Pinguicula caerulea Walter (1788: 63)

Domínguez, Yoannis, Valdés, Cristina Mercedes Panfet & Miranda, Vitor Fernandes Oliveira, 2017, Typification of names in the genus Pinguicula L. (Lentibulariaceae), Phytotaxa 312 (2), pp. 179-198 : 182-183

Pinguicula caerulea Walter (1788: 63)

Protologue locality:—Without information.

Type (neotype, designated here):— UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. South Carolina, Charleston County, Santee Coastal Reserve, Washo Reserve , northwestern boundary, powerline crossing, about 1.2 mi. southeast of South Santee School , fire-managed longleaf pine savannah, 17 April 1993, S. R. Hill 24941 ( USF No. 213122 [digital photo!], isoneotype USCH No. 62450 barcode USCH0006422 [digital photo!]; image of the neotype is available at http://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/img/specimens/ USF/213122 .jpg) .

= Pinguicula elatior Michaux (1803: 11) ≡ Isoloba elatior (Michx.) Rafinesque (1838: 59) . Type (lectotype, designated here):—[ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA]. Without locality, s.d., s. coll. [A. Michaux] (P barcode P00322534!, isolectotype P barcode P00322535!; image of the lectotype is available at http://coldb.mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00322534).

= Pinguicula caerulea Walter f. leucantha Schnell (1980: 56) . Type (holotype):—[ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA]. Brunswick Co., NC, 9.7 km north of Supply, 10 May 1978, D.E. Schnell 51079 (NCU No. 503159 barcode NCU00000419 [digital photo!]).

Note:—In 1788, Thomas Walter (1740–1789) published his early Flora Caroliniana containing 403 new names ( Ward 2007a), including two Pinguicula species from Southeast United States. Blake (1915) stated that the herbarium on which Walter based his Flora was brought to England by John Fraser (1750–1811), whom had been the publisher of Walter’s Flora; and after Fraser’s death, this material was purchased by the British Museum (BM) and was known as the “Walter Herbarium” or “Fraser’s folio”. On the other hand, Fernald & Schubert (1948) stated that Walter herbarium was early destroyed, but before that, Walter had given fragments of many of his plants to Fraser. Ward (2006, 2007a, 2007 b, 2007c, 2007 d, 2008a, 2008 b, 2014) has accounted of a careful study of “Walter Herbarium” in connection with his Flora (Thomas Walter Typification Project); and as result, he has given substantial reasons for not considering the Fraser’s folio as the “Walter Herbarium”. According to Ward (2007a) Walter kept no herbarium, and the great majority of the species in the Flora, was described from living material cultivated in Walter’s own garden or from freshly collected plants. Nonetheless, some specimens on Fraser’s folio bear labels in Walter’s hand confirming that he saw and identified, at least, those particular materials. Ward (2007a) has also pointed which specimens on the Fraser’s folio could be useful when selecting lectotypes or neotypes for Walter’s new names; and he himself has typified several names ( Ward 2007c, 2007 d, 2008a, 2008b), but the two Walter’s Pinguicula have not been treated on such works. According to Ward (2007a), the selection of types based on Fraser’s folio should be done carefully because it is not sure whether this material, or even part of it, was the basis of Walter’s work. While some specimens bear labels in Walter’s hand as stated above, other labels were written by Fraser and even a third unidentified handwriting (probably of Fraser’s son John Fraser fil.) can be found on certain labels ( Ward 2007a). Additionally, several specimens are mislabeled and this is the case of P. caerulea which is under the name of Utricularia gibba Linnaeus (1753: 18) ; meanwhile, the proper “ Pinguicula caerulea ” label (not in Walter’s hand) is attached to an inflorescence of Oxalis violacea Linnaeus (1753: 434) (see plate 1113 in Fernald & Schubert 1948).

Casper (1966), based on Fernald & Schubert (1948), referred the holotype of P. caerulea as destroyed and cited the specimen on Fraser’s folio as a paratype. There is no evidence that such material was used, even seen, by Walter when preparing his Flora. The specimen in the folio could have resulted from Fraser’s gatherings in one of his travels to Southeast North America, or even could have been collected by J. Fraser fil. who accompanied his father in subsequent travels to United States between 1799 and 1807 ( Hogg 1852) after Walter’s death. Due to these evidences this specimen is not recognized as original material according to Art. 9.3 of the ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012), and therefore it is not eligible as lectotype. The specimen in the folio (under the name U. gibba ) consists of a single, fragmented, plant: a dark rosette with a separated flower; and it would not be a wise choice as neotype for identification purposes. Therefore, based on these facts and according to Art. 9.7 of the ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012), we have selected as neotype a representative specimen (USF No. 213122) from the South Carolina coastal plain; the same area where Walter collected his plants (a radius of 50 miles from Santee, SC, Walter 1788).