Doryopteris arifolia H. Christ

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 : 140-144

Doryopteris arifolia H. Christ in Schwacke, Pl. Nov. Mineir. 2; 25. 1900 and Bull. Boiss. s.2, 2: 548. 1902.

Protologue citation: “Hab. Ferromeco, Rio Grande do Sul, l. Kunert”.

Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul: “Ferromeco, Rio Grande do Sul, A. Kunert n. 0 missit 1889” (holotype B 20 0050786!).

Yesilyurt (2007) inadvertently listed among the specimens examined Kunert, n. 0 ( B!) for the newly described species Doryopteris majestosa J.C.Yesilyurt , which is rendered as nom. superfl. This taxon/name is listed here to clarify the above and also, to clarify the status of a type that Tryon (1942) referred to. The specimen US 00142034, with the information of “ TYPES, probably an isotype of D. arifolia ” written on the label, is a different gathering. The collection is “ Kunert 6 ” rather than “ Kunert 0 ” and the sheet bears two more different species. For these reasons, I have not considered this specimen eligible for isotype.

Doryopteris alcicornis (Prantl) Diels var. major Christ, Bull. Boiss. s. 2, 3: 614. 1903.

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

Protologue citation: “Tobaty, Sept., n. 6129”.

Lectotype (designated here):— PARAGUAY. “Tobaty, [Hassler]”, Sept [ember], n. 6129 ( G!; isolectotypes: B 20 0051575!, G [5 sheets]!, GH00021005 !).

After studying the protologue of this variety described by Christ, I have not considered it as nom. nudum. While the description is very succinct and minimalist, I have accepted it as being with enough meaningful information to be able to distinguish it from other species in the work, and therefore accepted it as a diagnosis. This diagnosis also fits what McNeil (2015) states, that “If the descriptive material, however scanty, represents what the author considered would distinguish the taxon from other taxa, it is a diagnosis and therefore meets the requirement of Art. 38.1(a)”. However, there was a need to propose the lectotypification of this variety since Christ hasn’t stated it accordingly, as there are five more specimens of Hassler 6129 at G and two at B and GH, all of them are part of the same field collection. I have chosen the lectotype that has three fronds, with one label from “Herb. H. Christ” and another label with a note from “Rosenstock exsicc.”. One of the remaining fifth specimens at G has a label with only “ Hassler 6129 ” (without locality and/or date) written on a piece of paper that holds the specimen. This material suggests being part of the same gathering therefore I have considered as an isolectotype.

Doryopteris angularis Fée, Crypt. Vasc. Brésil 2: 29, t. 88, fig. 2. 1872.

= Doryopteris rediviva Fée, Crypt. Vasc. Brésil 2: 30, t. 89, fig. 1. 1872.

Protologue citation: “Habitat in Brasilia fluminensi. (Glaziou n. 5340)”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: “ Rio de Janeiro ”, A. Glaziou 5340 ( P0077707 !; isolectotypes: C!, B 20 051587!, G!, P [3 sheets]!).

The lectotype I have chosen has two plants, a larger plant on the left side of the sheet, a smaller plant in the middle, and on the right side of the sheet, a single leaf, which is almost identical with the one illustrated at Tab. 88, fig. 2 in the original protologue. It is the only specimen from the ones housed at P (four in total) with Fée’s original label and with the species name handwritten by Fée. The specimen housed at C contains only the information “ Glaziou 5340 ” (without locality) written on the label; this information suggests that this specimen is also part of the same gathering and therefore, I have considered as isolectotype.

Doryopteris bradei Rosenst. in Hedwigia 56: 360. 1915.

≡ Lytoneuron bradei (Rosenst.) J. C. Yesilyurt comb. nov..

Protologue citation: “Brasilia: Est. São Paulo, Alto da Serra, ‘in campo’, 16.III.1913. leg. A. C. Brade no. 5820 ”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. São Paulo: “ S. Paulo, Alto da Serra , campo”, 16 March 1913, A. C. Brade n. 5820 (S-R-1678!; isolectotypes: NY!, UC442083 !, US2626408!).

Tryon (1942) mentioned that the type was probably at S, but he did not see any material from that institution. Besides, there are more specimens of the same field collection at NY, UC and US. There are also two specimens in B (B 20 050793! and B 20 050792!) which although bearing the same collector’s name and number they differ in the collection date (17/01/1915 vs. 16/03/1913) and name of locality (‘Campo Grande’ instead of ‘Alto da Serra, campo’). Besides, the information on these specimens’ labels has been written in two or more handwriting styles. Similar evidences (wrong date and locality) have been noticed in one specimen at PH. These differences suggest that these three specimens are from different gatherings and therefore, they have not been considered eligible for isolectotypes. The chosen lectotype bears two plants, along with Rosenstock’s handwriting “ Doryopteris bradei Rosenst. n. sp. ”.

Doryopteris euchlora Klotzsch, Linnaea 20: 342. 1847.

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

Protologue citation: “ Richard Schomburgk, 798”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRITISH GUIANA. “Guiana angl.” R. Schomburgk 798 ( B 20 050796!; isolectotypes: BM!, G358560 ; K!, PR!).

Four preparations from a single gathering have been found at B, BM, K and PR so they are all syntypes of Doryopteris euchlora (Art. 40 Note 1 of ICN). I have chosen the specimen housed at B as lectotype because it has the name of the species in Klotzsch’s handwriting.

Doryopteris feei Brade, Arch. Inst. Biol. Veg. Rio de Janeiro 1: 226, fig. 4, t. 5. 1935.

≡ Lytoneuron feei (Brade) J.C.Yesilyurt, Phytotaxa 221: 116. 2015.

Material cited: “ Brasil, Serra do Itatiaia 2000–2400 m.s. junho 1913. leg. F. Tamandaré de Toledo Jr. & A. C. Brade n. 6496 – Idem; leg. J. G. Kuhlmann s. n. 19.10.1922 ” .

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. [Rio de Janeiro]: “Serra do Itatiaia”, F. Tamandaré de Toledo Jr. & A. C. Brade 6496 ( RB!; isolectotypes: B200051293 [image]!, S!, SPF85244 !). Remaining syntype: J. G. Kuhlmann s. n. ( RB!).

Brade (1935) described Doryopteris feei based on two field collections. The protologue does not state which one is the holotype or the name of the herbarium where the type of D. feei was deposited. In addition to the four duplicates of F. Tamandaré de Toledo Jr. & A. C. Brade 6496 at B, RB, S and SPF, two specimens (at RB and B) have handwritten on their labels “ D. feei Brade s. sp. Typus!”. Since the holotype has not been designated by the author ( ICN 9.1) I have chosen “ Tamandaré & Brade 6496” housed at RB as the lectotype because it is a specimen I have studied closely and it is housed in one of the herbaria A. C. Brade might have worked with the collections.

Doryopteris × hybrida Brade & Rosenst. in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 21: 346. 1925.

= Doryopteris nobilis (T. Moore) C.Chr., Index Filic. 244. 1905.

Protologue citation: “Est. Sao Paulo, Munic. Iguape, Morro das Pedras, in lapidosis, IX, 1917 leg, A.C. Brade no. 7697”

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. São Paulo: “ São Paulo, Iguape, Morro das Pedras”, September 1917, Brade n. 7697 ( S16-22665 !; isolectotypes: B!, BM001079922 !, G!, GH [2 sheets]: GH00021008 !, GH00021009 !), NY!, UC442018 !).

Brade and Rosenstock described this specimen as a hybrid. The specimen I have designated as lectotype not only has Rosenstock’s handwriting, but the label also includes notes on the supposed parents (“ D. patula var. latesinuata Ros. x D. sagittifolia (Raddi) ? D. alcyonis Pr. ”) of this species. However, during the revision of the genus (Yesilyurt, unpublished data), all the collections related to this taxon ( D. hybrida ) were found to be only morphological variations of Doryopteris nobilis .

Doryopteris juergensii Rosenst., Festschrift Albert von Bamberg : 58. 1905.

= Doryopteris lorentzii (Hieron.) Diels in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 1 (4): 270. 1899.

Material cited: Juergens ( J.-St. n.) 128 and 169.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul: “Mun. Rio Gr. do Sul, Serra do Cria , 120 m ”, January 1904, Juergens n. 169 ( S1679 !; isolectotype: UC442031 !). Remaining syntypes: Juergens ( J.-St. n.) 128 ( NY02859745 !, S!, UC!).

Juergens 169 is the most appropriate candidate for the lectotypification of Doryopteris juergensii as it represents very well the species as circumscribed by Rosenstock. I have chosen the specimen Juergens 169 housed at S as the lectotype because has the name of the species handwritten by Rosenstock on the original label. Although the specimen at UC, has ‘Morro S. Amaro’ written on the label instead of ‘Serra do Cria’, that is the name of one of the mountains (more precise locality) from this mountain range (Serra do Cria), I have considered it as isolectotype. The collection Juergens

128 is a misidentified syntype of D. juergensii and also cited as type material for another taxon ( Doryopteris lorentzii f. interrupta Rosenst. – see below- which is also a synonym of D. lorentzii ).

Doryopteris lomariacea Klotzsch, Linnaea 20: 343. 1847. ≡ Lytoneuron lomariaceum (Kloszch) J.C.Yesilyurt, Phytotaxa 221: 116. 2015. Protologue citation: “Guiana angl. Rich. Schomburgk n. 1197 ”. Lectotype (second step, designated here; first step as holotype by Yesilyurt et al., 2015: 116):—BRITSH GUIANA. [Roraima]: “Guiana angl.”, [1842–1843] R. Schomburgk n. 1197 ( BM001073464 !; isolectotypes: K [2 sheets]!; possible isolectotypes: BM001073465 !,

P00586571!). Remaining syntype: M! (specimen with name “ Pteris lomariacea Kunze written on the sheet).

In the protologue, additionally to the material cited (Schomburgk n. 1197), the diagnosis was followed by two synonyms (“ Pteris lomariacea Kunze in Herb. Monacensi et Vindobonensi and Pteris septemloba Klotzsch in Herbario Berolinensi”). Until now, only Pteris lomariacea Kunze in “Herb. Monacensi” (M!) has been found and no specimen has been traced that would bear any of the information that could relate to this remaining syntype ( Pteris septemloba ). Tryon & Stolze (1989) mentioned that the type might be at B, however, no material has been traced there. There are two specimens (BM! and P!) with similar information as in the protologue (“ British Guiana, Roraima, Schomburgk, 1842–43”) but without the collector’s number. This information suggests that these could be also part of the same gathering of Schomburgk n. 1197. Similar decision seemed to have been made by Tryon when he saw the specimen at P, because he left an identification label (dated 1960) stating “probably isotype of Schomburgk n. 1197”. For these reasons, these two specimens have been considered as possible isolectotypes.

This species is the type of the recently established genus Lytoneuron (Klotzsch) J.C.Yesilyurt ( Yesilyurt et al., 2015). The holotype has been mentioned to be housed at BM and isotype at K. Although Yesilyurt et al. (2015) used the term “ holotype ”, this must be corrected to lectotype, because there are more specimens of the same collection, therefore a second step of typification is required. The lectotype chosen has fertile and sterile fronds and the collection information on the label is the same as in the protologue.

Doryopteris lorentzii f. interrupta Rosenst., Hedwigia 46: 86. 1906.

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

Protologue citation: “Mun. Rio Pardo, Fazenda Soledade (J.-St. n. 128)”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. [Rio Grande do Sul]: “Mun. Rio Pardo, Fazenda Leitão”, 11 May 1906, Juergens n. 128 ( S16- 22654 !; isolectotypes: NY02859745 !, UC442031 !; possible isolectotype: UC!).

A specimen with locality data exactly matching that in the protologue for Doryopteris lorentzii f. interrupta has not been traced. As cited in the protologue, Juergens and Stier collected together, but as in the proposed lectotype (Juergens n. 128, in S), their specimen labels often named only one of them as the collector. The locality data on the lectotype (Fazenda Leitao) also differs from that cited in the protologue (Fazenda Soledade), although both localities (i.e. Fazendas) are in the Municipality of Rio Pardo. The data on the original material held in S otherwise matches that of the type citation. This specimen is herein preferred and therefore I have chosen as the lectotype owing to the presence of Rosenstock’s handwriting on the original label, and significantly, the specimen is well preserved and matches the original description for the entity. A second specimen at UC, has been considered as a possible isolectotype for f. interrupta , as it has some of the protologue information (‘Fazenda Soledade’, collector’s name (Juergens) and collection’s year); but it does not bear the collection’s number, making it difficult to assure it is from the same gathering.

Doryopteris mayoris Rosenst., Mém. Soc. Neuchâtel. 5: 51, t. 2, fig. 2. 1912.

= Doryopteris palmata (Willd.) J. Sm., J. Bot. 4: 163. 1841.

Protologue citation: “Medelin, Columbia, Mayor 180”.

Lectotype (designated here):— COLOMBIA. [Antioquia]: “ Colombien, Rud. Contr., pr. Medelin , 1500 m ”, August 1910, Mayor 180 ( P00477703 !; isolectotypes S (S-R-1680)!, US00142038!).

The specimen held in P, which among the available original material of Doryopteris mayoris best shows the features described in its protologue, is chosen herein as the lectotype. This specimen was seen and annotated by Rosenstock (“Rosenstock, 23 April 1911 ”), and uniquely, has field notes handwritten (inside a packet) by its collector, Mayor (“ Dory mayoris Colombia Mayor 180”).

Doryopteris microphylla H.Christ, Bull. Herb. Boissier , sér. 2, 2: 546. 1902.

≡ Lytoneuron microphyllum (H.Christ) J.C.Yesilyurt , comb. nov..

Material cited (under Pellaea microphylla Fée, Crypt. Vasc. Brésil 1: 43, t. 4, fig. 2. 1869): “Habitat in Brasilia fluminensi (Serra do Couto); Glaziou nos 3158 et 3159 (1869)”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. [Rio de Janeiro]: “Pedra do Couto”, 18 March1869, Glaziou 3158 ( P00507775 !; isolectotypes: BM001079923 !, C! [mixed with Glaziou 7264], K! [mixed with Glaziou 4391], G!, P [3 sheets, one mixed with Glaziou 7264]!, S!). Remaining syntypes: Glaziou 3159 ( K!, P! [mixed with Glaziou 5347]).

Doryopteris microphylla H. Christ is a replacement name for Pellaea microphylla Fée , which was published in November 1869 and is a later illegitimate homonym to P. microphylla Mett. ex Kuhn , which was validly published in May 1869 with different type. However, the type material remains the one used by Fée (Art. 7.4, Art. 7.5 and Art. 58.1).

The chosen lectotype Glaziou 3158 ( P) has three small plants on the sheet. It does not have Fée’s original label, but it has Glaziou’ s original label and notes. This information match with the protologue. As most of other specimens from both Glaziou ’s collections (3158, 3159) have a mixture of plants from different species, the chosen lectotype is the one which best represents Doryopteris microphylla without any doubts or misinterpretation. Although the material housed at C has only the information “ Glaziou 3158 ” (without the locality), it has been accepted as part of the same gathering and therefore, considered as isolectotype.

Doryopteris patula (Fée) Fée var. latesinuata Brade & Rosenst., Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg.21: 346. 1925.

= Doryopteris nobilis (T.Moore) C.Chr., Index Filic. 244. 1905.

Protologue citation: “Brasilia: Est. Sao Paulo, Munic. Iguape. Morro das Pedras. XII. 1919 leg. A.C. Brade no. 7698.”

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. São Paulo: “ São Paulo, [Munic. de] Iguape, Morro das Pedras , sobre pedras”, December 1919, A. C. Brade n. 7698 ( GH00021010 !; isolectotypes: S!, B 20 051234!).

The specimen chosen for lectotype here is the only one that has the collecting information as quoted in the protologue and has also the printed field label ‘Herbarium Brasiliense, Alexandre Curt Brade’. Specimens at S and B also have similarities regarding label content as those found on GH specimen. They both have the variety name handwritten by Rosenstock ending with the note of ‘n.v.’ and both have correct collection date but the collection number is ‘ Brade 7898 ’ instead of ‘ Brade 7698 ’, which indicates clearly to be an orthographic error. Two specimens at NY and UC have the collector’s name and collector’s number (Brade 7698) but the date is different, 1926 and 1826, respectively, rather 1919 (which is the correct year) suggesting to be from different gatherings and therefore, not considered here eligible as isolectotypes.

Doryopteris pedata (L.) Fée f. glaberrima Rosenst., Hedwigia 46: 86. 1906.

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

Material cited: “Trombudo ( M [atschinske]. n. 29b); Passo de Mangueira, auf schattigem Waldboden ( J.-St. n. 26)”.

Lectotype (designated here).— BRAZIL. [Rio Grande do Sul]: “Trombudo, St. Angelo”, December 1904, Matschinske n. 29b ( UC442024 !; isolectoype: NY00144442 !). Remaining syntypes: -St. 26 ( L!, S!).

I have lectotypified the name with Matschinske 29b, which best represents the form described by Rosenstock. The specimen has both fertile and sterile fronds, and with both surfaces of the lamina displayed.

Doryopteris pedata ( L.) Fée f. tomentosa Rosenst., Hedwigia 46: 86. 1906.

= Doryopteris pentagona Pic. Serm., Webbia 60: 228, fig. 42. 2005.

Material cited: “I: S. Cruz (J.-St. n. 64, Suppl.); Trombudo (M. o. N.). II. Joinvelle (M. n. 117); Itapocú (H. n. 28). – San Matheus (G. n. 39); Villa Nova (A.[nnies] n. 36). – IV: Raio da Serra (W. n. 110)”.

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. Paraná: “Villa Nova, 900 m ”, Annies n. 36 ( S16-22663 !). Remaining syntypes: J-St. [ C. Juergens] 64, suppl. ( S [2) sheets]!; M [atschinske] o. N. ( U!, UC!); ( W [acket]. n. 110 ( UC!).

The specimen I have designated as lectotype is the best material to represent this taxon because it matches the species as circumscribed by Rosenstock. Moreover, this specimen has the same information (locality) as cited in the protologue and the name of the form, “ tomentosa ”, in Rosenstock’s handwriting. Three of the syntypes (M. 117, H. 28, and G. 39) were not found.

Doryopteris raddiana (C. Presl) Fée var. multipartita Fée, Crypt. Vasc. Brésil 1: 45. 1869.

= Doryopteris raddiana (C. Presl) Fée, Mém. Fam. Foug. 5: 133. 1852.

Material cited: “Rio-Janeiro Glaziou 1741 and M. H. Gauthier s.n., Desterro, Sainte-Catherine.”

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. [Rio de Janeiro]: Glaziou 1741 ( P00477695 !; isolectotypes: BR830164 !, C!).

In the protologue Fée cited an illustration by Raddi (“La figure 3 de la planche 65” which shows two different plants: the one on the left (n. 3) is Doryopteris raddiana ), and the collections: “Rio-Janeiro par M. Glaziou sou le n. 1741 ”, and “ M. H. Gauthier nous l’a envovée de Desterro, ile Sainte-Catherine”. I have designated Glaziou 1741 ( P!) as lectotype because it agrees well with the variety as circumscribed by Fée. The collection “ M. H. Gauthier s. n. ” has not been traced and as this specimen is cited from “ S. Catharine” (= Santa Catarina, south Brazil), which might be a different species because Doryopteris raddiana have been recorded so far from Bahia towards Rio de Janeiro, not reaching Santa Catarina. The illustration seems to support this hypothesis (of being two different plants).