Viola rodriguezii W. Becker (1926b: 350)

Nicola, Marcela Viviana, Salomón, Luciana & Zuloaga, Fernando Omar, 2018, Nomenclatural and taxonomic study in species of Viola (Violaceae) from Argentina, Phytotaxa 338 (2), pp. 151-176 : 170-171

Viola rodriguezii W. Becker (1926b: 350)

Type (lectotype, designated here):— ARGENTINA. Salta: Sierra del Cajón , 4280 m, flor azul-violácea, 16 February 1914, F.M. Rodríguez 1361 (BAF 00000307!; isolectotypes, B [destroyed], BAF 00000305!, BAF 00000306!, SI 003266!, SI 003267! SI 003768!) .

Protologue citation:— “ Argentina : prov. Salta, Sierra del Cajón , 4250 m, leg. F. M. Rodríguez 15.II.1914 no. 1361 (typus); herb. W. Bckr. et Inst. Bot. y Farmacol. Buenos Aires.”

Distribution:—Endemic of Argentina; known for the provinces of Salta and Tucumán.

Notes:—The protologue of Viola rodriguezii consists of a detailed description and an account of where this species had been collected, including that its types were deposited at B (the Wilhelm Becker Viola herbarium, “herb. W. Bckr.”, which was acquired by the Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem, B, in 1929 [ Hiepko 1987]) and BAF (the herbarium of the Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry of the University of Buenos Aires, which Becker referred to as “Inst. Bot. et Farmacol. Buenos Aires ”. The specimen at B has been destroyed (Robert Vogt, pers. comm.), but we were able to examine several types at BAF and SI, which differ in the initials of the name of the collector of the species. The BAF specimens were attributed to F.M. Rodríguez, as also in the protologue, the collector who gathered this material in northeastern Argentina, while the SI specimens were attributed to D. Rodríguez, the different initial presumably being an error. We selected the specimen with the herbarium reference number BAF 00000307 as lectotype because it is a well preserved, abundant, and complete specimen and fully agrees with the protologue published by Becker (1926b).

= Viola munozensis W. Becker (1926a: 226) , syn. nov.

Type (lectotype, designated here):— ARGENTINA. Tucumán: Tafí, Cerro Muñoz , pratis alpinis, 3900 m, January 1907, M. Lillo 5911 (LIL 001873 [digital image!]; isolectotypes, B [destroyed], BAF [missing]) .

Protologue citation:— “Argentina borealis: Prov. Tucumán, Cerro Muñoz, 3900 m, in pratis alpinis, I. 1907 leg. M. Lillo sub. no. 5911. Typus in Herb. W. Bckr. et in Inst. Bot. y Farmacol. Buenos Aires.

Notes:—According to the protologue, types were deposited at B (the Wilhelm Becker Viola herbarium, “herb. W. Bckr.”, which was acquired by the Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem, B, in 1929 [ Hiepko 1987]) and BAF (the herbarium of the Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry of the University of Buenos Aires, which Becker referred to as “Inst. Bot. et Farmacol. Buenos Aires ”. The material deposited at B has been destroyed (Robert Vogt pers. comm.; Hiepko 1987). The BAF specimen was not located (Gustavo Giberti pers. comm.), but we were able to examine a specimen at LIL which is here designated as the lectotype of Viola munozensis since fully agrees with the protologue, is an abundant and complete specimen, is housed in the main herbarium where Miguel Lillo deposited his types ( Stafleu & Cowan 1981), and has a label with clear notes handwritten by Lillo indicating collection, identification, and location data.

There is no doubt that Viola munozensis (only known for the type material) is a synonym of V. rodriguezii . Becker (1926a) pointed out the similarity between both taxa in the original publication of V. munozensis . He differentiated them by the arrangement of the leaves in the rosettes (more lax in V. munozensis vs. more compact in V. rodriguezii ), the shape of the leaves (ovate-subrhombic in V. munozensis vs. oblong-spatulate in V. rodriguezii ) and the indumentum of the pseudopetioles and pedicels (glabrous in V. munozensis vs. hairy in V. rodriguezii ). However, these differences are not diagnostic for considering both entities as different species and seem to be due to environmental conditions.