Salsola foetida var. gaetula, 1933

Falatoury, Atiye Nejad, Iamonico, Duilio & Freitag, Helmut, 2017, Nomenclature of Caroxylon imbricatum s. lat. (Amaranthaceae / Chenopodiaceae), with a new combination at variety rank, Phytotaxa 331 (1), pp. 101-108 : 106

Salsola foetida var. gaetula

Maire (1933: 227) initially proposed “ Salsola gaetula ” for a species from Sub-Saharan (N-Africa). However, in that publication he explicitly marked S. gaetula as a provisional name [“ad interium”], and thus it was not validly published under Art. 36.1 of the ICN. However, later Maire (1936: 257) accepted that taxon as a variety ( Salsola foetida var. gaetula Maire ), and cited his earlier description effectively published in 1933, thus validating the variety name (Art. 38.1 of the ICN). Further nomenclatural combinations, such as Salsola gaetula (Maire) Botschantzev (1975: 254) , Salsola imbricata subsp. gaetula (Maire) Boulos (1995: 24) , Caroxylon gaetulum (Maire) Akhani & Roalson (in Akhani et al. 2007: 947), and Nitrosalsola gaetula (Maire) Theodorova (2015: 443) , were based on the variety name validated by Maire in 1936 (but not on the invalid provisional species name initially proposed by Maire). It should be noted that Theodorova (2015), when proposing her new combination Nitrosalsola gaetula , correctly provided the main basionym information (title of the periodical, volume, page) but erroneously cited it as published in 1933; this error, however, does not make her combination invalid (Art. 41.6 of the ICN).

The species differs from C. imbricatum by its smaller stature, whitish indumentum, densely hairy tepals, and by its geographic range.

Regarding the type, there was some disagreement if the only collection from W-Morocco cited in Maire’s first publication should be considered as the holotype kept in MPU ( Freitag 1989, Boulos 1991) or as a lectotype (Botschantzev 1978). Aside from one specimen preserved in LE, there are sheets at MPU and P (one sheet per herbarium). The original cardboards of these sheets, which later were mounted on new sheets, clearly show that they fit together as the lower (MPU) and the upper part (P) of one original sheet. Therefore, both are suited to serve as a lectotype. However, since MPU houses the overwhelming majority of Maire’s types, and as most likely the cut happened after Maire’s publication, we follow the designation by Botschantzev (1978) and consider the MPU specimen as the lectotype and the specimens at LE and P as isolectotypes.