David Correa

Author Statistics

Papers

Citation

H-Index

i-10 index

Research Trends

Author Order

Document Type

Co-Authors

Carlos Vila-Viçosa

Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos

Miguel Serrano

Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

Carles Jiménez

Generalitat Valenciana

Catarina Ferreira

Universidade do Porto

Cooperative Institutions

Universidade do Porto

Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos

Fundação Armando Alvares Penteado

American Museum of Natural History

Science Museum

Research Network (United States)

Natural History Museum

Government of Extremadura

Lebanese University

University of Liverpool

Author Statistics

Papers

Citation

H-Index

i-10 index

Research Field

(3053) Proposal to conserve the name Juniperus navicularis against J. microphylla and J. hochstetteri (Cupressaceae)

Taxon (2024)

Carles Jiménez Miguel Serrano Catarina Ferreira David Correa Carlos Vila-Viçosa

(3053) Juniperus navicularis Gand. in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 57: 55. Mar (sero) 1910 [Gymnosp.: Cupress.], nom. cons. prop. Lectotypus ([second-step] hic designatus): Portugal, [Alentejo Litoral, Grândola], Tróia, Feb 1888, Daveau 1346 (P barcode P01620796 [upper specimen with cones]; isolectotypus: P barcode P01620797). (=) Juniperus microphylla Antoine, Cupress.-Gatt.: 23. 1857, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): Portugal, [Setúbal], "in pinetis prope Setúbal", Nov 1839, Welwitsch [Unio Itin. 1841] 80 (K barcode K000089212; isolectotypus: P barcode P01569863). (=) Juniperus hochstetteri Antoine, Cupress.-Gatt.: 23. 1857, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): Portugal, [Setúbal], "in Monte Arabida", Apr 1838, Hochstetter 433 (K barcode K000089213). Juniperus navicularis Gand. (in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 57: 55. 1910) was described as a new species, based on samples collected from different localities in Portugal. These included surroundings of the villages of Coina, Tróia, Alcácer do Sal and Grândola, all in the Setúbal region. The species was treated as J. oxycedrus var. brachyphylla Loret by Loret (in Billot, Annot. Fl. France Allemagne: 282. 1865) and by Coutinho (in Bol. Soc. Brot. 24: 136. 1909). Franco (in Feddes Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 68: 166. 1963) gave it subspecies rank within J. oxycedrus L. (Sp. Pl.: 1038. 1753) as J. oxycedrus subsp. transtagana Franco, and later Silba (in Phytologia Mem. 7: 35. 1984) recombined it as J. oxycedrus var. transtagana (Franco) Silba. Over five decades before Gandoger's publication, Antoine (Cupress.-Gatt.: 23. 1857) described Juniperus microphylla and cited a collection made by Welwitsch near Setúbal, Portugal. He also included photographs (Antoine, l.c.: t. 31–32) of specimens of this collection from the Royal Herbarium in Berlin (B) and the Imperial Botanical Museum in Vienna (W), both specimens now destroyed. The protologue refers undoubtedly to J. navicularis, as it describes the leaves as 4–10 mm long and about 2 mm wide and the cones as nearly 7.5 mm in diameter. The name J. microphylla was validly published so it has priority at specific rank (Art. 11.2 of the ICN, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Although Farjon (Monogr. Cupressac. & Sciadopithys: 267. 2005) designated the "Illustration in Antoine, Cupress.-Gatt: s.n., t. 31-32 (1857)" as "lectotype" this has no standing, both because he indicated two elements (t. 31 and t. 32) as type and because he selected an illustration, in violation of Art. 9.12 (see Ex. 12), when isosyntypes of the Welwitsch collection (Iter Lusitanicum no. 80) exist at K (barcode K000089212, see http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000089212), designated here as lectotype, and P (barcode P01569863, see https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/p/item/p01569863). The name J. microphylla has been mistakenly cited, without explanation, in the synonymy of J. communis L. (Sp. Pl.: 1040. 1753) by Farjon (l.c. 2005: 267), Adams (Junipers World: Gen. Juniperus, ed. 4: 124, 406. 2014), and by Al-Snafi (Indo Amer. J. Pharm. Sci. 5: 1780. 2018). Another species described by Antoine (l.c.: 23) was Juniperus hochstetteri, and a specimen collected by Hochstetter in "Monte Arabida" in Portugal was mentioned and photographed (l.c.: t. 33) at W (now destroyed). The Latin diagnosis describes the leaves as being short, almost blunt, naviculate, ca. 2–6 mm long, and the seeds as being small, elliptic-triangular – traits that allow identification with J. navicularis; even if J. macrocarpa Sm. (in Sibthorp & Smith, Fl. Graec. Prodr. 2: 263. 1816) s.l. had occurred there at that time, the cones, leaves and seeds are very different, longer and wider in all their dimensions. The photograph included by Antoine (l.c.: t. 33), though featuring an unusually obovate fruit, also matches J. navicularis. The place of collection must be regarded as the surroundings of the Serra da Arrábida between Setúbal and Sesimbra, where the only species in Juniperus sect. Juniperus is J. navicularis. The name was similarly lectotypified by Farjon (l.c. 2005: 348) on the illustration in Antoine (l.c.: t. 33); however, this selection also violates Art. 9.12, as an isosyntype exists at K (barcode K000089213, see http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000089213), which is here designated as lectotype. For reasons unknown, Farjon (in Edinburgh J. Bot. 49: 267. 1992) erroneously listed J. hochstetteri in the synonymy of the East African J. procera Hochst. ex Endl. (Syn. Conif.: 26. 1847), and this synonymy is also found in Farjon (l.c. 2005: 348), Adams (l.c.: 261, 405), and Bussmann & al. (Ethnobot. Mount. Regions Afr.: 619. 2020). The name Juniperus navicularis has been accepted and used by several authors, such as Franco (in Castroviejo & al., Fl. Iber. 1: 186. 1986, in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur. 1: 47. 1993), Adams & al. (in Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 31: 375–387. 2003), Sánchez & al. (in Revista Soc. Gaditana Hist. Nat. 5: 49–50. 2008), Castro & al. (in Pl. Growth Regulat. 65: 223–230. 2011), Adams (l.c.: 232–233), Boratyński & al. (in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 174: 637–653. 2014), Díez-Garretas & al. (in Pl. Biosyst. 151: 168–173. 2016), Castro & al. (in Lazaroa 37: 1–11. 2016), Farhat & al. (in Frontiers Pl. Sci. (Lausanne) 10: 676. 2019), and Gutiérrez-Larruscain & al. (in Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 199: 108162. 2024). It has also been accepted in Spanish laws concerning protection of flora. Farjon (l.c. 2005: 335) designated the syntype Daveau 1346 at P as lectotype of J. navicularis, but there are two duplicates of this gathering there (barcodes P01620796 and P01620797). His lectotypification, representing a single gathering, must be accepted as a "first-step" lectotype under Art. 9.17, and a second-step lectotype (P01620796), coinciding with Farjon's preference as indicated only on the specimen and thus ineffective (Art. 6.1), is designated here. Recently Ferreira & al. (in Phytotaxa 660: 181–190. 2024), in ignorance of Farjon's typification, ineffectively designated (Art. 9.19) a Gandoger collection at LY (barcode LY0772612) as lectotype. On the other hand, Juniperus microphylla and J. hochstetteri have only been accepted by Antoine, so the resurrection of either would lead to nomenclatural instability. This is why we propose the conservation of the name Juniperus navicularis against these heterotypic synonyms. We are grateful to Nina Davies, Priscila Reis, Ana Rita Simões and Marie-Helene Weech (K), for facilitating the access to the specimen imagery catalogue at the RBG Kew Herbarium and acknowledge the contributions of John McNeill and John Wiersema in the revision and correction of the proposal.

Cupressaceae

10.1002/tax.13269

Cite

Citations (0)