Neomarica humilis ( Klatt 1862: 540 ) Capell.

Gil, André Dos Santos Bragança, Schneider, Layla Jamylle Costa, Bittrich, Volker & Amaral, Maria Do Carmo Estanislau Do, 2021, Revisiting the taxonomy of Neomarica humilis (Trimezieae, Iridaceae) and some related names, Phytotaxa 489 (3), pp. 275-284 : 276-280

Neomarica humilis ( Klatt 1862: 540) Capell. in Chukr & Capellari (2003: 135)

≡ Marica humilis G. Loddiges (1825 : t.1081), nom. illeg. [non Marica humilis ( Kunth 1815 (1816): 320) Roemer & Schultes (1817: 450)] ≡ Cypella humilis Klatt (1862: 540) ≡ Neomarica vittata Sprague (1928: 281) , nom. illeg. ≡ Trimezia humilis (Klatt) Ravenna in Prance & Elias (1977: 258). Type (lectotype, designated here):—tab. 1081 in Loddiges, Bot. Cab. 11. t. 1081. 1825. ( Fig. 1 ).

= Neomarica occidentalis ( Baker 1892: 150) Sprague (1928: 281) ≡ Marica occidentalis Baker (1892: 150) . Type (neotype, designated here):— PERU: s. loc., 1891, Linden s.n. (K barcode 000322478!) ( Fig. 2 ); isoneotype: K barcode 000322477!).

The name Cypella humilis was described by Klatt (1862). He cited a material collected by Wied-Neuwied and kept at the Sonder Herbarium, currently included in the Melbourne herbarium (MEL), and the illustration of Loddiges (1825) for Marica humilis G. Loddiges (1825 : t.1081). Marica humilis G.Loddiges is an illegitimate name, as it is a later homonym of M. humilis ( Kunth 1815 [1816]: 320) Roemer & Schultes (1817: 450), currently considered a synonym of Cipura paludosa Aublet (1775: 38) . As synonyms for Cypella humilis, Klatt (1862) cited Marica humilis G.Loddiges and the not validly published Moraea northiana var. breviscapa Nees (as Moraea northiana β breviscapa Nees mss.).

There are two sheets of Wied-Neuwied s.n. at MEL (barcodes 2355228 and 2355229). Gallagher & Moraes (2014), when studying the native Brazilian plants collected by Prince Maximilian zu Wied-Neuwied in the MEL herbarium, indicated the specimen MEL barcode 2355228 as the ‘holotype’ of N. humilis ( Fig. 3 ). Despite the selection of a ‘type’ (although incorrectly named a holotype), the authors did not follow Article 7.11 of the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018), by omitting the expression “ hic designatus ” or an equivalent statement. Therefore, a lectotypification is still necessary for this name.As mentioned above, Klatt (1862) when describing his new species, also includes the illustration of Loddiges (1825: t.1081) and cites M. humilis G.Loddiges as a synonym. This can be interpreted as providing a replacement name (Art. 6.13, Turland et al. 2018). Furthermore, the description of the flower colour clearly indicates that Klatt (1862) used Loddiges’ illustration. Finally, in the treatment of the Iridaceae for Martius’ Flora brasiliensis, Klatt (1871: 520) again cited M. humilis G.Loddiges as a synonym of C. humilis , but transferred the Wied-Neuwied specimens to C. northiana ( Schneevoogt 1793:41) Klatt (1862: 539) [≡ Neomarica northiana (Schneev. 1793: 41) Sprague (1928: 280) ( Fig. 4B, E )]. We thus accept Cypella humilis Klatt as a replacement name for Marica humilis G.Loddiges. A replacement name is automatically typified by the type of the replaced synonym (Art. 7.4, Turland et al. 2018). As there are no herbarium specimens related to the protologue of M. humilis G.Loddiges , we are here lectotypifying this name with the illustration published as part of the protologue by Loddiges (1825, tab. 1081) ( Fig.1 ). Thus, this illustration of Marica humilis G.Loddiges is also the lectotype of the homotypic Cypella humilis Klatt.

We agree with Klatt (1871) that the Wied-Neuwied specimens belong to a different species than the plant illustrated by Loddiges as M. humilis . However, these specimens actually represent N. brachypus ( Baker 1876: 138) Sprague (1928: 280) . It is worth mentioning that N. brachypus lacks the characteristic blue to violet variegation on the apical third of the inner tepals ( Figs. 4B, C, E, H ), mentioned in Klatt’s (1862) description of C. humilis (see Hall et al. 2017). The Wied-Neuwied specimens are from the State of Bahia, Northeastern Brazil (see Gallagher & Moraes 2014). They clearly show the flowering stem’s main peduncle to be shorter than the leaf-sheaths, with the rhipidia, bracts, and flowers clustering between the leaves and close to the plant’s base ( Figs. 3 & 4H ). This feature is typical of N. brachypus and is one of the features distinguishing it from N. portosecurensis ( Ravenna 1988: 7) Chukr in Chukr & Giulietti (2001: 379) ( Figs. 3 , 5 ). This species co-occurs in Bahia with N. brachypus , and while sharing the broad and glossy leaves, its flowering stem’s main peduncle is always longer than the leaf-sheaths, with the rhipidia, bracts, and flowers never clustered between the leaves (for more details see Hall et al. 2017). When publishing the new combination Trimezia humilis (Lodd.) Ravenna (1977: 258) , the latter author incorrectly cited Loddiges as the author of the ‘basionym’ Marica humilis , unaware of the illegitimacy of Loddiges’ name and Klatt’s (1862) publication of the replacement name Cypella humilis . Therefore, the basionym author of Ravenna’s combination under Trimezia needs to be corrected to Klatt, as we have cited it above (see Art. 41.8, ex. 28, Turland et al. 2018).

Chukr & Capellari Jr. (2003), when combining Cypella humilis into Neomarica , failed to typify this name. However, these authors synonymized N. occidentalis ( Baker 1892:150) Sprague (1928: 281) and N. vittata Sprague (1928: 281) , nom. illeg., under N. humilis . The type and original description of N. occidentalis clearly match the original illustration of M. humilis ( Loddiges 1825: t.1081). Sprague (1928) proposed N. vittata as a replacement name for the illegitimate M. humilis Lodd. , unaware of Klatt’s (1862) earlier publication or, possibly, by applying the Kew Rule (see Nicolson 1991). Nevertheless, by citing Cypella humilis Klatt as a synonym under N. vittata , his new name became illegitimate (Art. 52.1 & 52.2, Turland et al. 2018).

When considering the specimens collected by Wied-Neuwied (kept at MEL) for lectotypification of N. humilis, Gallagher & Moraes (2014) apparently were not aware that the Loddiges’ illustration was available as an alternative lectotype, when considering Cypella humilis as a replacement name, nor that Klatt (1871) had later realized that two different species were involved and he had transferred the Wied-Neuwied specimens to N. northiana . They were probably also unaware that their lectotypification of N. humilis would lead to confusion by changing the current use of this name and affect various synonymizations (see e.g., Chukr & Capellari 2003). This is a good example of why recommendation 9A of the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018), especially 9A.4, should be always taken into account when taxonomists consider choosing a lectotype.

Regarding the typification of Neomarica occidentalis (Baker) Sprague, Baker (1892) only mentioned that the respective plant was imported by Linden from Peru and flowered in Kew in July 1892. Baker’s entire description makes it clear that he was using this living plant and its flowers and not a herbarium specimen. Indeed, he does not mention any herbarium specimen. We noticed that there are two sheets of N. occidentalis (“1891 Linden”, s.n.) with different barcodes at the Kew herbarium (barcodes 000322478 and 000322477). As no original material exists, a neotypification is necessary (Art. 9.3 & 9.8, Turland et al. 2018). We opt for one of the two specimens mentioned above, as they are supposedly based on material imported by Linden, either original specimens prepared by Linden himself in Peru or later prepared from the plant that flowered in Kew. Here we designate as neotype the specimen ‘K barcode 000322478’, because it is better preserved and more complete (with an entire flowering branch and preserved flowers) ( Fig. 2 ) than ‘K barcode 000322477’, which only has poorly preserved floral pieces, despite there being a photocopy of the original description with this specimen.

Neomarica humilis typifically shows the second bract subtended by a conspicuous rachis internode (2.5‒5 cm long), the mature inflorescence with (2‒)3‒4(‒5) pedunculated rhipidia ( Fig. 4D ), and these features are clearly visible in the lectotype designated here (Bot. Cab. 11: t. 1081. 1825; Fig. 1 ). Neomarica humilis chiefly differs from the aforementioned species, N. brachypus , N. northiana , and N. portosecurensis , by its smaller flowers, about 3‒4(‒5) cm in diameter [vs. (5‒) 6‒9 cm], outer tepals mostly pale yellow to whitish with transversal sinuous or shapeless light- to dark-brown maculae at the basal third, and the apical third of the inner tepals with yellowish margins, and transversally-linear purple markings, arranged in parallel and somewhat distant from each other, with a large subtriangular purple macula at the apex (vs. different coloring patterns, see Fig. 4A, B, C, F ). These features match the lectotype designated here (Bot. Cab. 11: t. 1081. 1825; Fig. 1 ).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Lectotype (designated here) of Marica humilis G.Loddiges by George Cooke, published in Loddiges (1825:t. 1081).Available from the BHL website: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/92737#page/168/mode/1up

FIGURE 2. Neotype (designated here) of Neomarica occidentalis (Baker) Sprague. © The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Reproduced with permission of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

FIGURE 3. Exsiccate of Neomarica brachypus, collected by Prince Maximilian zu Wied-Neuwied (MEL barcode 2355228). Reproduced with permission from the Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria.

FIGURE 4. A. Flowers in upper view of Neomarica humilis.B. Flower in upper view of Neomarica northiana. C. Flower in upper view of Neomarica brachypus. D. Inflorescence in detail of Neomarica humilis. E. Inflorescence of Neomarica northiana. F. Flower of Neomarica portosecurensis seen from above. G. Inflorescence of Neomarica portosecurensis. H. Inflorescence and leaves of Neomarica brachypus. Photos A‒F and H by André Gil, and G by Volker Bittrich. Scale bar = 1 cm.

FIGURE 5. Lectotype (designated here) of Neomarica portosecurensis. Reflora - Herbário Virtual.Available from: http://reflora.jbrj.gov. br/reflora/herbarioVirtual/ConsultaPublicoHVUC/ConsultaPublicoHVUC.do?idTestemunho=4555772.Accessed: 27 Oct 2020.