Calciphilopteris wallichii Yesilyurt & H.Schneider, 2017

Seregin, Alexey P., 2017, Validation of Calciphilopteris wallichii and lectotype designation for closely related C. ludens (Cheilanthoideae, Pteridaceae), Phytotaxa 303 (1), pp. 89-92 : 89-91

Calciphilopteris wallichii Yesilyurt & H.Schneider , sp. nov. ( Fig. 1 ) [authority according to Art. 46.2]

Holotype: — PHILIPPINES: Ins. Philipp. [Luzon], Cuming 238 (MW-0731396!, isotypes: K-001090039- image!, K-001090037- image!, L-3518284- image!, B-200051178- image!, GH-00021014- image!, E-00414308- image!, E-00719467 - image!, YU-000812- image!). Yesilyurt & H.Schneider (2010) reported the presence of isotypes at C, BM, G, but these were not studied during the present research. The specimen in Moscow is treated as the holotype, because this is the only specimen, which was examined by the present author (not contradicting Art. 7.7).

Diagnosis reference: — Diagnostic key to the species of Calciphilopteris by Yesilyurt & Schneider (2010: 55), in English.

Description reference: — Yesilyurt & Schneider (2010: 57), in English.

Paratypes: — PHILIPPINES: Luzon , Garcia et al. in PPI 15208 (L-3534143 -image!, BRIT, PNH) ; Price 2007 (L-3518282 -image!, L-3518283 -image!, US, BM) ; Ramos in Bureau of Science 33245 (L-3518281 -image!, US-01489721 - image!, BM), 1078 (US-01489711 -image!), 26293 (US-01489705 -image!) ; anonymous s.n. (L-3518280 -image!); Williams 1501 (US-01489709 -image!, PE-01871237 -image!, UC) ; Loher 1298 (US-01489710 -image!) ; Curran in Bureau of Science 15608 (US-01489712 -image!, BM, C) ; Elmer 6349 (US-01489713 -image!, C, NY) ; Topping 857 (US-01489715 -image!, C, GH, MO, NY, S), 973 (US-01489714 -image!), 1014 (US-01489716 -image!, GH, NY), 1043 (US-01489717 -image!), 1218 (US-01489718 -image!) ; Fenix in Bureau of Science 30032 (US-01489719 -image!) ; Otanes in Bureau of Science 17677 (US-01489720 -image!). — Additionally, Yesilyurt & Schneider (2010: 57) cited Copeland 95 ( BM, C, S) ; Topping 1247 ( GH, US), 1219 ( GH, NY), but I didn’t check these specimens. There is also another Topping 1219 in MIL (n.v.) .

Smith (1841: 404) treated the species as Doryopteris wallichii , nom. inval. [Art. 38.1a] without a formal description: “103. D. Wallichii, J. Sm. — Pteris, Wall. —Luzon; (n. 238.)” Abovementioned “ Pteris, Wall. ” refers to the expectation that Wallich would publish a name for this species in the genus Pteris , which he never did (Yatskievych, pers. comm.), and not to “ Pteris wallichii Agardh ” [i.e. Pteris wallichiana Agardh ] as stated in TROPICOS (2017) record for Doryopteris wallichii . Consequently, the species was once mentioned as Litobrochia smithii Moore (1862: 342) , nom. inval. [Art. 38.1a], being a replacement name for Doryopteris wallichii .

Tryon (1942: 60) was the first to explicitly note that D. wallichii was a nomen nudum, but his treatment was not followed by later authors. Despite treating D. wallichii as a nomen nudum and a synonym under his broad concept of D. ludens , he stated that the type collection was Cuming 238 with the type at K and an isotype at G.

A TROPICOS (Feb. 2017) record for Calciphilopteris wallichii is also incorrect: “Basionym publication miscited in new combination paper. Per e-mail with K. Gandhi (19 Aug 2010), this is a correctable error and does not invalidate the transfer” [i.e. following Art. 41.6]. This is a mistaken belief, because Doryopteris wallichii was never published validly. Hooker, who validated a lot of Smith’s names of ferns, cited Cuming 238 under Pteris ludens Wall. ex Hooker (1858: 210) and subsequent authors followed this broad species concept, making no attempt to resurrect Doryopteris wallichii .

The publication of the genus Calciphilopteris Yesilyurt & Schneider (2010: 53) included a key and a description of each of four species in English, but under Art. 39.1 this did not validate either C. wallichii or Doryopteris wallichii .

The specimen Cuming 238 was cited as one of four syntypes for Pteris ludens Wall. ex Hooker (1858: 210) , which were listed in the following manner: “Hab. Scendnea, Irawaddy, 1826, and caves of the mountain Nidan, Attran River, 1827, Wallich, n. 88. Moulmeine, Thos . Lobb. Luzon, Cuming, n. 238 ”. Tryon (1942: 60) treated Wallich 88 at Kew as a “type”, which he did not see, with an isotype at G. Consequently, Yesilyurt & Schneider (2010: 56) incorrectly treated Wallich 88 (K) as a “ holotype ”. The number 88 includes two collections from two different localities and refers not to a specimen, but to a catalogue number of Pteris ludens Wallich (1828: 5 , n. 88), nom. inval. [Art. 38.1a]. Tryon’s decision could be treated as lectotype designation under Art. 9.9, but it is not refer in fact “to a single gathering” as defined in Art. 9.17.

There are at least two sheets of Wallich 88 at Kew—K-001090040 and K-001109227/K-001109228. The former specimen is clearly marked as a part of Herbarium Hookerianum, bears only one locality name and therefore is a better option for the second-step lectotype designation.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Holotype of Calciphilopteris wallichii (MW0731396).