Statice cumana

Vallariello, Roberta, Iamonico, Duilio & Guacchio, Emanuele Del, 2016, Typification of three accepted names in Limonium (Plumbaginaceae), Phytotaxa 263 (2), pp. 131-138 : 132-133

Statice cumana , S. cumana var. glabrescens and Limonium johannis

Tenore (1824 − 1829: 351) validly published the name Statice cumana through a Latin diagnosis (“ Caule erecto vel ascendenti e basi ramoso, ramisque dichotomis subfastigiatis pubescenti-hirtis, inferioribus sterilibus, foliis obovatospathulatis muticis utrinque pubecenti-hirtis ciliatis; floribus terminalibus subsolitariis remotis rectis tenuibus, calycibus glabris dentibus acutis. Nob.”), and a detailed description. Morphological observations and two localities (“al Promontorio del Fusaro, al monte di Cuma,” and “alle radici de’ monti di Capri alla marina del mulo”) were also cited (see also Lacaita 1917). An illustration of Statice cumana can be found in the 5 th volume of Flora Napolitana ( Tenore 1835 − 1838: tab. CCXXIII, f. 1; image available at http://www.ortobotaniconapoli.it/paginadimenu.htm). We may hypothesize that plate 223, which also shows Armeria gracilis Tenore (1831: 158) , was probably included in a fascicle successive to that containing the protologue of S. cumana . However, the year in which the plate was prepared cannot be ascertained. Therefore, we cannot be sure that it is part of original material.

In Tenore’s collection at NAP, two relevant specimens occur (they are indicated as T1 and T2 through the text). T1 bears several plants and three labels: (1) “ Statice reticulata nov. sp. cumana | pubescenti affinis | Cuma Capri” (Tenore’s script), (2) a description of the taxon (Cesati’s script), and (3) “n° 1507 | “ Statice cumana Ten. | Typus ” (Pignatti’s script). As no publication including the typification of the name was found, Pignatti’s label cannot be considered as effective typification (Art. 7.9 of ICN). The other sheet at NAP (T2) bears three plants and two labels by M. Tenore: “ Silene Statice Cumana | Gajola”, and “ Statice reticulata Cumana var. caule-erecto | Marina del Mulo | Salita del Solaro” [only the locality Marina del Mulo (Capri island) is reported in the protologue]. Unfortunately, it is not possible to verify which individual was collected from the locus classicus. A third label by S. Pignatti is also present on the sheet (“n. 1571 | Statice johannis ”).

Although dates of collection are not reported in either T1 and T2, we can hypothesize that the plants were collected before the protologue (Tenore 1824 − 1829). In fact, in the original labels, Tenore firstly used the name Statice reticulata to identify the plants, and this name was reported in a previous work ( Tenore 1823: 248). As a consequence, it is clear that Tenore collected all the individuals in T1, and a part of those preserved in T2, surely before the protologue. Concerning the specimen T2, at least one plant was collected by G. Gussone at “Gajola” (Posillipo, Naples), after the protologue ( Tenore 1833a: 562). All things stated, the specimens T1 and T2 (partim) can be considered as part of the original material.

Unfortunately, the morphological characteristics of the plants on T1 and T2 do not perfectly match the protologue, as the calyxes are not glabrous, while the diagnosis reports “ calycibus glabris ”. The calyx hairiness seems to be relevant for Tenore’s concept of the species, especially because the author (Tenore 1824 − 1829, 1831: 161) considered it as diagnostic to discriminate S. cumana from S. pubescens Candolle (1815: 380) [≡ Limonium cordatum ( Linnaeus 1753: 275) Miller (1768 : Limonium no. 10)]. Many individuals of S. cumana (= L. cumanum ) were examined by us in the field and in herbaria. No individual shows entirely glabrous calyxes. However, T1 matches well with plate 223 of Flora napolitana ( Tenore 1835 − 1838), because its calyx hairs are visible only after removing the bracteoles. Besides, its leaves and stems are covered by short, rigid hairs as in the illustration, which perfectly matches the protologue. Therefore, we propose T1 as the lectotype of Statice cumana .

Plants collected in Capri island (Gulf of Naples) and in the Sirenuse archipelago (Gulf of Salerno), are remarkably less hairy, especially on leaves and stems. Their calyxes, besides, typically bear scattered hairs in the lower half and between the ribs. Plants with these features were described by Lacaita (1917: 137) as var. glabrescens . The Latin diagnosis is: “ Tota planta glabrescens ”. At the current state of knowledge, the geographical distributions of S. cumana var. cumana and var. glabrescens somehow overlap, as both hairy and glabrescent plants occur in the island of Capri, with some intermediates. For example, T1 can be regarded as an intermediate on account of the almost glabrous calyxes but hairy leaves. T1 was almost surely collected at Capri, as Sirenuse islands were never investigated by Tenore, while glabrescent plants were never found on the continent. It is interesting to note also that Tenore possibly never collected Statice cumana at Cuma (see Lacaita 1917).

As a consequence, we prefer to avoid a final decision about the correct rank of the taxon glabrescens, maintaining it at the varietal rank at present. The description of var. glabrescens automatically established the autonym Statice cumana var. cumana according to Art. 26 of ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012). Lacking a combination of the taxon glabrescens under Limonium , we here propose a nomenclatural change.

Pignatti (1971) identified T1 as L. virgatum ( Willdenow 1809: 336) Fourreau (1869: 141) and considered Statice cumana Ten. as a heterotypic synonym of L. virgatum . In his opinion, only T2 would represent the hairy plant erroneously indicated as S. cumana by other authors. As a consequence, Pignatti (1971: 362) proposed the new name Statice johannis (the epithet being in honour of Giovanni Gussone). On the basis of our observations, the plants of T1 cannot be identified as L. virgatum , but they actually are to be referred to the taxon currently known as L. cumanum . In this way, we agree with the statements given by V. Cesati (his label on the sheet) and M. Guadagno (in Sched.). For L. johannis, Pignatti (1971: 362) proposed a specimen from the Gussone herbarium at NAP as holotype: it corresponds however to S. cumana . In conclusion, therefore, L. johannis can be considered as a heterotypic synonym of S. cumana .

Limonium cumanum ( Tenore 1829: 351) Kuntze (1891: 395) var. cumanum . Bas.: Statice cumana Ten. ≡ Statice minuta var. cumana (Ten.) Fiori (1902: 332). Type (lectotype, here designated): ― ITALY. Campania, “Cuma Capri”, ante-1823, s.c. s.n. (NAP!) ( Fig. 1 ).

= Limonium johannis Pignatti (1971: 362) . Type (designated by Pignatti 1971: 362): ― ITALY. Campania, “Scola di Virgilio a Posillipo”, 20 July 1831, Gussone s.n. (holotype NAP!).

Limonium cumanum var. glabrescens (Lacaita in Béguinot (1917: 137) Vallariello, Iamonico & Del Guacchio, comb. nov. Bas.: Statice cumana var. glabrescens Lacaita in Béguinot (1917: 137). Type (lectotype, here designated): ― ITALY. Campania, Golfo di Salerno , in Sirenarum insula “il Gallo lungo”, 21 July 1914, Lacaita s.n. (FI-002192!, image of the lectotype available at http://parlatore.msn.unifi.it/types/search.php; isolectotypes FI-002190!, FI-002189!).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Lectoype of Statice cumana (“T1” in the text) (NAP, Herb. Tenore).