Acroglochin persicarioides (Poir.) Moquin-Tandon (1849b: 254)

Iamonico, Duilio, 2018, Nomenclatural and taxonomic notes on Acroglochin and its position in Chenopodiaceae s. str., Phytotaxa 383 (2), pp. 197-205 : 199-202

Acroglochin persicarioides (Poir.) Moquin-Tandon (1849b: 254) ≡ Amaranthus persicarioides Poiret (1810: 311) .

Neotype (designated here):— NEPAL. Nepal , Schrader s.n. (LE-00018195!) ( Fig. 1 ).

≡ Acroglochin chenopodioides Schrader (1822: 227) .

Lectotype (designated here):— NEPAL. Nepal , Schrader s.n. (LE-00018195!) ( Fig. 1 ).

= Amaranthus cauliflorus Link (1822: 389) ≡ Lecanocarpus cauliflorus (Link) Nees, T. Nees & Sinning (1924: 5) ≡ Lecanocarpus nepalensis 2 in Nees, T. Nees & Sinning (1824: 6 − 7, Tab. II).

Neotype (designated here):— NEPAL: Jumla distr. , Jumla village, 29 September 2010, Sukhorukov s.n. (E).

= Amaranthus diandrus Sprengel (1822: 20) .

Neotype (designated here):—WEST NEPAL. Karnali zone [Mugu distr.] Mugu Khola, between Daura and 36 Mugu , 10000 ft, 17 August 1952, Polunin, Sykes & Williams 5275 (E).

= Amaranthus acroglochin Sprengel (1825: 927) .

Lectotype (designated here):— NEPAL. Herb. Sprengel s.n. (B-10-0272702!, image of the lectotype available at http://ww2.bgbm.org/ Herbarium/specimen.cfm?Barcode=B100272702).

= Boehmeria amaranthus Léveillé (1913: 550) .

1 Leucocarpus nepalensis Nees, Nees von Esenbeck & Sinning (1924: 6 − 7, Tab. II) is an alternative name for L. cauliflorus (see note 3 in the present paper).

2 The name Lecanocarpus nepalensis was reported by Nees et al. (1824) under Plate II, while in the text the species was indicated as Lecanocarpus cauliflorus . Since there is an “Explicatio Tabulae II” ( Nees et al. 1824: 6 − 7), Lecanocarpus nepalensis is validly pulished. According to Art. 36.2 (Ex. 11) of the ICN, Lecanocarpus nepalensis and L. cauliflorus are to be considered alternative names.

Lectotype [reported by Lauener & Ferguson (1982: 193), and Wilmot-Dear et al. (2014: 96) as holotype, here corrected according to the Art. 9.10 of the ICN]:— CHINA. Environs de Gan-pin, 29 August 1897, Martin & Bodinier s.n. (E-00317870!, image of the lectotype available at http://elmer.rbge.org.uk/bgbase/vherb/bgbasevherb.php?cfg=bgbase/vherb/zoom.cfg&filename=E00317870. zip&queryRow=1)

= Acroglochin obtusifolia C.H.Blom, Acta Horti Gothoburgensis 3(5): 151 (1927).

Lectotype (designated here):— CHINA. Sze-Ch’uan [Sichuan], Drogochi in cultis, about 2700 a.s.l., 17 October 1922, leg. Harry Smith 4621, det. C. Blom 1927 (GB-0046171!, image of the lectotype available at http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.gb- 0047161?searchUri=plantName%3D%2522 Acroglochin %2 Bobtusifolia %2522%26syn%3D1).

‒ Blitanthus nepalensis in Reichenbach (1823: without pagination), nom. nud. (Arts. 38.1 and 38.2 Ex. 1 of the ICN).

‒ Acroglochin schraderianum Schultes in Steudel (1840: 21), nom. inval. (Art. 36.1b of the ICN).

‒ Acroglochia chenopodioides Gerard in Moquin-Tandon (1849b: 254), nom. inval. (Art. 36.1b of the ICN).

‒ Acroglochin schraderianum Schultes in Moquin-Tandon (1849b: 254), nom. inval. (Art. 36.1b of the ICN).

‒ Chenopodium pakistanicum Aellen , nom. inval., in herb. (W-1969-0000982!, image available at http://jacq.nhm-wien.ac.at/djatoka/jacqviewer/viewer.html?rft_id=w_19690000982&identifiers=w_19690000982).

Iconography:—Ness (1824: tab. II, sub Lecanocarpus nepalensis , image at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/a/a9/ Acroglochin_persicarioides %2C_as_ Lecanocarpus_nepalensis .jpg), Zhu et al. [2003: Figure 311 (5, 6) sub Acroglochin persicarioides , image at http://www.eflora.cn/foc/illast/ Acroglochin %20persicarioides.jpg].

Habitat:— Acroglochin persicarioides grows along forest margins, riversides, roadsides, and in open hillsides and hill slopes, fields, wastelands. Elevation up to 2600 m a.s.l. in India ( Paul 2012: 275).

Typification of Amaranthus persicarioides :— Amaranthus persicarioides was validly described by Poiret (1810: 311), who provided a rather detailed description. Poiret (l.c.) reported that he saw the plants cultivated at the Botanical Garden of Paris (“On cultive cette amaranthe ou Jardin des Plantes de Paris ... (V.v.) [= Vidi vivo]). Moquin-Tandon (1849b: 254) later proposed to treat the species described by Poiret in Acroglochin , made the corresponding new combination, and listed as a synonym Schrader’s Acroglochin chenopodioides and several other names. The names Ac. persicarioides (Poir.) Moq. and Ac. chenopodioides were usually considered heterotypic synonyms, the former being universally accepted (see e.g., Freitag et al. 2001, Zhu et al. 2003, Paul 2012, Sukhorukov & Kushunina 2014, Jan et al. 2015, Romeira et al. 2016). However, the name Am. persicarioides appears to be not typified at present (see Sukhorukov & Kushunina 2014: 35) and needs to be investigated.

According to Stafleu & Cowan (1983: 319), Poiret’s types are deposited at P. I traced only one specimen at P (code 00046401) bearing one plant collected by Brocheteau in “ J. des Pl. ” (= Jardin del Plantes [de Paris]) as reported in the original label (on bottom-right of the sheet). Unfortunately, the date of collection is lacking, and there is no proof that P-00046401 is part of the original material for Amaranthus persicarioides . Moreover, the characters of that specimen (P-00046401) are also in conflict with the protologue, in which Am. persicarioides is reported, in particular, as having lobate leaves. It is highly improbable that Moquin-Tandon, the best expert in Chenopodiaceae and Amaranthaceae in those times, misidentified a rather typical Amaranthus Linnaeus (1753: 989) [i.e. Am. delfexus Linnaeus (1753: 295) ] for Acroglochin . As a consequence, P-00046401 cannot be considered for the lectotypification purpose. It is evident that Moquin-Tandon (1849b: 254) was familiar with live specimens of this species cultivated in several botanical gardens, including Paris, Toulouse, Montpellier, Geneva, and Avignon (“v. s. in et v. c. in hort. Tolos, Monsp. Paris. Genev. et Avenion.”), and was also probably familiar with the name applied (earlier?) to that plant by gardeners in Paris, due to which he concluded that the name Amaranthus persicarioides (“hort. paris. in Poir.”) is applicable to Acrogloshin chenopodioides . The name Acroglochin persicarioides was almost universally applied in literature to that species, and because of that its preservation is strongly desirable.

Since no other material qualified for lectotype designation of Amaranthus persicarioides has been found, neotypification is required (Art. 9.8 of the ICN). To avoid nomenclatural problems in the case when infraspecific entities are recognized in or “narrow” species are segregated from Am. persicarioides , I think it advisable to make Am. persicarioides and Ac. chenopodioides homotypic. Because of that, I select as the neotype of Am. persicarioides the specimen here selected as the lectotype of Ac. chenopodioides (see below).

Typification of Acroglochin chenopodioides :— Schrader (1822: 227) provided a detailed diagnosis for Acroglochin chenopodioides , also giving the provenance (“In Nepal ”). After the name, it was reported “Plant. rar. Hort. Gotting.” which would referred to his previous work “Hortus Gottingensis, seu plantae novae et rariores horti regii botanici Gottngensis” ( Schrader 1809 -1811). However, the Gottingen’s catalogue did not include any species of Chenopodiaceae (see http://docnum.u-strasbg.fr/cdm/ref/collection/coll13/id/190584). As a consequence, the name Acroglochin chenopodioides is to be considered as published for the first time in Schrader’s Mantissa. I traced in the Schrader’s collection at LE (see Stafleu & Cowan 1985: 316) a specimen (code LE00018195) bearing a plant and the following label (Schrader’s handwriting): “ Herb. Schrader | Acroglochia chenopodioides Schr. [Schrader] | Sch. [Schrader] Mant. [Mantissa] ... | Nepal ”. I consider this LE specimen as part of the original material studied by H.A. Schrader. The plant in LE-00018195 matches Schrader’s diagnosis and it is designated here as the lectotype of the name Acroglochin chenopodioides .

Typification of Amaranthus cauliflorus :—This species was validated by Link (1822: 389) with a short diagnosis and a detailed description; the provenance (“Hab. in Nepal ”) was also given. According to Stafleu & Cowan (1981: 65), Link’s types are preserved at B, but they were mostly destroyed during World War II. No original material has been traced and it does not appear to be in extant. I select here a recent specimen as the neotype of Amaranthus cauliflorus , collected by A. Sukhorukov in W Nepal in 2010 (cited by Sukhorukov & Kushunina 2014). The name Amaranthus cauliflorus is to be considered as a heterotypic synonym of Acroglochin persicarioides .

Typification of Amaranthus diandrus :— Sprengel (1822: 20) proposed Amaranthus diandrus by a short diagnosis, a detailed description and the provenance (“Hab. in Nepal ”). According to Stafleu & Cowan (1985: 806) the Sprengel herbarium is deposited in various collections. No specimens suitable for lectotypification have been traced in B (R. Vogt, pers. comm.), BP (L. Somlyay, pers. comm.), FI (C. Nepi, pers. comm.), G (L. Gautier, pers. comm.), LD (P. Frödén, pers. comm.), LE (L. Orlova and I. Illarionova, pers. comm.), NY (A. Weiss, pers. comm.), PR (O. Sida, pers. comm.). Since original material for the name Amaranthus diandrus does not appear to be extant, a neotypification is proposed here (Art. 9.8 of the ICN). I designate here as the neotype of Amaranthus cauliflorus a specimen collected by Polunin et al. in W Nepal in 1952 (cited by Sukhorukov & Kushunina 2014). The name Amaranthus diandrus is to be considered a heterotypic synonym of Acroglochin persicarioides .

Typification of Amaranthus acroglochin :— Sprengel (1825: 927) validly described Amaranthus acroglochin through a short diagnosis, also giving the provenance as “ Nepal ”. One original specimen at B (code 10-0272702) was traced. It bears a plant and two labels (“ Amaranthus acroglochin Spr. | ( Nepal.)...in Hb. [Herbarium] Spr. [Sprengel]”, and “ Amaranthus acroglochin * ”). The asterisk is likely that reported by Sprengel (l.c.) in Systema Vegetabilium where the author added a “*” for new species. The plant in B-10-0272702 morphologically matches the original diagnosis and it is here designated as the lectotype of Amaranthus acroglochin . The Sprengel’s name can be considered a heterotypic synonym of Amaranthus persicarioides .

Notes on the type of Boehmeria amaranthus :— Lauener & Ferguson (1982: 193), and Wilmot-Dear et al. (2014: 96) reported the specimen E-00317870 as the holotype of Boehmeria amaranthus . However, Léveillé (1913: 550) did not indicate any holotype. As a consequence, the statements by Lauener & Ferguson (1982: 193), and Wilmot-Dear et al. (2014: 96) are to be corrected to lectotype according to Art. 9.10 of the ICN. I here confirm that the E-00317870 refers to Acroglochin persicarioides .

Notes on the type of Acroglochin obtusifolium :— Blom (1927: 151 − 152) proposed this species to taxonomically define both a plant in Horti Gothoburgensis (“Sze-ch’uan bor.-occid.: Drogochi, in cultis, ca. 2700 m (17.X.1922, no. 4621”) and another one collected by Cavlerie in Yunnan Province, China, as reported in the protologue. These citations represent syntypes (Art. 9.6 of the ICN). There is a specimen at GB (code 0046171) bearing some fragments of a single plant and the following original label: “PLANTAE SINENSIS | N° 4621 | Acroglochin glochidosperma obtusifolium C. Blom | Prov. Sze-Ch’uan: bor.-occid.: Drogochi in cultis ca. 2700 m.s.m.; 19 17/10 22 | Det. C. Blom 1927 leg. HARRY SMITH ”. The GB specimen is one of the sintypes cited by Blom (l.c.). I was unable to trace the other syntype (from Yunnan). Blom (1927: 152) also published a figure of a specimen bearing a label that completely matches the label on GB-0046171, but the plant is clearly different. Moreover, it is not clear in which herbarium this specimen (figure in Blom 1927: 152) is deposited. I here designate the GB specimen as the lectotype of the name Acroglochin obtusifolia . The characters of the lectotype match those of A. persicarioides , and the names can be considered heterotypic synonyms.

Specimina visa selecta:— CHINA. Sichuan: Sze-ch’uan, 17 October 1922, leg. Smith 4621, det. Blom 1927 (GB-0047161!) ; Environs de Gan-pin , 29 August 1897, Martin & Bodinier s.n. (E-00317870!, lectotype of Boehmeria amaranthus ) ; Nepal, Schrader s.n. (LE-00018195!, lectotype of Acroglochin chenopodioides ) ; Yunnan: plantes de l’Yunnan oriental, 1897, Ducloux 354 ( P-04540763 ! sub Ac. chenopodioides ) ; plantes de CHINE ( Province du Yunnan ), 19 July 1885, Ducloux s.n. ( P-04540764 ! sub Ac. chenopodioides ) . FRANCE. Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur. Hortus Avenionensis, 1830, Requién s.n. ( P-01067759 ! sub Ac. chenopodioides ) . Ile-De-France. Hort. Paris [cultivated plant], 01 November 1831, Bonin s.n. ( P-00799249 ! sub Ac. chenopodioides ) ; Occitania. Hortus Monspeliensis , s.d., Requién s.n. ( P-01067760 ! sub Ac. chenopodioides ) . INDIA. Meghalaya: Hab. Khasia , 5000 − 6000 feet, s.d. (19 th century), Hooker & Thomson s.n. (LD-1971777!sub Ac.chenopodioides ) . NEPAL. Herb.Sprengel s.n. (B-10-0272702!, lectotype of Amaranthus acroglochin ) . PAKISTAN. Swat: Himalaya bor.-occid. Ushu , ca. 35°40 ′ N, 72°40 ′ E, substr. granit., ca. 2400 m, 23 August 1962, Aellen (sub “ Chenopodium pakistanum ”) 19499 (W-1969-0000982!) .

Figures

FIGURE 1. Lectotype of Acroglochin chenopodioides (LE-00018195!).