(2913) Proposal to conserve the name Anethum segetum ( Umbelliferae ) with a conserved type
2022; Wiley; Volume: 71; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/tax.12783
ISSN1996-8175
Autores Tópico(s)Plant Pathogens and Resistance
Resumo(2913) Anethum segetum L., Mant. Pl.: 219. Oct 1771 [Angiosp.: Umbell.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: Portugal, Beja, Cabeça Gorda, 23 Jun 1979, Malato-Beliz & Guerra 16283 (MA barcode MA-01-00310950!; isotypi: MA barcodes MA-01-00311369!, MA-01-00325392!, MA-01-00357096! & MA-01-00357130!), typ. cons. prop. The present proposal deals with the situation surrounding the name Anethum segetum L. (Mant. Pl.: 219. 1771) (Umbelliferae), which has long been applied to a species in a sense not including its type. Anethum segetum, Meum segetum (L.) Guss. (Fl. Sicul. Prodr. 1: 346. 1827), or Ridolfia segetum “(L.) Moris” (but see below) (Enum. Sem. Hort. Taur. 1841: 43. 1841; see https://seedlists.naturalis.nl/content/ridolfia-moris) are the traditional and currently accepted names of a species distributed throughout the Mediterranean region, extending to Portugal, the Azores, the Canary Islands, and the Arabian Peninsula (Tutin & al., Fl. Eur. 2: 352. 1968, sub “Ridolfia segetum Moris”; Plants of the World Online [POWO], https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:837543-1). This species shows glabrous leaves finely divided into filiform leaflets, the upper often reduced to the inflated petiole, umbels with 10–60 slender, nearly equal rays, bracts and bracteoles absent, fruit 1.5–2.5 mm, ovoid-cylindrical, compressed laterally, ridges slender, scarcely prominent, vittae solitary, slender (Tutin & al., l.c.; Aedo in Castroviejo & al., Fl. Iberica 10: 282. 2003; Tison & al., Fl. France Médit.: 1837. 2014; Pignatti, Fl. Ital., ed. 2, 3: 592. 2018). The seeds and leaves contain an essential oil, and the plant has a strong odor. This species has been cultivated in Peru, where it has also escaped to waste places (Mathias & Constance in Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Bot. Ser. 13(5A/1): 92. 1962). It is used as an herb in the pickle industry, can be eaten in its raw form or cooked, and is also used for medicinal purposes. Linnaeus (l.c.) published Anethum segetum providing a short diagnosis “ANETHUM foliis caulinis tribus, fructibus ovalibus” followed by two synonyms: “Anethum sylvestre minus” cited from Bauhin (Pinax: 147. 1623; Prodr.: 76. 1620) and “Foeniculum lusitanicum minus annuum, anethi odore” from Tournefort (Inst. Rei. Herb., ed. 3: 312. 1719), and a complete description of the plant. No illustrations were provided in the protologue and none of the synonyms cited by Linnaeus from Bauhin and Tournefort are accompanied by an illustration. However, a potential syntype was mentioned, as “Habitat in Lusitania. D. Vandelli. H. U. [Hortus Upsaliensis]”. In this sense, if Vandelli's material of Portugal exists, this material should have preference in a lectotype designation according to Art. 9.12 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Reduron (in Taxon 55: 208. 2006) mentioned that this name was evidently based on material cultivated in the Hortus at Uppsala, the seeds reported as having come from Portugal via Domenico Vandelli (1730–1816). [From Lisbon, Vandelli corresponded with one of the most renowned Bolognese naturalists, Ferdinando Bassi (1710–1774), a convinced “Linnaean” (Cristofolini & Biagio, Linneo a Bologna. 2007; Puerto Sarmiento, Ciencia de Cámara: Casimiro Gómez Ortega (1741–1818) el Científico Cortesano: 35. 1992). Linnaeus also exchanged letters with Vandelli, and both Bassi and Vandelli received career advice from him (correspondence cited by João Brigola in Colecções, Gabinetes e Museus em Portugal no Seculo XVIII: 105–106. 2003; Letter VIII of Linnaeus, Uppsala, 12 February 1765 and letter from Ferdinando Bassi to Domingos Vandelli, Bolonha, 6 May 1766).] Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate any original material in any Linnaean and Linnaean-linked herbaria including UPS (Mats Hjertson, pers. comm.) that would be linked to the synonym by Bauhin (l.c.) or the acronym “H. U.” cited by Linnaeus in the protologue. The lack of original material of Anethum segetum creates doubts about the precise application of the name. According to Reduron (l.c.), Linnaeus's extensive description is a good match for A. graveolens L. (Sp. Pl.: 263. 1753), and accordingly a neotype for A. segetum was designated by him from a specimen preserved in the herbarium of Sébastien Vaillant at P, as: “Anethum segetum Grisley, foetidum […]” & “Anethum segetum. V. Lusit. / Foeniculum lusitanicum, minus, annuum, Anethi odore I. r. h. 312”, Herb. Vaillant (P). This specimen is now barcoded P00436562 (image available at https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/p/item/p00436562). The sheet bears a stem with upper leaves and several mature and also immature umbels. The mature umbels bear well-developed fruits. The fruits of this specimen are elliptical, strongly compressed dorsally, with dorsal ridges slender, prominent, and with lateral wings. Thus, this material can be identified as belonging to A. graveolens (see Reduron, l.c.), a species widely distributed around the world and widely cultivated as a herb and often more or less naturalized, particularly in the Mediterranean region (Tutin & al., l.c.: 341; Wiersema & León, World Econ. Pl., ed. 2: 54. 2013). Therefore, Reduron's neotypification would make A. segetum a synonym of A. graveolens. A duplicate of the neotype was found in the herbarium of the Salvador family at BC (BC-Salvador 1765). During 1716 and 1717, Joan Salvador i Riera (1683–1725) and Antoine de Jussieu (1686–1758) made a botanical expedition around Spain and Portugal, in which the young Bernard de Jussieu (1699–1777), brother of Antoine, also took part. Both the Jussieu brothers and Salvador collected numerous plants that were later incorporated in their herbaria. The specimen at BC is very poorly preserved, and it consists of a stem, an undeveloped umbel (without fruits), and a separate leaf. The sheet bears an original label annotated as “Foeniculum Lusitanicû | minus, annuum, Ane- | thi odore Inst. rei. herb. 312 | Anethum Segetum V. Lusit. [handwritten by Salvador] | Anethum segetum L. [handwritten by Pourret] | In varis locis Lusitaniae in- | venimus [handwritten by Salvador]”. As was annotated on the label, the specimen was identified by Pourret as Anethum segetum. Article 9.19(c) states: “The author who first designates (Art. 7.10, 7.11, and F.5.4) a lectotype or a neotype in conformity with Art. 9.11–9.13 must be followed, but that choice is superseded if […] it is in serious conflict with the protologue, in which case an element that is not in conflict with the protologue is to be chosen […].” In the case of Anethum segetum, the previously designated neotype is not in serious conflict with the protologue, and the neotypification proposed by Reduron (l.c.) was in accordance with the Code and is therefore effective. Anethum segetum is a name that for over 250 years was unambiguously applied under the authorship of Linnaeus and currently used under Ridolfia segetum “(L.) Moris” (see Aedo, l.c.; Pignatti, l.c.; Plants of the World Online [POWO], http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:847774-1; The Plant List, http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2421971; Tropicos.org, https://www.tropicos.org/name/1701376; The World Flora Online (WFO), http://worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000402206; World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP), https://wcvp.science.kew.org/taxon/847774-1), and therefore preserving the usage of this name is desirable. However, noting that the current neotype of the name is a specimen identifiable with A. graveolens, to preserve nomenclatural stability, conservation of the name Anethum segetum with a conserved type under Art. 14.9 is proposed here. A complete and well-preserved specimen at MA (barcode MA-01-00310950) is proposed as the conserved type, with four duplicates at MA (barcodes MA-01-00311369, MA-01-00325392, MA-01-00357096, and MA-01-00357130). This specimen shows all diagnostic characters and was collected in Portugal (Beja, Cabeça Gorda), a locality that matches with the provenance mentioned by Linnaeus in the protologue (“Habitat in Lusitania”). Rejection of the present proposal would have an undesirable consequence because another name would have to replace what has been called Anethum segetum up to now, perhaps the very unknown and little-used A. pusillum All. (Auct. Syn. Meth. Stirp. Hort. Regii Taur.: 28. 1773). However, the unripe fruits in the specimen to be selected as the lectotype of A. pusillum by Santangelo & al. (in Phytotaxa: in press) suggest it corresponds to A. graveolens, so that A. pusillum would not be a synonym of Ridolfia segetum as was proposed by Chiovenda (in Ann. Bot. (Rome) 10: 21. 1912) and tentatively supported by Dandy (in Taxon 19: 618. 1970). Other often-listed synonyms in current databases include “A. arvense Besser” (Sem. Hort. Bot. Volhyn. 1820: [1]. 1820), which was not validly published (see https://seedlists.naturalis.nl/?q=/content/anethum-arvense-bess) and would anyway have been a later homonym of A. arvense Salisb. (Prodr. Stirp. Cap. Allerton: 168. 1796), nom. illeg.; Apium junceum Stokes (Bot. Mat. Med. 2: 155. 1812), an illegitimate replacement name for Sison segetum L. (l.c.: 252), which therefore does not apply; Carum ridolfia Benth. & Hook. f. (Gen. Pl. 1: 891. 1867), an illegitimate replacement name for Anethum segetum L.; and Ferulago quercetorum Bornm. (in Jessen & Spärck, Danish Sci. Invest. Iran 4: 16. 1945), an unused name of uncertain application. As a result, Spalik & Reduron (in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 198: 19. 2022), in merging several genera, including Ridolfia Moris (l.c. 1841), back into Anethum L., recently proposed A. ridolfia Spalik & Reduron as a replacement name for “Ridolfia segetum Moris, Ind. Sem. Hort. Taur. (1841); Fl. Sard. ii. 212. t. 75 (1842); non Anethum segetum L., Mant. Pl. Altera 219 (1771)”. There are some nomenclatural wrinkles to consider here. Most, though not all, authors have considered both Meum segetum of Gussone (l.c.) and Ridolfia segetum of Moris (l.c. 1841) to be based on Anethum segetum L.; however, both authors clearly indicated some differences, particularly in fruit characters, between their species concept and that of Linnaeus. Gussone (l.c.) nevertheless listed “Anethum segetum. Lin. mant. 219?” under his name and Moris (l.c. 1841) included “Meum Segetum Guss.! Fl. sic. Prod. 1. p. 346. et Suppl. p. 79” in his synonymy together with Anethum segetum sensu four authors other than Linnaeus, adding the comments: “Obs. Anethum Segetum Linn. Mant. alt. p. 219. cujus fructus ex descriptione « ovales, convexiusculi, striis 3, elevatis », num ad nostrum spectet valde licet dubitare, etsi synonymum a Linnaeo adductum Foeniculum lusitanicum minus etc. Tourn. Inst. p. 312, ex observatione clarissimi Gussone in herbario Tournefortiano, cum nostra planta congruat. Specimina in herbario Linnaeano desunt” (Obs. Anethum Segetum Linn. Mant. alt. p. 219. whose description of the fruit ‘ovate, convex, with 3 raised striae’ doubtfully pertains to our plant, although Linnaeus's synonym of Foeniculum lusitanicum minus etc. Tourn. Inst. p. 312 matches our plant according to Gussone's observation in the Tournefort herbarium. There are no specimens in the Linnaeus herbarium) and “Anethum autem Segetum ab Auctoribus descriptum fructu ovato aut ovali, convexiusculo aut lenticulari, margine dilatato, complanato aut subalato cincto, a nostro certe diversum et ad Anethi graveolentis varietatem minorem, uti jam pridem tradidit clarissimus Brotero, referendum” (The Anethum Segetum, described by the authors [he had mentioned Linnaeus and Jacquin] as having a fruit ovate or oval, convex or lenticular, with a broadened margin, flattened or raised, is certainly different from ours, and should be referred to a smaller variety of Anethum graveolens, as the most illustrious Brotero [in Fl. Lusit. 1: 465. 1804] has indicated long ago). Although a reference to the exclusion “of the name itself” is not explicitly mentioned in Art. 48.2 (as inclusion of the name is in the comparable Art. 52.2), this is clearly implicit in Art. 48.1 and so I conclude that Moris (l.c. 1841) excluded the type of Anethum segetum L. from his Ridolfia segetum. On the other hand, in listing Linnaeus's name as a tentative synonym, Gussone (l.c.) did not exclude its type in publishing Meum segetum (L.) Guss. The question of whether or not Moris (l.c. 1841) explicitly excluded the type of Anethum segetum (see Art. 48 Note 1) determines the status of not only his, but also Spalik & Reduron's name. If Ridolfia segetum was considered to be based on A. segetum L., these authors could not have published a replacement name for it, since in publishing A. ridolfia, Spalik & Reduron would have explicitly excluded its Linnaean type by excluding the Linnaean name. Neither could they have published the name of a new taxon, despite their reference to a Latin description (in Moris, Fl. Sardoa 2: 12. 1842), since they failed to satisfy Art. 40 by indicating a type. Given the conclusion that the Linnaean type was excluded by Moris, if this proposal to conserve the name Anethum segetum L. with a conserved type is accepted, this would leave Ridolfia segetum Moris and Anethum segetum L. as heterotypic synonyms. With conservation, there would be no necessity to replace the 250-year-old usage of A. segetum or R. segetum by most authors, as attempted by Spalik & Reduron (l.c.). Finally, if the proposal to conserve the name Anethum segetum L. is rejected, the heterotypic Ridolfia segetum Moris could remain in use, but not as “R. segetum (L.) Moris” of most authors. However, if Ridolfia is included in Anethum as advocated by Spalik & Reduron (l.c.), a new name would be required for the taxon formerly known as A. segetum, perhaps one based on the obscure Ferulago quercetorum Bornm. or the just-published A. ridolfia Spalik & Reduron. PPFG, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7595-9302 I thank Prof. John McNeill, Dr. John Wiersema, and Dr. Angelo Troia for their advice, assistance, and valuable comments that improved this proposal. I thank the staff of the cited herbaria, Dr. Mats Hjertson (UPS), Dra. Neus Ibáñez (BC), Annalisa Santangelo (NAP), and Javier Fabado (VAL) for their help in the study of the herbarium sheets.
Referência(s)