Lactucopsis aurea Sch.Bip.

Clementi, Moreno, Vukojičić, Snežana, Miola, Antonella & Niketić, Marjan, 2016, Typification and nomenclature of the names published in Plantae Serbicae Rariores aut Novae-Decas III, Phytotaxa 252 (2), pp. 85-98 : 87

Lactucopsis aurea Sch.Bip. in Visiani & Pančić (1870: 7)

Lectotype (designated here):— SERBIA. ОЗрен пл. блиЗу Бање Сврљишке [Mount Ozren near Svrljiške Spa], Јун [June] [1]847, J. Pančić s.n. ( BEOU 11189 ), Fig. 1 .

Note:—This name is often incorrectly ascribed to Visiani & Pančić or to Schultz-Bipontinus ex Visiani & Pančić (e.g. Euro+Med 2015). If this were the case, it would be invalid, as it is treated by Visiani and Pančić as an unaccepted synonym or alternative name for Mulgedium sonchifolium Visiani & Pančić (1870) , a fact that is only explained in a final note in the protologue and might not be immediately clear. As was already pointed out by Stebbins (1937), Visiani and Pančić in fact unambiguously attribute both the name L. aurea and its description, separate from that of M. sonchifolium , solely to Schultz-Bipontinus, with the following words: “ Schultz Bipontinus [...] supra plantam hanc [ Mulgedium sonchifolium ] [...] novum genus condiderat, quod aliis quoque Mulgedii et Lactucae speciebus ditatum in scheda manuscripta et adhuc inedita sequenti modo illustraverat” (i.e. “Schultz Bipontinus [...] had established a new genus on this plant [ Mulgedium sonchifolium ], which he had illustrated also with some new species of Mulgedium and Lactuca in the following way, in a yet unpublished manuscript”). The sentence we have quoted, numerous letters exchanged between Visiani and Pančić, and the presence of Lactuca sonchifolia sensu Pančić (1856) in the synonymies of both protologues, also make it clear that M. sonchifolium and L. aurea were intended to apply to precisely the same taxon, with the same circumscription, at the same rank, for which reason we believe they should share the same type. As both the names L. aurea and M. sonchifolium are validly published, in the same work, they would appear to have equal priority. Still, we believe it could be argued that Visiani and Pančić, by implicitly rejecting Schultz-Bipontinus’s name in favour of their own, effected a choice as provided by Art. 11.5 of the ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012), thus establishing priority of the final epithet “ sonchifolium ” over “ aureum ”. It follows from this very peculiar situation that the epithet “ aureum ”, though valid, can never be used to form any correct combination, as “ sonchifolium ” must always be preferred, and is only to be taken into account in matters of homonymy, save for the cases in which the provisions of Art. 11.5 cannot apply. When Stebbins (1937) moved M. sonchifolium to Lactuca , he could not adopt the epithet sonchifolia , which was unavailable because of L. sonchifolia Willdenow (1803: 1530) . Therefore, in this case, Art. 11.5 does not apply, as the resulting combination would be illegitimate. Stebbins (1937: 14) correctly created a new combination based on Schultz-Bipontinus’s name, Lactuca aurea (Sch.Bip.) Stebbins , rejecting the later Lactuca visianii Bornmüller (1905: 29) . The label of the specimen selected as type, along with the name “ Mulgedium sonchifolium ”, bears the designation “ Botryoseris sonchifolia DC. ”. The genus “Botryoseris” seems to have never been published (by De Candolle or anybody).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Lectotype of Mulgedium sonchifolium Vis. & Pančić and Lactucopsis aurea Sch.Bip.