. 1892. Leg. N. P. Krylov”. In Russian : “Найдено в степЯх по сев. бер. оЗ. Убса- Нор [modern spelling: Убсу- Нур] П.Н. Крыловым, с цв. 2 VII 1892 г.” .

In our understanding, no valid lectotypification of the name Potentilla imbricata has been done yet. Yuzepchuk (Juzepczuk 1941) provided information in Russian about the geographical localities from where the species was first reported by Karelin & Kirilov (1841), and mentioned that the type is in LE; no actual specimen was cited. Gubanov et al. (1998: 31) cited the phrase from the protologue (“In arenosis deserti SoongoroKirghisici [sic!— S. M. & N. S.] trans fl. Kurtschum et ad littera [sic! should be “littora”— S. M. & N. S.] septentrionalia lacus Noor-Saissan rarior”) and the supposed lectotype [( LE, iso. MW): “a. 1840, №698”] which, in their interpretation, was selected by Yuzepchuk in 1941 in the Flora of the USSR. Gureyeva et al. (2010) cited an “ isolectotype ” preserved at TK, with the text almost identical to that reported by Gubanov et al.: “ Isolectotypus: “№698. In arenosis deserti Soongoro-Kirghisici trans fl. Kurtschum et ad littera [sic! should be “littora”— S. M. & N. S.] septentrionalia lacus Noor-Saissan rarior. Leg. Karelin et Kiriloff, a. 1840” “Джунгарские растениЯ, собранные в 1840 и 1841 г. Карелиным и Кириловым, № 698” ( TK!).” The type of P. imbricata is not mentioned in the catalogue of types from Central Asia deposited at LE ( Grubov 2000).

In our opinion, the citations in Gubanov et al. (1998) and Gureyeva et al. (2010) cannot be regarded even as a valid first-step lectotypification because the cited information is applicable to several specimens collected in at least two localities, or to mixed collections. The number 698 was used by Karelin and Kirilov for this species on many labels and thus it is not an identifier of any particular specimen. According to Art. 8.2 of ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012), “For the purpose of typification a specimen is a gathering, or part of a gathering, of a single species or infraspecific taxon made at one time, disregarding admixtures.” Thus, selection of a lectotype consisting of two gatherings made at two rather distant localities, or representing a mixed collection, does not constitute a valid lectotypification, especially if a better option is available (e.g., one gathering made at one time and in one locality).

In response to our request sent in October 2016, Ivan V. Tatanov provided digital images of original specimens of Potentilla imbricata available at LE. Totally, 13 specimens from LE were considered. Five specimens ( LE00050303 , LE00050304 , LE00050305 , LE00050306 , LE00050324 ) have typographically printed labels with the text almost identical to that in the protologue (see above), but with typographic errors corrected: “698. Potentilla imbricata Kar. et Kir. In arenosis deserti Soongoro-Kirghisici trans fl. Kurtschum et ad littora septentrionalia lacus Noor-Saissan rarior. Leg. Karelin et Kirilloff a. 1840. Soc. Imp. Nat. Cur. Mosqu.” Two of them ( LE00050303 , LE00050306 ) have also small paper slips with the handwritten number 698. Two herbarium sheets ( LE00050325 , LE00050326 ) are supplied with Soviet-time labels with the typographically printed heading “Гербарий Ботанического института Академии наук СССР” (“ Herbarium of the Botanical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR ”) and the handwritten text reproducing the original printed label cited above ; these two specimens also have original handwritten small slips with the number 698. Three specimens ( LE00050307 , LE00050308 , LE00050312 ) have handwritten labels “ Plantae Karelinianae. Potentilla imbricata Kar. et Kir. ad rivul. Tschigilek. Enum. 1840. №304”. Two sheets ( LE00050308 , LE00050310 ) have almost the same labels but with slightly different locality information: “ad rivul. Tschigilek (Kokbekty)” ; and one label ( LE00050311 ) bears the text “Plantae Karelinianae. Potentilla imbricata Kar. et Kir. Songoria. Enum. 1840 . №304”. Geographically the Kokpekty River (Көкпекті in Kazakh) and its tributary the Chigilek are located in the East Kazakhstan Region, near Lake Zaisan ; the Kokpekty falls into the lake at its western shore (not at the northern shores mentioned in the protologue). One specimen ( LE00050309 ) has an incomplete label: the collection number and geographical information are missing ; the plant name was added on a separate label dated by 1842. Thus, only plants with typographically printed labels corresponding to the protologue can be accepted as syntypes; however, they may represent mixed collections made at two or more localities. After considering all available original specimens from LE, we concluded that the specimen from KW is the best choice for lectotypification .

The lectotype designated here ( Figure 1 ) is represented by four well-preserved plants collected in one locality (i.e., definitely representing one gathering); their morphological characters perfectly correspond to those reported in the protologue. The original handwritten label is almost identical to the first part of protologue data (see above). Judging from a stamp on the label, the specimen KW001002800 was part of the herbarium of S. S. Shchegleyev ( Stscheglejev or Scegleew in Latinized spelling) or of N. S. Turchaninov (Turczaninow) ; they both received many specimens from Karelin and Kirilov (now in KW and CWU; see Shiyan 2011).

Soják (2004: 307) published the combination Schistophyllidium imbricatum with the full reference to the basionym, but provided for this presumably new combination the following citation: “ Edinburgh J. Bot. 2004, in impressione”. By citing his combination as a name “in press”, Soják evidently made it a provisional name, which it thus invalid (Art. 36.1(b) of ICN: McNeill et al. 2012). As far as we know, this combination in Schistophyllidium has never been validated in the Edinburgh Journal of Botany. Two other names in Schistophyllidium proposed in the same article ( Soják 2004) as names “in press” were later validated as S. bifurcum subsp. orientalis and subsp. semiglabrum ( Soják 2008; see citations below). However, in his article published in 2012 Soják accepted the combination Schistophyllidium imbricatum , which appears in the key ( Soják 2012: 40) and in the nomenclatural list of accepted taxa ( Soják 2012: 109). This name is also mentioned on several other pages after synonyms ( Soják 2012: 69, 85, 97). However, when listing Schistophyllidium imbricatum as the accepted name, Soják (2012: 109) erroneously cited it as being validated in Soják (2004: 307); there is also no direct link from the accepted combination to its basionym. In our opinion, despite the fact that the basionym was cited on a different page ( Soják 2012: 85), the name is still invalid (Art. 41.5 of ICN: McNeill et al. 2012). The 2012 article was published posthumously, as indicated in the editorial note (“The author Jiří Soják unfortunately did not have the chance to check the galleys of this article. Prof. Dr. Claudia Erbar (University of Heidelberg) and Dr. Ota Sida (Head of the Department of Botany, National Museum in Prague) gratefully took a final glance on the galleys and it was printed without the author´s corrections”: see Soják 2012: 7). That was probably the reason why the combination Schistophyllidium imbricatum has not been properly validated in that article.

Sibbaldianthe imbricata is a very distinctive species that differs from other related taxa of the group in having few-flowered inflorescences or solitary flowers, peculiar dense pubescence, distinctly rugose fruits (carpels), and often flexuose (“zigzagging”) stems. Judging from available herbarium specimens and literature records, its geographical range covers eastern parts of Kazakhstan ( Baytenov 1961; Abdulina 1998; Baitulin & Kotukhov 2011), western China (Xinjiang only: Li et al. 2003), southern Siberia (probably only in Tyva [formerly Tuva]: Kurbatskiy 1988, 2012; Ovchinnikova 2005), and Mongolia (only in the Mongolian Altai: Grubov 1982; Gubanov 1996).

Sibbaldianthe imbricata (under the name Potentilla imbricata ) was readily recognized as a separate species in all floristic and taxonomic treatments covering the range of this taxon (Juzepczuk 1941; Baytenov 1961; Grubov 1982; Kurbatskiy 1988, 2012; Czerepanov 1995; Gubanov 1996; Abdulina 1998; Li et al. 2003; Ovchinnikova 2005; Baitulin & Kotukhov 2011 etc.). However, in the Flora of China ( Li et al. 2003) the morphological characters of this species (in the key and description) were described inaccurately. This had been already noted by Soják (2007), who commented that “there is usually no difference in the leaf arrangement (opposite or alternate leaflets) between these two species, P. bifurca and P. imbricata ”, and that both these species have “carpels glabrous throughout (or hairy at the apex).”

Figures

FIGURE 1. Lectotype of Sibbaldianthe imbricata (Kar. & Kir.) Mosyakin & Shiyan (=Potentilla imbricata Kar. & Kir.), barcode number KW001002800, KW!