ArticlePDF Available

(1946) Proposal to conserve the name Calectasia intermedia against Scaryomyrtus hexamera (Calectasiaceae)

Authors:

Abstract

(1946) Calectasia intermedia Sonder in Linnaea 28: 222. 1857 [Monocot.: Calectas.], nom. cons. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): Victoria: ‘between the Grampians and Victoria Range’ [Mount Zero, Grampians], [post. 21] Nov. 1853, F. Mueller (MEL No. 247849; isolectotypi: FI, ?P No. 00644924, ?P No. 00644925, ?G). (≡) Scaryomyrtus hexamera F. Muell. in Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 6: 157. 1854, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): Victoria: ‘between the Grampians and Victoria Range’ [Mount Zero, Grampians], [post. 21] Nov. 1853, F. Mueller (MEL No. 247849; isolectotypi: FI, ?P No. 00644924, ?P No. 00644925, ?G). The name Scaryomyrtus hexamera F. Muell. has never been taken up; however it is clearly the earliest published name for the species currently known as Calectasia intermedia. We therefore propose that the name C. intermedia be conserved against S. hexamera in order to preserve current usage and remove any ambiguity as to the legitimacy of C. intermedia.
1279
TAXON 59 (4) • August 2010: 1279 Wilson & Barrett • (1946) Conserve Calectasia intermedia
(1946) Calectasia intermedia Sonder in Linnaea 28: 222. 1857
[Monocot.: Calectas.], nom. cons. prop.
Lectotypus (hic designatus): Victoria: ‘between the Gram-
pians and Victoria Range’ [Mount Zero, Grampians], [post.
21] Nov. 1853, F. Mueller (MEL No. 247849; isolectotypi:
FI, ?P No. 00644924, ?P No. 00644925, ?G).
() Scaryomyrtus hexamera F. Muell. in Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew
Gard. Misc. 6: 157. 1854, nom. rej. prop.
Lectotypus (hic designatus): Victoria: ‘between the Gram-
pians and Victoria Range’ [Mount Zero, Grampians], [post.
21] Nov. 1853, F. Mueller (MEL No. 247849; isolectotypi:
FI, ?P No. 00644924, ?P No. 00644925, ?G).
Otto Sonder described Calectasia intermedia based on a collec-
tion sent to him by Ferdinand Mueller from collections gathered “be-
tween the Grampians and Victoria Range”. Mueller regularly included
only the region or range a specimen was collected from in his notes.
However, in this case, further information is available in the form of a
letter sent to Joseph Hooker shortly after the collection was made. We
can establish that the collection was in fact made from Mount Zero in
the Grampians, some time (probably a few days) after Nov. 21, 1853.
In this letter, Mueller provided a brief, but diagnostic description
of a specimen he named Scaryomyrtus hexamera, thereby establish-
ing a new generic and specific name. As far as we can determine,
this name was not written on any surviving collection notes or her-
barium sheet, with the sole specimen of this taxon at MEL collected by
Mueller on this trip being annotated by him with the name Calectasia
cyanea. Presumably he quickly realised his erroneous field conclu-
sions when comparing material at MEL, or by more detailed studies
of the morphology of his collection. Hooker published the letter (in
Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 6: 156158. 1854) and the brevity of
the description has raised doubt as to the valid publication of S. hex-
amera. Recently, however, the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular
Plants has ruled that the name should be considered validly published
(Brummitt in Taxon 56: 1295. 2007). The result of this conclusion is
that S. hexamera becomes the earliest published name for the species
commonly known as Calectasia intermedia. The Committee recom-
mended that a proposal be made to either conserve C. intermedia or
reject S. hexamera, the former being our preferred option.
While it cannot be conclusively proven that the precise specimen
on which both names are based is identical, it seems likely that this is
so, and some may consider that the name C. intermedia is therefore
illegitimate, because it includes the original type of a name that ought
to have been adopted (Art. 52.1). To avoid doubt lectotypes for both
names are selected here, both based on the same specimen. There
are two possible isolectotypes in the Herbier National in Paris (P),
both undated, one received at P in 1863 the other in 1885; the possible
isolectotype in the Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques in Geneva
(G) also lacks a collection date, so some doubt must remain about
these collections. However, the only other collection of Calectasia
intermedia by Mueller from the Grampians at MEL (No. 2064059)
was made with J.F.C. Wilhelmi in 1856. The sheets at G and P make
no mention of Wilhelmi and so they are considered likely to be du-
plicates of the lectotype.
We suggest that Mueller never intended to formally publish the
name, which at the time of collection he attributed to the Myrta-
ceae, related to the genera Calycothrix and Lhotskya, two genera
that are now synonymised under Calytrix (Craven in Brunonia 10:
1–138. 1987). Calytrix is superficially similar in appearance due to
the chartaceous perianth common to both genera. Mueller was prob-
ably most embarrassed to realise that the plant he had described to
Hooker was in fact a monocot, and as far as can be determined, he
never referred to the name S. hexamera again. Neither has the name
ever appeared in the literature since its original publication, with the
exception of a listing by Chapman (Austral. Pl. Name Ind.: 2580.
1991) who gave no recognition of its true alliance. Automated list-
ings have appeared recently on several biodiversity websites (e.g.,
http://zipcodezoo.com/Plants/s/scaryomyrtus_hexamera/) based on
this reference. All publications dealing with this taxon have either
used Calectasia intermedia Sond. (the current consensus; George,
Fl. Austral. 46: 171. 1986; Conn, Fl. Victoria 2: 734. 1994; Rudall
& Caddick in Ann. Bot. 74: 483491. 1994; Givnish & al. in Molec.
Phylog. Evol. 12: 360–385. 1999; McCann, Grampians Fl.: 31. 2000;
Barrett & Dixon in Nuytsia 13: 433. 2001; Zona in Ann. Bot. 87:
109–116. 2001; Bremer in Evolution 56: 13741387. 2002; Prychid &
al. in Bot. Rev. 69: 377–440. 2003; Barker & al., Census S. Austral.
Vasc. Pl., ed. 5: 159. 2005; Walsh & Stajsic, Census Vasc. Pl. Victoria,
ed. 8: 45. 2007), or subsumed it under C. cyanea R. Br. (Bentham,
Fl. Austral. 7: 120. 1878; Mueller, Key Syst. Victorian Pl.: 437. 1888.
Mueller, Sec. Syst. Cens. Austral. Pl.: 200. 1889; Ewart, Fl. Victoria:
278. 1930), at times at varietal rank (Anway, Austral. J. Bot. 17: 158.
1969; Jessop, Fl. S. Austral, ed. 4: 1754. 1986).
The name Scaryomyrtus hexamera F. Muell. has never been
taken up; however it is clearly the earliest published name for the spe-
cies currently known as Calectasia intermedia. We therefore propose
that the name C. intermedia be conserved against S. hexamera in
order to preserve current usage and remove any ambiguity as to the
legitimacy of C. intermedia.
(1946) Proposal to conserve the name Calectasia intermedia against
Scaryomyrtus hexamera (Calectasiaceae)
Peter G. Wilson
1
& Russell L. Barrett
2
1 Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney, New South Wales, 2000, Australia
2 Kings Park & Botanic Garden, Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority, Fraser Ave, West Perth, 6005, Western Australia; School
of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia; and Western Australian Herbarium, Department of Environment and
Conservation
Author for correspondence: Russell L. Barrett, russell.barrett@bgpa.wa.gov.au
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.