Ptilotus R.Br.

Iamonico, Duilio, 2018, Generic typifications in Amarathaceae s. str., Phytotaxa 350 (2), pp. 147-154 : 150-151

Ptilotus R.Br.

A diagnosis and two new species, Ptilotus conicus Brown (1810: 415) , and P. corymbosus Brown (1810: 415) (syntypes), were given by Brown (1810) to describe the new genus Ptilotus . Bean (2008) did not typified the generic name, although he provided a detailed taxonomic revision of the genus in eastern Australia.

From among the two syntypes, I prefer to select Ptilotus corymbosus as the lectotype of Ptilotus since it better represents the current native distribution of the genus, which is mainly confined to Australia (see below in “Species richness and distribution”).

1 The name Nototriche Turcz. , which was published earlier than Nototrichium (1863 vs. 1888) is not an homonym of the Hillebrand’s name according to the Art. 53.3 Ex.12 [cf. “ Monochaetum (DC.) Naudin (1845) and Monochaete Döll (1875) ”].

Bean (2008: 233) indicated for Ptilotus corymbosus a specimen preserved at BM (barcode BM000907281) as the holotype, while another one specimen [at K, barcode K000196973, image at http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/getImage. do?imageBarcode=K000196972 (specimen on the left)] was reported as isotype. However, Brown (1810: 415) did not specify any holotype in the protologue. According to the Art. 9.9 (see Ex. 10), the Bean’s choice and use holotype is an error to be corrected as lectotype.