Utricularia intermedia Dreves & Hayne (1798: 104)

Astuti, Giovanni & Peruzzi, Lorenzo, 2018, Notes on the typification of the names Utricularia bremii Heer and U. intermedia Dreves & Hayne (Lentibulariaceae), Phytotaxa 350 (2), pp. 172-176 : 172-175

Utricularia intermedia Dreves & Hayne (1798: 104)

Type (lectotype, designated here):— SWEDEN. 91. Utricularia vulgaris minor L., Upsaliae, Ehrhart s.n. ( LE, lower fragments on the left!; Fig. 2 ) .

Note on typification:— Utricularia intermedia was formally described by Dreves & Hayne (1798) in German, French and English languages, contrarily to what reported by several modern authors ( Taylor 1989, Uotila 2013), who attribute the authorship to the sole Hayne (1800: 18). In this latter article, Hayne provided a Latin diagnosis, but this was actually published two years after the first diagnosis of U. intermedia included in the Botanisches Bilderbuch. Despite this, both works report the same information, for instance indicating Berlin and Uppsala as type localities. In the protologue ( Dreves & Hayne 1798), there is a clear reference to a collection made by Ehrhart labelled as follows: “ Utricularia vulgaris minor . Ehrh. Herb. 91 ”. This is a reference to a series of exsiccata, “ Index Herbarum Linn. , quas in locis earum natalibus collegit et exsiccavit Fridericus Ehrhart [ Index of Linnaean herbs, collected in nature and dried by Friedrich Ehrhart] (see Ehrhart 1790: 175–179). Among them, at number 91, we can actually find “ Utricularia vulgaris minor L.”, followed by the indication “ Upsaliae ”, i.e. collected in Uppsala ( Sweden). As Dreves & Hayne (1798) only refer to an illustration published along with the protologue and to the Ehrhart collection discussed above, we can assume that both these elements can be safely considered as original material, suitable for the typification of the name U. intermedia . Concerning this name, Taylor (1989) indicated as ‘type’, followed by the statement “not located”, a putative specimen belonging to Ehrhart collection 91 collected in Berlin, Germany. Since no indication on the available original material and/or on the process leading to the designation of a type is provided by Taylor (1989), we can assume that he just uncritically and arbitrarily copied and pasted some portions of the protologue. For instance, he improperly merged Berlin, i.e. one of the two cited type localities, and the Ehrhart’s collection 91, which actually refers to plants from Uppsala, as discussed above. For the purpose of typification, we searched for possible further original material in the herbaria where Ehrhart collections are preserved (i.e. MW, LE, and GOET). In MW and GOET, we found specimens of U. intermedia collected by Ehrhart, but without any reference to collection 91 on their labels. On the contrary, there is an original specimen collected in Uppsala (“ Upsaliae ”) at the herbarium of Komarov Institute in St. Petersburg ( LE!, Fig. 2 ). Along with this specimen, there are two other specimens in the same sheet, one of which shows a label reporting “ prope Berolinum coll. Hayne ” [collected by Hayne near Berlin]. Except the indication of Berlin, which is one of the localities quoted in the protologue, this specimen lacks any date and/or indication that allow considering it as original material. A further specimen of U. intermedia collected by Hayne was found in HAL, but also in this case the label lacks any indication of the date and place of collection. We did not find any further original material collected by Hayne in H and B. Therefore, we select the specimen collected by Ehrhart and preserved in LE to serve as the lectotype of U. intermedia . It fully agrees with the current circumscription of the species (see e.g., Astuti & Peruzzi 2018, Bartolucci et al. 2018).

Figures

FIGURE 2. Herbarium sheet of Utricularia intermedia found in LE, including the specimen (red arrow) selected as lectotype.