Pinguicula spathulata Ledeb. (1815: 515)

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 : 194

Pinguicula spathulata Ledeb. (1815: 515)

Protologue locality:—Hab. in regione transbaicalensi.

Type (lectotype, designated here):— [ RUSSIA]. E regione transbaicalensi […], s.d., s. coll. ( LE barcode LE 01015441 [digital photo!]; Fig. 4 ). Epitype (designated here):—[ RUSSIA]. Kamchatskiy region , Penzhinskiy district, vicinity of village Manily, peat moss bog, rare, 13 June 1975, S. Kharkevich & T. Buch s.n. ( MW barcode MW 0 139 064 [digital photo!]; image of the epitype is available at https://plant.depo.msu.ru/public/scan.jpg?pcode= MW0139064 ) .

= Pinguicula glandulosa Trautvetter & Meyer in Middendorff (1856: 65). Type (lectotype, designated here):—[ RUSSIA]. Ad ost. fl. Uda, Sibir. Orient., 28 June 1844, Middendorff s.n. ( LE barcode LE 01015439 [digital photo!]; Fig. 5 ).

= Pinguicula variegata Turcz. (1840: 77) ≡ Pinguicula spathulata Ledeb. subsp. variegata (Turcz.) Khokhrjakov & Kuvaev in Kuvaev & Khokhrjakov (1992: 84). Type (lectotype, designated here):—[ RUSSIA]. In humidis inter Allach et Aldan, June 1835, Kusnetzoff s.n. ( LE barcode LE 01015442 [digital photo!], isolectotypes K barcode K000806318 !, LE barcode LE 01015443 [digital photo!], LE barcode LE 01015444 [digital photo!], LE barcode LE 01015445 [digital photo!]; image of the K isolectotype is available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/ K000806318 .

Note:— Pinguicula spathulata has been traditionally regarded as a nomen dubium ( Ernst 1961, Casper 1962a, 1966), or even as a synonym ( Glehn 1876) of Pinguicula variegata . Lebedour (1847), in his Flora Rossica , provided diagnoses in order to differentiate the two species based on spur and leaf characters; and later Herder (1872) recognized the two species. Casper (1962a, 1966) referred that Lebedour’s original diagnosis is very vague and some characters are completely uncomprehensible. He did not see any original material from Ledebour, then he stated that until the Ledebour’s specimens were available for examination he could not make a decision regarding Ledebour’s name. We have examined the only Ledebour’s specimen representing P. spathulata housed at the herbarium of the V. L. Komarov Botanical Institute ( LE), which consists of one plant with a broken flower. However, comparing with the original material of P. variegata at LE we cannot note the differences referred by Ledebour (1847). For this reason we consider both taxa as conspecific and, according to Art. 11.4 of the ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012), Ledebour’s name holds priority; therefore, we consider P. spathulata as the accepted name for this species. Since we have not found any other original material of P. sapthulata , we have selected Ledebour’s specimen at LE as lectotype; although, as it is not well preserved, we have selected an aditional representative specimen traced at the Herbarium Universitatis Mosquensis ( MW) as epitype according to Art. 9.8 of the ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012).

Figures

FIGURE 4. Lectotype of Pinguicula spathulata Ledeb., at the Herbarium of the V.L. Komarov Botanical Institute (LE). Photography by courtesy of the herbarium LE; reproduced with permission.

FIGURE 5. Lectotype of Pinguicula glandulosa Trautv. & C.A.Mey., at the Herbarium of the V.L. Komarov Botanical Institute (LE). Photography by courtesy of the herbarium LE; reproduced with permission.