Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

(2923) Proposal to reject the name Eriostemon trinervis ( Myrtaceae : Leptospermeae )

2022; Wiley; Volume: 71; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/tax.12806

1996-8175

Peter G. Wilson,

Plant and animal studies

(2923) Eriostemon trinervis Hook. in J. Bot. (Hooker) 1: 254. Jul 1834 [Angiosp.: Myrt.], nom. utique rej. prop. Holotypus: “Van D[iemen]'s Land” [Tasmania], 1831, Lawrence 91 (K barcode K000843068). William Jackson Hooker (in J. Bot. (Hooker) 1: 241–258. 1834) published a lengthy contribution to the Tasmanian flora, based primarily on collections made by his correspondents Robert William Lawrence and Ronald Campbell Gunn. In his treatment of the family Rutaceae, he published, with some doubt about its generic placement, the name Eriostemon trinervis (as “E.? trinerve”), commenting “Of this there is no flower and very small specimens.” The type in the Kew Herbarium consists of two small, sterile elements, which are in agreement with this description. The name next appeared in Joseph Dalton Hooker's Flora Tasmaniae (Fl. Tasman. 1: 140. 1856) where it is correctly identified as a member of the Myrtaceae and placed in synonymy under Leptospermum myrtifolium Sieber ex DC. with three Leptospermum names. Bentham (Fl. Austral. 3: 108. 1867) followed J.D. Hooker's placement of the name without further comment. Rodway (Tasman. Fl.: 52–53. 1903) does not mention the name in his treatment of Leptospermum (or of Eriostemon), nor does Curtis (Student's Fl. Tasman. 1: 198. 1956) and it next appears in some notes on the Australian flora by Willis (in Muelleria 1: 136–137. 1967). Willis discussed the problems with application of Leptospermum names in the Tasmanian flora and, noting that the type of Eriostemon trinervis had recently been rediscovered at Kew by Ronald Melville, concluded that it was a synonym of Leptospermum glaucescens S. Schauer (in Linnaea 15: 421. 1841). Willis (l.c.) noted that Hooker's name is earlier but that “A new combination, “L. trinerve”, based upon this type, is precluded by the existence of the earlier homonym L. trinerve DC.” (Prodr. 3: 227. 1828; see discussion below). This disposition of the Eriostemon name is also cited by Paul G. Wilson (in Nuytsia 1: 120. 1970) amongst names excluded from Eriostemon. In her revision of the genus Leptospermum, Thompson (in Telopea 3: 370. 1989) agreed with Willis and again noted that the epithet was unavailable (“non Leptospermum trinerve Smith”). Smith's name (in Rees, Cycl. 20. 1812) was apparently new, but he cited, as a synonym, Melaleuca? trinervia from naval surgeon John White's account from the colony of New South Wales (White, J. Voy. N.S.W.: 229, t. 24. 1790), which contains descriptions of some flora and fauna. Smith's use of the epithet “trinerve” is now interpreted as an orthographical error so that the name is now considered to be the new combination, L. trinervium (J. White) Sm. This therefore has priority over the intended new combinations, but later isonyms, “Leptospermum trinerve” by Candolle (l.c.) cited by Willis (l.c.) and “Leptospermum trinervium” published by Thompson (l.c: 366). It is relevant here to note some background to these names. The plant names in White's journal have traditionally been attributed to James Smith but there is no convincing internal evidence of his authorship and they are now attributed to John White. Prior to the valid publication of Leptospermum trinervium, Smith himself (in Trans. Linn. Soc. London 3: 263. 1797) and Willdenow (Sp. Pl. 2: 949. 1799) both listed the designation “Leptospermum trinerve” as a synonym of L. lanigerum, so the variant spelling had some currency. The recent phylogeny of Binks & al. (in Taxon 71: 348–359. 2022) and unpublished work by Wilson & Heslewood (in prep.) have established that the genus Leptospermum is polyphyletic and should be divided into five segregate genera, three of which are new. The implementation of this revised view will place both L. trinervium and L. glaucescens in the same segregate genus, the name of which will also have neuter gender. Technically, the statement by Willis (l.c.) was incorrect and he could have published the parahomonym L. trinerve, since the epithet of Hooker's Eriostemon trinervis would have been the earliest available for L. glaucescens. Despite the lack of fertile material on the type gathering, the name Eriostemon trinervis seems to be correctly applied to the species currently known as Leptospermum glaucescens. It otherwise most closely resembles L. rupestre Hook.f. (in Icon. Pl. 4: t. 308. 1841). Both these names post-date the publication of E. trinervis but are well-established in the Australian taxonomic literature and are based on ample fertile type material. It is desirable to avoid perpetuating the confusion surrounding “Leptospermum trinerve”, which has been used as both a synonym and an accepted name (with incorrect orthography) but never validly published. Thus, I here propose the rejection utique of Eriostemon trinervis to render it unavailable for use as a basionym in Leptospermum or its generic segregates. Although the Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) includes the voted example, Art. 53 *Ex. 11, that treats the epithets ‘trinervis’ and ‘trinervius’ as confusable if used in the same genus or species, it could be argued that ‘trinerve’ and ‘trinervium’, differing by more than one letter, are not confusable. This would be the outcome if the present proposal is not supported. Approval of this proposal will maintain usage of the currently established epithet and will avoid use of two potentially confusing epithets. PGW, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8581-318X I am grateful to Kanchi Gandhi (Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) for nomenclatural advice and Anna Monro (CANB) for useful comments.