Aquilegia fragrans Benth.

Erst, Andrey S., Boltenkov, Eugeny V., Pendry, Colin & Wang, Wei, 2021, Nomenclatural notes and typification of three Aquilegia (Ranunculaceae) names described from the Himalayas, Phytotaxa 498 (1), pp. 58-62 : 59-60

Aquilegia fragrans Benth. in Maund & Henslow (1840: t. 181)

≡ Aquilegia vulgaris subsp. moorcroftiana var. fragrans (Benth.) Brühl (1893: 305) .

Protologue citation:—“… North of India [Kashmir]”. Type (lectotype designated by Mathew & Sinnott 2003: 151 as “type”):—[icon] “ Aquilegia fragrans ” in Botanist 4: t. 181 (1840). Epitype (designated here):— PAKISTAN. [Kashmir region], [Handwritten Urdu label]: Deosoo [Deosai], [fl.], 06 August.08 [18]38, s. coll. 3504/2; [Printed label]: Herbarium of the late East India company, No. [56], [ Aquilegia vulgaris L.], West Tibet , Herb. Falconer, Distributed at the Royal Garden, Kew. 1864 ( K001368840 ! [ Fig. 1], isoepitypes P00195591 & P00195592 [digital images available at https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/search]) .

Notes:— Aquilegia fragrans was described by George Bentham ( Maund & Henslow 1840) based on cultivated plants raised from seed at the Horticultural Society of London. The seeds were collected in northern India and distributed on behalf of the East India Company, with the cultivated plants flowering for first time in the spring of 1840. Mathew & Sinnott (2003) indicated the drawing acompanying the protologue ( Maund & Henslow 1840) as the “type” of A. fragrans should be accepted as its lectotype. This drawing lacks the information to properly apply the name as it only depicts the upper part of plants, and thus an epitype is also designated here (see Art. 9.8 of the ICN, Turland et al. 2018). The selected epitype ( Fig. 1) is a specimen that was collected in the Deosai Mountains, northern Pakistan, and bears the name “ A. fragrans Benth. ” in John Baker’s handwriting.

As indicated in the protologue ( Maund & Henslow 1840), A. fragrans is closely related to A. pubiflora Wall. ex Royle (1834: 55) . A recent molecular phylogenetic study has shown that these species are included in one clade, are found in different subclades ( Fior et al. 2013). Aquilegia fragrans differs from A. pubiflora by its white, creamy or yellow (vs violet or pink) flowers, slightly curved or curved at apex (vs hooked) spurs and yellow (vs dark) anthers (Erst et al. 2020a).

Aquilegia glauca Lindley (1840: 46)

≡ Aquilegia vulgaris subsp. moorcroftiana var. glauca (Lindl.) Brühl (1893: 306) .

= A. fragrans Benth.

Protologue citation:—“… Himalaya mountains and Cashmere”. Type (lectotype, designated here):—[icon] “ Aquilegia glauca ” in Edwards’s Bot. Reg. 26: t. 46 (1840). Epitype (designated here):—[Specimen from a cultivated plant], Aquilegia fragrans Benth. Cultivated , Colorado, Denver County, Denver Botanic Gardens, Rock/Alpine Garden, accession 81214, [fl.], 6 May 1982, Linda Larson 51 (KHD00049723 [digital image available at https://serv.biokic.asu.edu/imglib/h_seinet/seinet/KHD/KHD00049/ KHD00049723_lg.jpg]).

Notes:— Aquilegia glauca was described by Lindley (1840) based on cultivated plants which had been raised from seed that had been collected for the East India Company in the Himalayas. The protologue contains a coloured illustration that is designated here as the lectotype of the name. This illustration is not detailed enough to provide a precise application of the name, as it only depicts the upper part of plants, and thus an epitype is also designated here (see Art. 9.8 of the ICN, Turland et al. 2018). The selected epitype is a cultivated specimen that was collected in Denver Botanic Gardens, The United States of America .

Baker (1878) recognized that A. glauca is a taxonomic synonym of A. fragrans , and was supported by Munz (1946), with both considering that A. fragrans had been reintroduced into cultivation in England by the East India Company in 1846 as A. glauca . Both names were published in 1840. Aquilegia fragrans was published in August 1840 ( Britten 1918: 243) and A. glauca in October 1840 ( Lindley 1840: 73). Consequently, A. fragrans is considered to have priority over A. glauca according to Art. 11.15 of the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018). The taxa are morphologically close and characterized by spreading or perpendicular to the floral axis sepals, cuneate-oblong, equal to spurs petal lamina, stamens equal to petal lamina and fragrant flowers.

Aquilegia vulgaris subsp. nivalis Falc. ex Brühl (1893: 300) ≡ A. nivalis (Falc. ex Brühl 1893: 300) Munz (1946: 24) . – A. glauca var. nivalis Falc. ex Baker (1878: 76) , nom. inval. (Art. 35.2 of the ICN, Turland et al. 2018). – A. nivalis Falc. ex Jackson (1893: 167) , nom. inval. (Art. 38.1 of the ICN, Turland et al. 2018). Protologue citation:—[ORIGIN NOT SPECIFIED]. Type (lectotype, designated here):— INDIA. [Jammu and Kashmir union territory],

[Handwritten Urdu label]: … Punjab [fl.], 6 July [18]28, s.coll. 3012; [Printed label]: Herbarium of the late East India Company.

West Tibet. Herb. Falconer. Distributed at the Royal Gardens, Kew. 1864. No. [58]. [ Aquilegia vulgaris var.] (K001222367! [ Fig. 2 ],

isolectotype P00195595 [digital image!]).

Notes:— Baker (1878) introduced the name A. nivalis , accompanied by a short diagnosis (“… dwarf one-flowered … with pale blue sepals and dark lilac-blue petal-lamina”), which also includes the provenance along with the habitat: “Kashmir and Balti, at an elevation of 10,000 –11,000 feet above sea level”. He clearly indicated that plants named as “ Aquilegia nivalis ” by Hugh Falconer are an alpine variety of A. glauca , but because he did not definitively associate the varietal epithet with that species name, he did not validly publish “ Aquilegia glauca var. nivalis ” (see Art. 35.2 of the ICN, Turland et al. 2018). Aquilegia glauca subsp. nivalis was validly published by Brühl (1893), but without any indication of the collection locality. Brühl ascribed the name A. nivalis to Falconer and indicated a specimen as follow “ A. nivalis Falc. in herbario Kewensi de sentential Bakeri”. The lectotype specimen at Kew refers to a gathering that belongs to the Falconer’s collection. According to Dorr & Nicolson (2008) duplicates of the Falconer’s collection are kept in several herbaria (e.g., P00195595). One of the duplicates ( Fig. 2 ) of this gathering has a field-made label with the handwriting possibly in Urdu (we were unable to make a phonetic translation), and bears Falconer’s handwriting “ Aquilegia nivalis , … Punjab, 6/7/28, 3012” and this specimen was selected to lectotypify.

Figures

FIGURE 2. Lectotype of Aquilegia vulgaris subsp. nivalis (K001222367).