(2944) Proposal to reject the name Narcissus flavus ( Amaryllidaceae )
2023; Wiley; Volume: 72; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/tax.12919
ISSN1996-8175
Autores Tópico(s)Mediterranean and Iberian flora and fauna
Resumo(2944) Narcissus flavus Lag., Gen. Sp. Pl.: 13. Jun–Dec 1816 [Angiosp.: Amaryllid.], nom. utique rej. prop. Typus: non designatus. Narcissus flavus Lag. (Gen. Sp. Pl.: 13. 1816a) was described as follows: “spatha multiflora: nectario urceolato truncato integro petalis ovatis triplo breviore: foliis linearibus obtusis canaliculatis subtus striatis. Scapus teres, subcompressus, erectus, foliis brevior. Corolla flava.—Colitur in Hortis”. It was listed along with N. ‘junquilla’ in an almost concurrent publication (Lagasca, Elench. Pl.: 10–11. 1816b), so both were probably cultivated in the Real Jardín Botánico, Madrid. It is treated as a synonym of N. jonquilla L. (Sp. Pl.: 290. 1753) by Aedo (in Castroviejo & al., Fl. Iberica 20, online ed., http://www.floraiberica.org/ [accessed 3 Feb 2023]). According to Webb (in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur. 5: 80. 1980), the “N. jonquilla group” has canaliculated leaves and N. jonquilla is “widely cultivated for its perfume”. Valdés (in Valdés & al., Fl. Vasc. Andaluc. Occid. 3: 464. 1987) stated that the taxa in Narcissus sect. Jonquillae DC. have leaves canaliculated in the upper side, striated in the lower side. In N. jonquilla subsp. jonquilla, the corona could be described as “urceolate” and the stalk is often shorter than the leaves; thus, the protologue of N. flavus fits the description of N. jonquilla as treated by Aedo (in Talavera & al., Fl. Iberica 20: 360. 2013) and Barra & al. (Fl. Montiber. 63: 103–111. 2016). A search for original material among Lagasca's specimens, conserved in MA, was unsuccessful, and the name has not been typified with any other material, as far as is known. Narcissus fernandesii Pedro (in Bol. Soc. Brot., ser. 2, 21: 60–61. 1947) was originally described as having 2–3 leaves, “erecto-recurvata, scapo longiora, anguste linearia (1-1,5 mm lata), semicylindrica, supra leviter canaliculata, dorso leviter striata, nervis obsoletis; […]; corona truncata, crenulata, cyathiformis, concolor, laciniis firmior eisque fere dimidio brevior (4,5-5 mm alta, 6 mm lata)”. Gomes Pedro (l.c.) mentioned two syntypes, and one of them (barcode COI00016659, from near Casa do Monte, Samora Correia, municipality of Benavente, Ribatejo, Portugal) was designated as a lectotype by Vázquez & al. (in Folia Bot. Extremadur. 4: 20. 2009). Gomes Pedro, without mentioning N. flavus Lag., pointed out the differences between his taxon, N. assoanus Dufour ex Schult. & Schult. f. (in Roemer & Schultes, Syst. Veg. 7: 962. 1830, as N. juncifolius Lag., l.c. 1816a: 13–14, nom. illeg. [non Salisb. 1796]), N. jonquilla L., and N. willkommii (Samp.) A. Fern. (in Bol. Soc. Brot., ser. 2, 40: 213. 1966, as N. jonquilloides Willk. in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 18: 103. 1860, nom. illeg. [non Willd. ex Schult. & Schult. f. 1830]). The paper includes a B/W photograph with two specimens with the flowers cut open prior to pressing and two drawings (plates 2–3). Voucher COI00016659 consists now of a single specimen with a flower in anthesis and an opening flower and the same B/W photograph. The diagnostic traits of N. fernandesii as it has been treated can be ascertained in the illustrations, the photograph, and the dried specimen. Besides its indication as a synonym, Narcissus flavus had never been used after its publication until Fernández Casas & Martí (in Fontqueria 56(37): 327–356. 2014) made an attempt to resurrect it as a name with priority over N. fernandesii. POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org, accessed 3 Feb 2023) lists N. flavus as an accepted name, but provides no authorities accepting it. Narcissus fernandesii, on the other hand, was accepted by Webb (l.c.: 81), Valdés (l.c.: 465), Fernández Casas (in Fontqueria 44: 253–262. 1996, 56: 37–48. 2009), Blanchard (Narcissus: A Guide to Wild Daffodils. 1990), Vázquez & al. (l.c.: 20–21), Navarro (in Blanca & al., Fl. Vasc. Andaluc. Orient. 1: 180. 2009), Barra & al. (l.c.), and Gómez-Murillo & al. (Guía Campo Narc. Silv. Extremadur. 2022). It has also been considered synonymous with N. assoanus by Aedo (l.c. 2013), but the study of the lectotype and the latest phylogenies based on molecular markers from chloroplast, mitochondrial, and nuclear ribosomal DNA (Marques & al. in Taxon 66: 832–854. 2017) allows us to discard that treatment. The name Narcissus flavus Lag. has been considered a synonym of N. jonquilla by Spanish authorities but it could have been any taxon in N. sect. Jonquillae, or even a hybrid of garden origin. It has recently been accepted in lieu of N. fernandesii, a name currently applied to a taxon that is well defined by its floral traits and which groups independently of N. jonquilla, and both of them independently of N. assoanus in phylogenies. The lectotype of N. fernandesii features a different plant than N. jonquilla, N. willkommii, etc. Based on these reasons, outright rejection of N. flavus is proposed. Apart from a couple of recent adoptions, this name has not been taken up by any author after Lagasca and its ambiguity could lead to nomenclatural instability. CJ, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4754-0744 I am strongly indebted to Fernando Ureña for his advice on the interpretation of specimen COI00016659. Thanks to John Wiersema for the revision and correction of the proposal.
Referência(s)