Suaeda glauca (Bunge) Bunge (1879: 362)

Freitag, Helmut & Lomonosova, Maria N., 2017, Restoration of Suaeda sect. Helicilla (Chenopodiaceae) and typification of its related taxa, Phytotaxa 323 (1), pp. 51-60 : 56-58

Suaeda glauca (Bunge) Bunge (1879: 362) ≡ Schoberia glauca Bunge (1833: 56) ≡ Chenopodina glauca MoquinTandon (1849: 162).

Lectotype (designated by Lomonosova & Freitag 2011: 226):— CHINA. Chin. bor., 1831, Bunge s.n. ( LE!).

= Suaeda stauntoni Moquin-Tandon (1840: 131) ≡ Helicilla altissima Moquin-Tandon (1849: 170) , nom. illeg. et superfl. (Arts. 52.1, and 52.2).

Lectotype (designated here):— CHINA. G. Staunton, Pl. Sinensis ex itin. [sine loco] ( FI-017377 !, see also Fig. 4 ; image available at parlatore. msn.unifi.it/types/search.php,); isolectotype P-00799028 !, image available at https://plants.jstor.org/search?filter=name&so=ps_ group_by_genus_species+asc&Query= Suaeda+stauntonii ).

= Salsola asparagoides Miquel (1866: 194) ≡ Schoberia maritima ( Linnaeus (1753: 221) C.A. Meyer (1829: 400) var. asparagoides Franchet & Savatier (1879: 470) ≡ Suaeda asparagoides (Miq.) Makino (1894: 382) .

Lectotype (see Ohba et al. 2005: 43) 1:— JAPON. Japonia [sine loco] (L-0329072!); isotype (L-9329072, image available at https://plants. jstor.org/search?filter=free_text&so=ps_group_by_genus_species+asc&Query=%28 Salsola+asparagoides ).

Phylogenetic relationship: —According to the phylogenetic trees cited in the introduction, the monotypic sect. Helicilla has the most basal position in subg. Suaeda . In the chronogram of Schütze (2011) it branched off from subg. Brezia already in the late Oligocene, between 24.5 and 26.7 mya. Probably, the predominant presence of two stigmas can be interpreted as a plesiomorphic trait because it is shared by the numerous species of subg. Brezia and the monotypic Bienertia placed at the base of Suaeda , while the most closely related sects. Schanginia and Borszczowia as all other more derived clades of Suaeda have three (or more) stigmas.

Comments and typification of synonyms: —The type material of Suaeda stauntonii is represented by fragments of branches carrying the unique and unmistakable star-like irregular fruits borne on the bract petioles. S. stauntonii was later raised by Moquin-Tandon (1849) to the monotypic genus Helicilla and named H. altissima , by overtaking the specific epithet from the first incorrect identification of the specimen by Dryander as Salsola altissima L. [≡ Suaeda altissima (L.) Pall.]. However, though stating that in habit and attributes it somewhat (paululum) resembles to Suaeda (Schoberia) , he erroneously placed the new genus in Salsoleae because he was not aware yet that horizontally coiled and thereby Salsola -like seeds also occur in some groups of Suaeda . The genus Helicilla was still maintained by Ulbrich (1934) though Baillon (1887) had already restored it to Suaeda . Iljin (1936b) recognized that it is identical with S. glauca .

1 Ohba et al. (2005: 43) designated the L specimen as the holotype. However Miquel (1866: 194) did not define a holotype.According to the Art. 9.9, Ohba’s statement has to be corrected and interpreted as a lectotypification.

Concerning Suaeda stauntonii 2, we traced two specimens at FI and P, which are part of the original material. Both these specimens are labeled as types, but any effective publication was found and the typification is necessary. The sheet at FI (code 017377, Herb. Webb; Fig. 4 ) contains two fruiting branches which are 27.5 and 22.5 cm long, respectively. The two labels bear on the sheet report the name Suaeda stauntoni . The oldest label (bottom-right of the sheet) reads as “ Salsola altissima L. / Dryander scripsit “ that agrees with the protologue (Dryander was the curator of the Banks herbarium). The second label, from Herb. Webbianum (bottom-left of the sheet), reads as “G. Staunton Pl. Sinenses ex itin / Legati Britannici Macartney. / Lambert ded. 1836”. The Stauntons (father George Leonard and son George Thomas) took part in Lord Macartneys mission to China in 1792. Since no location is given on the label, the specimen must have been collected either around a former capital of the Xia dynasty in central eastern China (in today`s Shaanxi or Henan provinces), or on the way from or to the British embassy in Beijing. A third label reports the name Helicilla altissima only (Moquin’s hand), indicating that he had seen the specimen a second time.

The sheet at P is made up of 3 branchlets 10–13 cm long and contains three labels. The oldest (left-side, middle) is an abbreviated compilation of the data given on the labels in FI, but without a note from Moquin’s hand. The second label (left-side, bottom), from the Herbarium Moquinianum, reads as “ Helicilla altissima Moq. [in his handwriting] / Salsola altissima Linn. non / Chine / Staunton)”. The third label contains rough sketches of a flower, ovule, anther, ovary and a horizontally coiled seed (most likely drawn by Moquin) with the notes “ embryo cochleatus “ and “[unreadable]… annulose ”.

Preference as lectotype is given to the FI specimen because it is much larger and contains the name Suaeda stauntoni in Moquin’s handwriting. Comparison of the plants and the labels indicate that most likely the branchlets of the P specimens were separated from the FI specimen after the description of S. stauntoni . The drawing and the note of the horizontal seed were later added on the P specimen because in the protologue of S. stauntoni (sic!, non stauntonii ) the seed shape was explicitly left open. A 3 cm long fragment likewise belonging to the original material of S. stauntonii was found by HF in P (herb. Bunge) in a capsule attached to the isotype of S. glauca .

As regards the name Helicilla altissima 3, the ticketed drawings on the P specimen indicate that they were used for the description of Helicilla altissima , while Moquin-Tandon probably only later added his replacement name to the FI specimen. Nevertheless, as he cited the earlier Suaeda stauntonii as synonym, according to Art. 7.4 of ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012) Helicilla altissima is typified by the type of the replaced synonym Suaeda stauntonii . Moreover the name Helicilla altissima is superfluous and illegitimate according to Arts. 52.1, and 52.2 of ICN.

Comment on Suaeda sect. Macrosuaeda Tzvelev : —The name Macrosuaeda was proposed by Tzvelev (1993: 83) including a single species, S. altissima , and the diagnosis “ Plantae annuae, vulgo magnae. Folia subfiliformia. Glomerulae et bracteae in pedunculis brevissimis positae (“extraaxillares”). Perianthium ad demidiam coalescens ”. This section was accepted by Schenk & Ferren (2001) and Kapralov et al. (2006), however already included in sect. Salsina by Schütze et al. (2003) where it takes a well supported position at the base of the Fruticosa subclade in their cp and ITS trees. Morphologically, the traits cited by Tzvelev also occur in other species of sect. Salsina, e.g., the annual habit in S. aegyptiaca ( Hasselquist 1757: 460) Zohary (1957: 635) and S. arcuata Bunge (1852: 461) , and the extraaxillary position of flower clusters in S. asphaltica (Boissier 1853: 98) Boissier (1879: 938) , and in S. microphylla Pallas (1803: 52) beside of the species of sect. Schanginia . Thus they indicate that both traits have originated several times. Obviously by the presence of these conspicuous traits the S. glauca material of Miquel was at first inaccurately identified by Dryander as S. altissima . Consequently, we argue once again for including Macrosuaeda in sect. Salsina.

Figures

FIGURE 4. Lectotype of Suaeda stauntonii Moq., Herbarium Firenze (FI-017377, herb. Webb no. 157134). Photo by courtesy of the Herbarium Firenze.