Doryopteris stieri Rosenst., Hedwigia

Yesilyurt, Jovita Cislinski, 2018, Typifications of thirty-three names and other nomenclatural clarifications referred to Doryopteris and Lytoneuron (Pteridaceae), Phytotaxa 376 (3), pp. 138-149 : 144-148

Doryopteris stieri Rosenst., Hedwigia 46: 86. 1906.

Protologue citation: “S. Cruz, Fazenda Leitão auf Felsen und im Geröll (J.-St. n. 124)”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul: “Rio Pardo, Faz. Leitão”, 1906, l.[Juergens &] Stier n. 124 (S-R-1682!; isolectotypes: NY00144442 !, UC-442029!; possible isolectotype: UC!).

As discussed previously (see Doryopteris lorentzii f. interrupta Rosenst ), it seems that Juergens-Stier collected together as indicated in the protologue, but their labels often have Juergens or Stier as the sole collector. These were the cases for the specimens housed at S (‘ S. Stier 124 ’) and UC (‘ Juergens 124 ’). A second specimen housed at UC! with collector’s name (Stier) and with similar provenance of the protologue, has been considered as possible isolectotype because it does not have collector’s number, making it difficult to assure it is from the same gathering. The specimen at NY has three different type status labels (isotype, holotype and lectotype); the later has been my own mistake, as it should have been isolectotype instead of lectotype. Tryon (1942) stated that the type of this taxon was probably at S but hasn’t seen it and the isotype at NY (which has been labelled as such by Tryon). It is unknown the origin of the third label (holotype, with protologue reference). I have chosen the specimen housed at S as lectotype as it is the only specimen that has the species name written by Rosenstock.

Heteropteris doryopteris Fée, Crypt. Vasc. Brésil 1: 123, t. 10, fig. 2. 1869.

= Doryopteris lonchophora (Mett.) J.Sm., Hist. Fil. 289. 1875.

Protologue citation: “Habitat in Brasilia fluminensi (Glaziou n. 939)”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. [Rio de Janeiro]: Glaziou n. 939 ( P00507792 !; isolectotypes: P!, NY! [fragment of Glaziou 939]).

At P, there are two specimens of Glaziou 939. The lectotype chosen here, has Fée’s original label with the species name handwritten by Fée. This specimen has two plants, one small (on the left) and one slightly more developed (on the right). Tryon (1942) stated that the type might be in Rio de Janeiro, but I have been unable to trace it.

Litobrochia grandis T. Moore in Proc. Roy. Hort. Soc. 2: 451. 1862, nom. illeg. (non Fée 1857) ≡ L. nobilis T. Moore in Gard. Chron. 1862: 932. 1862.

≡ Doryopteris nobilis (T. Moore) C. Chr., Index Filic. 244.1905.

Protologue citation: “from Veitch & Son. ”

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. [Rio de Janeiro] “Hort. Veitch, 1862 ex Rio, Brazil ” ( B 20 0051205!).

Moore initially exhibited this species (in 1862 at the Royal Horticultural Society) as Litobrochia grandis and it was described under this name in June 1862 in a report of an award of merit. The species was based on material cultivated by Messrs. Veitch & Son. As this name had already been used, Moore renamed it L. nobilis in October 1862, providing additional descriptive material but repeating the provenance. At B, two specimens exist, both matching the diagnosis. However, only one of them, which I have designated here as the lectotype, has handwritten “Hort. Veitch, 1862 ex Rio, Brazil ”, in a hand identified as that of T. Moore. The name L. nobilis on the sheet is also in Moore’s handwriting. The specimen has only a single sterile leaf, with its apex broken. The second specimen does mention ‘ h. Veitch’ but it does not have the correct date (it writes 1867). This date is a post publication date of the protologue and therefore, does not belong to the same gathering. At GH, there is also a specimen purchased from “T. Moore’s Fern Herbarium” with the name “ L. nobilis ? ” handwritten by Moore. However, this specimen has buds, which probably explains the query added by Moore after the name. According to Moore’s diagnosis, L. nobilis does not have proliferous buds.

Pellaea acutiloba Prantl, Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 3: 425. 1882. ≡ Lytoneuron acutilobum (Prantl) J.C.Yesilyurt, Phytotaxa 221: 116. 2015. Material cited: “ Glaziou nr. 2471, 7262 ”. Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. [Rio de Janeiro]: Glaziou 2471 ( P00586569 !; isolectotypes: BR830128 !, P [2 sheets]!, RB!,

US 2675300!). Remaining syntypes: specimen with “ Pellaea acutiloba m. s. sp. ”, annotated by Prantl ( M!) ; Glaziou 7263 ( P!,

NY!).

The collections Glaziou 2471 and 7262 were not found in any of the herbaria Prantl mentioned he could use for his studies (i.e. B, M and C). However a single specimen at M without the collector’s name and collector’s number but with the species name (“ Pellaea acutiloba m. s. sp. ”) in Prantl’s handwriting, has been here considered as syntype. Also, I have considered the collection Glaziou 7263 (rather than 7262) found at P! and NY! as syntypes. The collection of Glaziou 7262 has not been traced in any of the institutions that have been consulted (listed in the Material and Methods). I conclude that “ 7262 ” might have been an orthographic error. I have therefore, proposed the specimen deposited at P as lectotype, because it matches the species as circumscribed by Prantl. The specimen chosen has two plants; the plant on the left side of the sheet has two sterile and two fertile leaves, the second plant on the right side of the sheet has three sterile leaves.

Pellaea crenulans Fée, Crypt. Vasc. Brésil 2: 27, t. 87, fig. 3. 1872. ≡ Lytoneuron crenulans (Fée) J. C. Yesilyurt, Phytotaxa 221: 116. 2015. Material cited: “Habitat in Brasilia fluminensi. (Tijuca, Glaziou n˚ 5345 et 5343)”. Lectotype (second step designated here; first step by Tryon & Stolze, 1989: 44):— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: “ Rio de Janeiro, Tijuca”, A.

Glaziou 5345 ( P00507790 !; isolectotypes: P [2 sheets]!, B 20 0050769!, BM001079919 !, C!, GH00021007 !, K!, S! [fragment “ex

Fée” at NY!]).

Fée cited two collections: Glaziou 5345 and 5343. The specimen Glaziou 5343 is Lytoneuron tijucanum (Brade & Rosenst.) J. C. Yesilyurt and therefore, not entitled for syntype. Tryon and Stolze (1989) cited the holotype as being at P and isotypes at GH and K, without explanation. However, there are three preparations from a single gathering at P and all referable to this species. This is an effective lectotypification by correction of “ holotype ” under Art. 9.8. The best preserved and most complete of the specimens is designated here (P00507790) as the lectotype (second step of the lectotypification) and bears the original label of Fée. Moreover, this specimen bears sterile and fertile fronds, and shows the possible variations that can be found within the fronds. Despite the material housed at C has only the information “ Glaziou 5345 ” (without locality) written on the label, it suggests to be part of the same gathering, therefore is here considered as isolectoype.

Pellaea itatiaiensis Fée, Crypt. Vasc. Brésil 2: 26, t. 88, fig. 1. 1872.

≡ Lytoneuron itatiaiense (Fée) J.C.Yesilyurt, Phytotaxa 221: 116. 2015.

Protologue citation: “Habitat in Rio-Janeiro, ad Itatiaia. (Glaziou n. 5348)”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: “ Rio de Janeiro, Itatiaia”, Glaziou 5348 ( P00507780 !; isolectotypes: B 20 051131!, C!, K!, P [2 sheets]!, S!).

Tryon (1942) stated that the type material of this name was probably in Rio de Janeiro, with isotype material in P, but he did not cite a particular herbarium in Rio de Janeiro, nor did he see P collections. Since there are seven preparations of the same gathering distributed in different herbaria (but none found at RB or R, herbaria from Rio de Janeiro), they are all syntypes. The lectotype chosen bears Fée’s original label. It has three plants with rhizomes at the top of the sheet and seven fronds distributed elsewhere. The specimen housed at C has been considered eligible for isolectotype despite having only collector’s name and number information (without locality), as it suggests being part of the same gathering.

Pellaea lomariacea (Klotzsch) Hook. var. columbina Hook., Sp. Fil. 133. t. CXII, A. 1858.

≡ Lytoneuron columbinum (Hook.) J.C.Yesilyurt, Phytotaxa 221: 116. 2015.

Protologue citation: “Summit of the Organ Mountains, Brazil, Gardner n. 5930 ”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. [Rio de Janeiro]: “Summit Org[an]. M [ountains],” Gardner 5930 p.p. ( K000633041 [the bigger plant on the right hand side only]!; isolectotypes: E [2 sheets; image!], G00388437 !).

As discussed under Cassebeera paradoxa Fée (= Lytoneuron paradoxum (Fée) J.C.Yesilyurt ), most of sheets of the Gardner 5930 collection represent a mixture of two different plants. The lectotype I have chosen and designated here has one bigger plant with rhizome, taking almost the whole sheet (which seems to be the one that has been described and illustrated by Hooker) and one small plant in the left corner of the sheet (which is L. paradoxum ). It also has the varietal name handwritten by Hooker. The illustration (plate t. CXII, A) mentioned on the protologue represents Hooker’s variety very well. The independence of the two species has been confirmed during the revision of the genus Doryopteris (Yesilyurt, unpublished data). For this reason, typification is also required to consolidate Hooker’s interpretation of the variety.

Pellaea lorentzii Hieron., Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 22: 392. 1896.

≡ Doryopteris lorentzii (Hieron.) Diels in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 1: 270. 1899.

Material cited: “ Córdoba: in der Quebrada von Ascochinga in der Sierra Chica (Lor., April 1871 n. 19). Tucuman: bei Siambon in der Sierra de Tucuman (Lor. u. Hieron. 11–17. Jan. 1873)”.

Lectotype (second step, designated here; first step designated by Tryon, 1964: 130):— ARGENTINA. Tucuman: “Siambon, Sierra de Tucuman ”, January 1873, P. G. Lorentz et G. Hieronymus 11–17 ( B 20 051145!; isolectotypes: B 20 051144! sheet with the collection Lor. 19). Remaining syntypes: ARGENTINA. Córdoba: “In der Quebrada von Ascochinga in der Sierra Chica“, April 1871, P. G. Lorentz 19 ( B 20 051146!, B 20 051147!).

There are three specimens of Lorentz 19 deposited at B; one sheet is Lorentz 19, the other two sheets contain different collections, one with Lorentz & Hieron. 11 and the second one with Lorentz 900. Tryon (1964) designated the lectotype: “ Argentina, Cordoba, Lorentz 19 ” without any reasoning or stating which of the three sheets. Later, Tryon and Stolze (1989) simply referred to the two cited gatherings as syntypes. As for the collection Lor. & Hier. 11–17 there are two sheets; one of them is mix with Lorentz 19. For this reason and according to the Art. 9.15 of ICBN, the lectotype is further clarified here and the specimen chosen is the sheet that contains only the collection Lor. & Hier. 11–17.

Pellaea quinquelobata Fée, Crypt. Vasc. Brésil 1: 42, t. 10, fig. 1. 1869.

≡ Lytoneuron quinquelobatum (Fée) J.C.Yesilyurt, Phytotaxa 221: 116. 2015.

Protologue citation: “Habitat in Brasilia fluminensi (Glaziou n. 2055)”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: “ Rio de Janeiro ”, Glaziou 2055 ( P00477719 !; isolectotypes: C [2 sheets]! G!, K!, P [2 sheets]!).

Tryon (1942) stated that the type material of this species might be at Rio de Janeiro, without specifying any particular herbarium, and with isotype material at P. There are three specimens at P of the same gathering. As for names of several other species described by Fée, the lectotype I have chosen has Fée’s original label. The two sheets housed at

C, with only the information “ Glaziou 2055 ” written on the labels, suggested that they are from the same gathering and therefore considered as isolectotypes.

Pellaea subsimplex Fée, Cryp. Vasc. Bresil 1: 44, t. 4, fig. 3. 1869.

≡ Lytoneuron subsimplex (Fée) J.C. Yesilyurt, Phytotaxa 221: 116. 2015.

Protologue citation: “Habitat in Brasilia fluminensi (Serra do Couto); Glaziou, n. 3160 (1869)”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. [Rio de Janeiro]: “Pedra do Couto,” 28 March 1869, Glaziou 3160 ( P00586567 !; isolectotypes: BR830183 !, C!, K!, G!, P [2 sheets; image]!).

Despite Tryon (1942) stating that the type might be in Rio de Janeiro and the isotype at P, Tryon (1942) did not see any of these collections or specified which herbarium at Rio. This collection (Glaziou 3160) has not been traced at R or RB. The lectotype I have chosen and designated here does not have Fée’s original label (like most of Fée’s material), but has a Herb. Glaziou label and the specimen is in accordance with the diagnosis. In addition to this, the specimen looks very similar to the original illustration ( Fée 1869: t. 4, fig. 3). The material housed at C has been considered as isolectotype despite having only “ Glaziou n. 3160 ” (without other information stated on the protologue) written on the label, which suggested to be part of the same gathering.

Pteris hederacea C.Presl, Delic. Prag. 1: 181. 1822.

= Doryopteris varians (Raddi) J.Sm., J. Bot. 4: 163. 1841.

Protologue citation: “Hab. in Brasilia”.

Neotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. ”Brazil”, May 1818, Anonymous s.n. ( BR8301918 !).

In the protologue, no clear material was cited for Pteris hederacea . Tryon (1942) mentioned that type material was probably at Prague without giving further details. It is known that most of Presl’s collections are housed at PR, but I have not been able to trace a specimen that could link with this name. However, one specimen at BR has all the characteristics of the plant described in the protologue and notes (“ Pteris Sp nov, hederacea Presl ”) in Presl’s handwriting and I have designated this specimen as neotype for this name.

Pteris lomariacea (Klotzsch) Hook. & Baker var. actinophylla Baker , in Martius, Fl. Brasil. 1(2): 406, t. 60. 1870.

= Lytoneuron crenulans (Fée) J.C.Yesilyurt, Phytotaxa 221: 116. 2015.

Material cited: “in umbrosis ad rivulum Varge prov. S. Paulo: Burchell 4731-5!; ad Caldas prov. Minarum: Lindberg 600 ”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. Minas Gerais: “Prov. Minas Gerais, Caldas”, Lindberg 600 ( K000633037 !; isolectotype: B 20 050773!). Remaining syntypes: Burchell 4731-5 ( B 20 050770!, P!).

I have chosen Lindberg 600 ( K) as the lectotype because is the most complete specimen (with fertile and sterile fronds) and it has all the characteristics mentioned in the diagnosis. Moreover, it has Baker’s handwriting.

Pteris lonchophora Mett., Abh. Senckenberg. Naturf. Ges. 3: 48, t. 3. 1859, ‘in nota’.

≡ Doryopteris lonchophora (Mett.) J. Sm., Hist. Fil. 289. 1875.

Protologue material cited: none.

Lectotype (designated here): [icon.] “ Pteris lonchophora ” in Mettenius (1859: t.3, figs 1–3)..

Epitype (designated here):— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: “ Rio de Janeiro, Santo Antonio do Imbé”, January 1932, Brade & Lima 11617 (RB45595!, isoepitype: BM001061414!).

The protologue of this species name was published in a footnote, and included reference to an illustration ( Mettenius 1859: t.3, figs. 1–3). I lectotypify the name by the illustration (Tab. 3, f. 1–3), which may be the only original element for this name. Since no material has been traced that could with certainty be considered original material and in accordance with Article 9.7 of ICBN, I also designate here an epitype which is one of the best representatives of the species, and has all the features found in the diagnosis and the illustration.

Pteris palmata Willd. subvar. lata Hook., Gard. Ferns , t. 22, 1862.

= Doryopteris rediviva Fée, Crypt. Vasc. Brésil 2: 30, t. 89, fig. 1.1872.

Protologue/material cited: none.

Lectotype (designated here): [icon.] “ Pteris palmata subvar. lata ” in Hooker (1862: t. 22).

Epitype (designated here):— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: “ Rio de Janeiro ”, 1867, A. Glaziou 250 (BR830112!).

No specimen was cited for Pteris pedata var. palmata (Wild) Baker subvar. lata (Hook.) Baker , and no material has been traced which might have been the basis for the name. The illustration ( Hooker 1862: t. 22) therefore appears to be the only original element and I have designated here as the lectotype. The icon corresponds well with the species as circumscribed by the original author. In accordance with Art. 9.7 of ICBN, to avoid further doubt in the application of the name through interpretation of the drawing, an epitype has also been designated. My choice is from among specimens cited by Baker (1870: 408) under Pteris pedata var. palmata (Wild) Baker subvar. lata (Hook.) Baker. Although the specimen chosen has a later date than the publication of the new subvariety, is the most suitable because it has fronds that are very similar to one illustrated on t. 22. The specimen housed at BR has two plants on the sheet; the one on the left bears a label with the collection number.