Weissia controversa Hedw. Sp. Musc. Frond.

Inoue, Yuya & Tsubota, Hiromi, 2017, A taxonomic revision of cleistocarpous species of Weissia (Pottiaceae, Bryophyta) in Japan, Phytotaxa 306 (1), pp. 1-20 : 9

Weissia controversa Hedw. Sp. Musc. Frond. 67. 1801 ( Hedwig 1801).

Type:—Lipsiae ad rivulum post collem Bienitz. Humo theca loca, nec non sabulosa, uda, praeprimis regionum montosarum amat (lectotype designated here, Tab. 5. B. in Hedwig 1791 –1792).

Typification notes:—The genus Weissia Hedw. was typified on W. controversa Hedw. by Mitten (1856). When W. controversa was proposed by Hedwig (1801), he used the validating descriptions and illustrations which he had previously given to the same species ( Hedwig 1791 –1792). Although there was no designation of the holotype in either publication ( Hedwig 1791 –1792, 1801), in the plotologue ( Hedwig 1801) he referred to a specimen from Leipzig. One specimen from Leipzig, named W. controversa in Hedwig’s herbarium (G; Supplemental Information Fig. S.1 ), is the best candidate for a lectotype. In his taxonomic revision of Weissia for the Iberian Peninsula, Guerra (2002) selected this specimen as a lectotype for W. controversa . However, he did not include the phrase “designated here” or an equivalent, thus making this an ineffective typification (ICN Art. 7.10). This specimen has unfortunately been lost while on loan ( Price 2005, p. 378). Hedwig’s illustration (Hedwig 1971–1792, Tab. 5. B.) is from the original material and is considered to be the only element that certainly fits Hedwig’s concept of the species, being the safest choice as lectotype. Hedwig (1791 –1792, 1801) cited Vaillant’s and Dillenius’ pre-Linnean phrase-names with reference to their illustrations under W. controversa as synonyms. Vaillant (1727) and Dillenius (1742) did not refer to any particular specimen and made only general comment on habitat information. These two illustrations given by Vaillant and Dillenius can be considered parts of original material, but we believe that the Hedwig’s illustration provides much more morphological information and is therefore better to select this as the lectotype.

To ensure nomenclatural stability a specimen from the type locality, Bienitz in Leipzig, with DNA information should be selected as the epitype supporting the lectotype illustration rather than selecting an old specimen without DNA information, because the modern concept of W. controversa is thought to be polyphyletic ( Werner et al. 2005, and present study) and a morpho-molecular revision is necessary to provide a better circumscription of the species.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Phylogenetic tree based on analysis with the concatenated sequences of chloroplast rbcL and rps4 genes, depicted by the best-supported tree with highest likelihood value (ln L = -5770.556 by Garli). Supporting values more than 50 % obtained by the program CONSEL were overlaid:AU test (AU), bootstrap probabilities (NP), and Bayesian posterior probabilities (PP) are shown on or near each branch (AU/NP/PP). Thickened branches indicate that all three supporting values are 100 %.