Search

Eleven lectotypes and one neotype are designated for the names of the 12 Latin American species in the genus Fossombronia Raddi that have not been previously typified. The entries for each are given in alphabetical order with author citation, place and date of publication, herbarium of deposit and supporting information. The original protologue and images of the herbarium label for each type specimen can be viewed at the URL .

Lectotypes are explicitly designated for 43 taxa in the genus Fossombronia Raddi, with neotypes designated for F. mauritanica Trab. and F. pusilla var. β capitata Nees. One name, F. pumila Dumort, is regarded as an orthographic error not based upon a specimen and thus, cannot be typified. The entries are listed alphabetically, each with the correct author citation, place of publication, and the herbarium of deposit. In addition, supporting comments are given for most selections. Fossombronia caespitiformis De Not. ex Rabenh. var. multispira Schiffn. is elevated to the rank of subspecies. Images of all type specimen labels may be viewed at: http://bryophytes.plant.siu.edu/fossombronia.html

Correct author citation for Grimmia alpestris is (Weber & Mohr) Schleich. This combination was effectively and validly published in 1808. Grimmia sudetica Schwaegr., formerly proposed as the correct name for this taxon, is illegitimate and the selected lectotype is in conflict with the protologue, and must be discarded. Geissler and Maier (1995) recently published some new lectotypifications of European Grimmia. The authors proposed Grimmia sudetica Schwaegr as the correct name for the well known G. alpestris (Weber & Mohr) DC., and selected as lectotype of the name a specimen of Schleicher's Plantae Cryptogamicae Helveticae, Centuria 2, no 13 (sub Grimmia alpestris) housed in G. They pointed out that G. alpestris (Weber & Mohr) DC. is illegitimate because it was nomenclaturally superfluous when published (ICBN 52.1), and must either be replaced or proposed for conservation. To justify the replacement, and not its conservation, Geissler and Maier attempted to demonstrate that the species in the G. donniana-G. alpestris group were not well understood by 19th century authors and the names' instability does not justify conservation. But this is correct only in part. Most species in the group were described in the first quarter of the past century, and fully recognized in Bryologia Europaea (Bruch & Schimper 1845). After this work, G. alpestris, both name and taxon, have had an independent and stable existence. After 1845, any work dealing with this species has invariably employed the name Grimmia alpestris. An extensive, but not exhaustive list of references includes De Notaris (1869), Lesquereux and James (1884), Limpricht (1889), Loeske (1913, 1930), Minkemeyer (1927), and Miuller (1849). Only in the last twenty years the name employed in North America has been G. tenerrima Renauld & Cardot, following the concepts of Crum et al. (1973) and Anderson et al. (1990). Reasons for this view can be found in Crum and Anderson (1981). Taking into account that most literature on mosses has been published after 1845, one can conclude that Grimmia alpestris has a long and respectable history, and its replacement by the completely unknown G. sudetica must be avoided if at all possible. In regards to the name Grimmia sudetica, chosen by Geissler and Maier (1995) as correct, there are Present address: Missouri Botanical Garden, P.O. Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299, U.S.A. two problems. First, Schwaegrichen (1811) listed in the synonymy of G. sudetica two earlier names, G. alpestris Schleich. and G. donniana Sm. for the latter name, Schwaegrichen copied the diagnostic phrase employed by Weber and Mohr (1807) to describe the plant: "G. donniana foliis elliptico-lanceolatis: sporangio ovata, seta longiuscula" and quoted these authors. He then stated "Anglorum synonymicam plantam nondum vidi siccam," [I have not yet seen the plant of the English authors that is a synonym], from which one can conclude that he followed the description in Botanisches Taschenbuch and stated that his new plant is a synonym of G. donniana, rather than expressing doubt regarding the identification, as inferred by Geissler and Maier (1995). Grimmia sudetica Schwaegr. would be twice illegitimate, if it could be established that G. alpestris, also quoted in synonymy, is a legitimate name. Secondly, both the description and the plate in Schwaegrichen (1811) actually represent G. donniana Sm., as Geissler and Maier (1995) correctly recognized. For the purposes of lectotypification, the sample that best fits the protologue must be selected (Greuter et al. 1994; ICBN 9.10) and random or subjective selection must be avoided. I conclude, therefore that the name Grimmia sudetica must be discarded for two reasons 1) when published it was superfluous, and so, illegitimate (ICBN, 52.1), and 2) the lectotype is in serious conflict with the protologue (ICBN 9.13b). At this point, the origin of the problem still persists: Grimmia alpestris (Weber & Mohr) DC. is an illegitimate combination. But, contrary to Geissler and Maier's (1995) assertion, the name is illegitimate not because De Candolle cited G. sudetica as a synonym, but because he cited the actually legitimate G. donniana (De Candolle, 1815). The search for the correct name must start with Weber and Mohr (1807), where the basionym of the name was published. They described the plant as Trichostomum pulvinatum (Hedw.) Weber & Mohr var. alpestris Weber & Mohr, treating at va0007-2745/97/517-519$0.45/0 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.105 on Wed, 25 May 2016 06:46:55 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 518 THE BRYOLOGIST [VOL. 100 rietal rank the invalid name G. alpestris Schleich. (Schleicher 1806; actually published in 1805, title page dated 1806). If we want to maintain the name without conservation, a combination in the genus Grimmia previous to that of De Candolle must be found. After a review of the bryological literature published between 1807 and 1815, I realized that the best choice is also the most evident. Schleicher published four editions of his Catalogus Plantarum Helvetia (Schleicher 1800, 1808 [1807], 1815, 1821). These are only lists of names without descriptions, thus all names for new taxa are nomina nuda and invalid (ICBN 32.1c), but they are important sources for combinations. And this is exactly the case of G. alpestris. This name is employed in the second edition that was published in 1808 (title page dated 1807, Sayre 1959), and this can be considered the work where this combination is made. Notes on typification.-The protologue of Trichostomum pulvinatum var. alpestre Schleich. ex Weber & Mohr states "Grimm. alpestris Schleich. Cent. 2. n. 13 (in monte Sylvio ad rupes a Schleichero lecta) and Dicr. piliferum ej. 1. c. 4. n. 12. (in calidiorr. Vallesiae ad saxa inventum) In subalp., in rup. (in summo Bruct. ipsi legimus)." (Weber & Mohr, 1807). Therefore, the name can be typified with any of Schleicher's two exsiccat materials or with Weber and Mohr's own materials from Bructero mount. I have only searched for Schleicher's exsiccatae. I was able to locate three samples of Cent. 2, no 13 (BM, GOET, JE) and one of Cent. 4, no 12 (GOET). The samples in BM and JE are authentic G. alpestris. The GOET cent. 2, no 13 sample is G. sessitana De Not. and GOET cent. 4, no 12 is a mixture of G. laevigata (Brid.) Brid. and G. tergestina Bruch & Schimp. Geissler and Maier (1995) described the isolectotype housed in G (not seen, but description and drawings fitting G. alpestris in the sense of this paper) and discuss the main features that distinguish G. alpestris from other similar species. Maier and Geissler (1995) also provide a description and drawings (as G. sudetica). THE CORRECT NAME AND ITS TYPIFICATION Grimmia alpestris (Weber & Mohr) Schleich., Catalogus hucusque absolutus omnium plantarum in Helvetia cis and transalpina sponte nascentium, ed. 2: 29, 1807. Trichostomum pulvinatum var. alpestre Schleich. ex Weber & Mohr, Bot. Taschenbuch: 110. 1807. Protologue: "Grimm. alpestris Schleich. Cent. 2. n. 13 (in monte Sylvio ad rupes a Schleichero lecta) and Dicr. piliferum ej. I. c. 4. n. 12. (in calidiorr. Vallesiae ad saxa inventum) In subalp., in rup. (in summo Bruct. ipsi legimus)." TYPE: In M. Sylvio ad rupes [Schleicher, Plantae Cryptogamae Helvetiae, Centuria 2, no 13]. (BM!, lectotype nov.; JE!, isolectotype; G, fide Geissler & Maier, 1995). Grimmia alpestris Schleicher, Neues J. Bot. 1(2): 196. 1805. nom. nud. Campylopus pulvinatus var. alpestris (Weber & Mohr) Brid., Muscol. Recent. Suppl. 4: 75. 1819. Dryptodon pulvinatus var. alpestris (Weber & Mohr) Brid., Bryol. Univ. 1(1): 198. 1826. Grimmia donniana var. sudetica Hueb., Muscol. Germ. 175. 1833. Nom. illeg. incl. var. prior. Grimmia donniana var. alpestris (Weber & Mohr) Hampe, Flora 20: 281. 1837. Guembelia alpestris (Weber & Mohr) Hampe, Bot. Zeit. 4(8): 125. 1846. Grimmia alpestris var. eualpestris Loeske, Laubm. Eur. I. Grimmiaceae 101, Fig. 25b, 27a-c. 1913. nom. inval. (ICBN 24.3).