Neja filiformis (Spreng.) Nees von Esenbeck (1839

Moraes, Pedro Luís Rodrigues De, 2020, Nomenclatural notes on the taxonomic identity of Sprengel’s Erigeron dubius, E. montevidensis, E. resinosus and E. filiformis (Asteraceae), Phytotaxa 438 (2), pp. 95-106 : 100-102

Neja filiformis (Spreng.) Nees von Esenbeck (1839 : unpaged; 1840: 168).

Basionym:— Erigeron filiformis Sprengel (1826: 520) ≡ Hysterionica filiformis (Spreng.) Cabrera (1946: 355) . Protolog:—“ Ad fl. magnum Amer. austr. (Rio grande.) Sello”. Type:— BRAZIL. “Rio Grande”, s.d., F. Sellow s.n. (lectotype designated here: P barcode P02484331, ex Herb. Sprengel 1107, i.e. the right-hand specimens on top).

Synonyms:— Erigeron montevidensis Sprengel (1826: 519) , syn. nov., non Baker (1882: 30) ≡ Hysterionica montevidensis (Spreng.) Baker (1882: 13) . Protolog:—“ Monte Video. Sello”. Type:—Loco haud indicato, s.d., F. Sellow s.n. (lectotype designated here: P barcode P02484327, ex Herb. Sprengel 1104 [F neg. 37684]).

Neja gracilis [D.Don ex Sweet (1830: 299), nom. nud.;] D.Don in Sweet (1831: 78, tab. 78). Protolog:—“It is a native of Mexico, from whence it was introduced in 1828, by the late Robert Barclay, Esq., from whose collection the specimens were sent, from which our figure and description were taken”. Type:—COUNTRY NOT INDICATED. Loco haud indicato, 1831, R. Sweet s.n. (lectotype designated here: G-DC barcode G00455734). Possible original material:—“ MEXICO ”. “Hort. Barclay” (K barcode K000221414, right-hand specimen), “Jardin de Mr Barclay – juill. 1830” (G-DC barcode G00455768).

Diplopappus stenophyllus Hooker & Arnott (1836: 48) . Type :— URUGUAY. Loco haud indicato, s.d., J. Tweedie s.n. (holotype: K barcode K000221411 , ex Herb. Hookerianum; isotype: E barcode E00593915 ). Variety β:— BRAZIL. “Rio Grande”, loco haud indicato, s.d., J. Tweedie s.n. (E barcode E00593914 , K barcode K000221412 , left-hand specimen, ex Herb. Hookerianum).

Neja subvillosa Candolle (1836: 325) , syn. nov. Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, loco haud indicato, s.d., Sellow s.n. = Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1015 (holotype: P barcode P02484329 ; isotype: G-DC barcode G00455794 ).

Neja linearifolia Candolle (1836: 325) ≡ Hysterionica linearifolia (DC.) Baker (1882: 13) . Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, loco haud indicato, s.d., Sellow s.n. = Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1045 (lectotype designated here: P barcode P02484343, left-hand specimen; isolectotype: G-DC barcode G00455750). Other syntype:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, loco haud indicato, s.d., Sellow s.n. = Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1034 (P02484346 [F neg. 37687]).

Neja tenuifolia Candolle (1836: 326) . Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, loco haud indicato, s.d., Sellow s.n. = Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1009 (holotype: P barcode P02484347 ; isotype: G-DC barcode G00455795 ).

Neja ciliaris Candolle (1836: 326) . Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, loco haud indicato, s.d., Sellow s.n. = Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1004 (holotype: P barcode P02484345 ; isotype: G-DC barcode G00455727 ).

Hysterionica setuligera Gandoger (1873: 23) . Protolog:—“Brasilia (Sello, n. 1964)”. Type :— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, “inter Serra dos Tapes et S. Francisco de Paula” fide Malme (1931), September 1824, Sellow [d] 1964 (holotype: LY (?); isotypes: B †, MO barcode MO-2422055 – communicavit M. Gandoger).

The herbarium sheet P02484331 has four specimens mounted together. Of them, only the two specimens on the top right-hand can be taken as original material of Erigeron filiformis , since they are associated with an original label handwritten by Sprengel with “ Erigeron filiformis * Sello. Rio Grande”, and they perfectly match the protolog. Although this sheet has been annotated by G. Sancho in 2006 as Hysterionica filiformis (Spreng.) Cabrera , in Sancho & Vitali (2014) the authors referred to the “ type ” of Erigeron filiformis Spreng. as “probablemente en P, no localizado”.

The herbarium sheet P02484327 has a single specimen on it, with an original label annotated by Sprengel with “ Erigeron montevidensis * Sello”, and two labels annotated by Schultz-Bipontinus, respectively, with “ Neja montevidensis Sz Bip in Seemann (Sierra Madr[e]) bot. [...] Herald p. 302”, and “ Neja montevidensis Sz Bip 7/5 52 / = (ciliaris) DC. V. 326.”. This sheet was also annotated by G. Sancho in 2006 as Hysterionica filiformis (Spreng.) Cabrera , but in Sancho & Vitali (2014) E. montevidensis Spreng. was not even mentioned.

Specimen G00455734 is mounted together with specimen G00455768 on the same sheet. The former bears a label annotated with “ Neja gracilis / Sw. br. fl. gard. ser. 2. t. 78 / Mr. Sweet 1831 ”, while the latter bears a label annotated with “ Neja gracilis / Mexique / Jardin de Mr Barclay – juill. 1830”. Both specimens may be taken as original material of Neja gracilis D.Don , since they are in agreement with the protolog. However, the former specimen is chosen as the lectotype because it is more leafy than the latter, thus resembling best the illustration presented in Sweet’s (1831) plate 78, and because its label clearly denotes association to the place of publication of the protolog, and to Robert Sweet’s herbarium, or his communication. Regarding the provenance of the material introduced by Robert Barclay, Lessing (1832: 165) was the first to indicate that Neja gracilis D.Don is not a Mexican species. According to Bentham & Hooker (1873), it must have been collected in the Uruguayan region, since its placement as a synonym of N. filiformis is unquestionable, the latter being registered for southern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.

Specimen K000221411 is mounted together with other three collections on the same sheet. It is annotated with “ Uruguay. Tweedie” and “ Diplopappus stenophyllus H&A”, and perfectly matches the protolog of Diplopappus stenophyllus Hook. & Arn. , which allow to take it as the holotype of that name. Its identity as Hysterionica filiformis has been acknowledged by Cabrera (1946) and Sancho & Vitali (2014), opinion that I agree with.

Specimen P02484329 is the holotype of Neja subvillosa DC. , since it bears an original label annotated by Candolle with “ Neja subvillosa DC. ”, and also the original label of Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1015, altogether perfect matching the protolog. Its fragment at G-DC (G00455794) is an isotype. Its identity as Neja filiformis is proposed here, since its morphological characters are in agreement with the circumscription of this taxon. Hooker & Arnott (1836: 253–254) had already acknowledged the possible identity of D. villosus as N. subvillosa DC.

The herbarium sheet P02484343 has two specimens mounted on it, which belong to the same taxon. The left-hand specimen is chosen here as lectotype of Neja linearifolia DC. because it is the best preserved among the syntypes that have been indicated in the protolog, and it has a fragment deposited in G-DC (G00455750). It still bears three heads, whereas specimen P02484346 has only one. The identity of N. linearifolia as Hysterionica filiformis (≡ Neja filiformis ), acknowledged by Sancho & Vitali (2014), is shared here.

Specimen P02484347 is the holotype of Neja tenuifolia DC. , since it is annotated by Candolle with “ Neja tenuifolia DC. ”, bears the original label Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1009, and perfectly matches the protolog. Its fragment deposited in G-DC (G00455795) is an isotype. The indication of N. tenuifolia as synonym of Hysterionica filiformis (≡ Neja filiformis ) by Sancho & Vitali (2014) is accepted here, since it matches the circumscription of the latter.

Specimen P02484345, the holotype of Neja ciliaris DC. , is annotated by Candolle with “Chrysopsis Neja ciliaris DC. ”, has the original label Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1004, perfectly matches the protolog, and has a fragment at G-DC (G00455727), therefore an isotype. Its identity as Erigeron montevidensis Spreng. has been pointed out by Schultz (1856), and as Hysterionica filiformis (≡ Neja filiformis ) by Sancho & Vitali (2014).

Although Gandoger (1873) has not informed the herbarium where he had seen Sellow’s collection of Hysterionica setuligera , his private herbarium is currently deposited at LY ( Stafleu & Cowan 1976: 909), where the specimen in question would likely be found. However, Sellow d 1964 could not be retrieved from searches in the database “Les Herbiers” (https://herbier2014.univ-lyon1.fr/search) of the Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, nor in the portal of the e-ReColNat project (see Le Bras et al. 2017), which indicates that it has not been databased yet. Sellow d 1964 was quoted by Malme (1931) among the specimens he had examined in Berlin as Hysterionica pinifolia (Poir.) Baker. Since then, no duplicate of Sellow d 1964 seems to have been located, from what could be checked in herbarium databases and the available literature. In spite of that, the sheet at MO-2422055 is a duplicate of Sellow which matches the protolog. It has four branches mounted on it, and an original label handwritten by Gandoger with “ Hysterionica pinifolia Bak. / Brasilia. / Sello n. 1964 / c. M. Gandoger”. In Tropicos database, the information inserted for this sheet reads: “Current Determination – Hysterionica pinifolia (Poir.) Baker ”, “Collection Information: Collectors – Michel Gandoger”, “Collection Number – s.n.”, “Collection Date – 1964”, and “Location – Brazil ”, which makes impossible the retrieval for “ Sello(w) 1964 ” from any logical search. The identity of Sellow 1964 is ascertained as N. filiformis , since it falls within the circumscription adopted here. Both Cabrera (1946) and Sancho & Vitali (2014) have placed H. setuligera Gand. in the synonymy of H. filiformis , despite they never saw Sellow’s material.

As already mentioned, Baker (1882) treated Erigeron filiformis Spreng. as synonym of Hysterionica pinifolia , but he cited no Sellow collection in the examined material. Furthermore, Baker also quoted “ Diplopappus pinifolius Hook. et Arn. loc. cit.; Lessing in Linnaea VI. 119 ” in that synonymy. This could explain why Lessing named the specimens of Erigeron filiformis Spreng. in Berlin as “ Diplopappus pinifolius Less. ” (nomen), as pointed out by Schlechtendal (1835) and Candolle (1836, 1838), based on his understanding of Erigeron pinifolius Poir. (as mentioned in observation by Lessing 1831: 119). Later, those specimens in Berlin, after Baker’s treatment in the Flora brasiliensis, have been renamed as Hysterionica pinifolia Baker , and distributed to other herbaria. Evidence of that can be found from several Sellow’s collections already located: Sellow d 189, “prope Montevideo” (NY00801319, US 01684188), Sellow d 411, “prope Montevideo” (NY00801317, NY00801318, W19070018198), and Sellow d 1794, “inter Rio Pardo et Bagé” ( US 01684189), all of them annotated as Hysterionica pinifolia Baker.

Regarding other species names directly or indirectly related to Neja filiformis, Nesom (1994a) quoted “ Diplopappus graminifolius Less., Syn. Gen. Comp. 165. 1832” in its synonymy. In fact, Lessing (1832), in observation, quoted “ D. graminifolius * = Neja gracilis Don in Sweet. br. flow. gard. 1831 Jan. t. 78 (patria falsa) = Erigeron graminifolius Poir. ”. However, Lessing (1830: 144) has described Diplopappus graminifolius , based on Inula graminifolia Michaux (1803: 122) [≡ Pityopsis graminifolia (Michx.) Nuttall 1840: 318 ], also quoting Sprengel (1826: 524) (specimen P02666229 ex Herb. Sprengel 1139), and “In graminosis ad lateram montium prope Hacienda de la Laguna. Octbr.”, which refers to a collection by C. J. W. Schiede & F. Deppe in Mexico (not located). Recently, Nesom (2019) has correctly quoted Diplopappus graminifolius under Pityopsis graminifolia .

In the protolog of Erigeron montevidensis Baker , three specimens were cited: “Habitat prope Montevideo, in arenosis maritimis: Sello! Gibert n. 1238! Arechavaleta n. 4057!”. Cabrera (1941: 90–92) recognized that two taxa were involved: i) the one represented by the specimen of Arechavaleta 4057, “ Montevideo, Marzo 1876, al borde de los caminos” ( K000221865 , MVM), which should be taken as the type of Baker’s species ; and ii) the other represented by Sellow’s specimen, Sellow d 643 ( B † [ F neg. 14852]), which Cabrera described and named as Erigeron blakei Cabrera. According to Cabrera, Arechavaleta’s specimen has wide, pinnatifid leaves, with obtuse segments 3–4 mm wide, and capitula in broad, corymbiform panicles. Sellow’s material, on the other hand, has pinnatisect leaves of very narrow segments and a capitulum arranged in a narrow panicle. Another specimen of Arechavaleta 4057 at MVM is annotated with “ Montevideo, al borde de los caminos, en el campo, en terrenos removidos. Febrero 1878 ”, therefore with a different date of collection than indicated in the specimen at K, but belonging to the same taxon and showing leaves slightly narrower. Regarding the collection of Gibert 1238, which was not seen, nor mentioned by Cabrera (1941), in MVM there are three specimens collected by Gibert which match Arechavaleta’s collection and are annotated by Gibert as: i) “ Pl. Gibert. 951. 1238. Montevideo, in arenis maritimis. Martio 1881” ; ii) “ Pl. Gibert. 951. Montevideo, in arenis marit. Martio 1881” ; and iii) “ Pl. Gibert. 200. Montevideo, in arenis. Martio 1880” .