Arenaria pintaudii Molinari, Polish Bot. J. 61(2): 275. 2016, nom. nov. pro

Montesinos-Tubee, Daniel B. & Iamonico, Duilio, 2023, Neotypification for five names linked to Arenaria (Caryophyllaceae) for the endemic flora of Peru and Bolivia, PhytoKeys 230, pp. 131-144 : 131

publication ID

https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.230.107263

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4E9A45F6-1082-5261-9E6A-D34B3B802EB4

treatment provided by

PhytoKeys by Pensoft

scientific name

Arenaria pintaudii Molinari, Polish Bot. J. 61(2): 275. 2016, nom. nov. pro
status

 

Arenaria pintaudii Molinari, Polish Bot. J. 61(2): 275. 2016, nom. nov. pro View in CoL

Alsine rupestris Muschl., Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 45(4): 448-449. 1911, non Fenzl (1833).

Neotype

(designated here). Peru. Puno: Puno, J. Infantes 6922 (B-100747308, Fig. 5 View Figure 5 ).

The name Arenaria pintaudii was validly published by Molinari (2016: 275) as a nomen novum pro Alsine rupestris Muschler. Muschler (1911: 448-449), although validly published A. rupestris , overlooked the previous legitimate name S. rupestris (Scop.) Fenzl. [published in 1883 and currently accepted as Facchinia rupestris (Scop.) Dillenb. & Kadereit]. Hence Muschler’s Alsine rupestris is illegitimate (later homonym) according to the Art. 53.1 of ICN. According to Art. 7.4 of ICN, "A replacement name ... is typified by the type of the replaced synonym". Therefore, the typification of Molinari’s Arenaria pintaudii must be made studying Muschler’s Alsine rupestris . Muschler (1911) provided a detailed description, the provenance and habitat ("Peruvia: supra Ananca, in Sandia provincial, rupiphus, 5100 ms.m."), collector and number of collection ("Weberbauer # 1042"); he also reported: "Specimina florigera fructiferaque 16 Mai 1902. - Herb. Berol. [Herbarium Berolinense, now B]". The only known collection of Alsine rupestris at B was destroyed according to Hiepko (1987) and no further original material could be found. It remains unclear how Molinari (2016) published the new name without observing or selecting a type specimen. Anyway, a neotypification is required under the Art. 9.8 of ICN.

Observations.

The species is considered as Critically Endangered ( Cano and Sánchez 2006) and it seems to have well-established populations in certain sectors of the altiplano in the department of Puno according to herbarium labels and personal observations. Moreover, few populations were observed north of the department of Moquegua from where one of the additional observations comes from.

Description.

Pulvinate herb with several branches, 3-15 cm long, decumbent or procumbent, glabrous, internodes ca. 1 cm long; leaves lanceolate to ovate in outline, bearing an amplexicaul base and acute apex, 8-12 mm long × 2-3 mm wide, margins densely ciliated, rarely glabrous; pedicels up to 5 mm long, erect or curved, puberulent or glabrous; sepals oblong, 3.5-5.0 mm long; petals ovate-cuneate, ca. 4.5 mm long; seeds smooth, blackish.

Specimens examined.

Peru. Puno: Santa Lucia , 3600 m, Nov 1939, J.E. Sharpe 94 (K!) ; Puno: Santa Lucia , 3600 m, Nov 1939, J.E. Sharpe 107 (K!) ; Puno: Puno, J. Infantes 6922 (B100747308) ; Puno: Santa Lucia , 3600 m, 10 Nov 1939, J.E. Sharpe 94 (K!) ; Puno: Azángaro, Arapa , 3820 m, 17 Feb 1948, P. Aguilar 100 (USM-18587!) ; Puno: Cerro entre rocas, 3900 m, 11 Feb 1948, P. Aguilar 148 (USM-18576!) ; Moquegua: Ichuña, Tolapampa , 4040 m, 14 Apr 2012, D. Montesinos & F. Calizaya 3823a (B-101156477!) .