(2822) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Cachrys libanotis</i> ( <i>Umbelliferae</i> ) with a conserved type

(2822) Cachrys libanotis L., Sp. Pl.: 246. 1 Mai 1753 [Angiosp.: Umbell.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: Italy, Sicily, Trapani, pr. Érice, 30 2000, Güemes & al. JGH-3097 (VAL barcode VAL 119667!; isotypus: SALA 106653!), typ. The present proposal deals with the situation surrounding name L. (Sp. 1753) (Umbelliferae), which has been long used for a European species in sense not including its type. is type of generic and typification relevant establishing correct names to be included genus, either those otherwise referred Prangos Lindl. (in Quart. J. Sci. Lit. Arts 19: 7. 1825) or formerly Hippomarathrum Link (Enum. Hort. Berol. Alt. 1: 271. 1821) (see Gruenberg-Fertig Taxon 22: 425–434. 1973). In current usage, sensu Link, genus widely distributed Mediterranean basin. It endemic southern Europe, Asia northern Africa where it represented by five different (C. crassiloba (Boiss.) Meikle, C. cristata DC., libanotis, pungens Jan ex Guss., sicula L.) Pimenov Tikhomirov Feddes Repert. 94: 149. 1983; Lyskov Phytotaxa 299: 223–233. 2017). western region Spain, France, Italy (incl. Sicily Sardinia), extending Portugal Morocco (Tutin, Fl. Europ. 2: 343. 1968; El Alaoui Faris Ibn Tattou, Pract. Maroc 303. 2007; Pignatti, Ital., ed. 2, 3: 576. 2018). This shows leaves divided, lobes 5–10 × 1.5–2.5 mm, rigid, often dentate; bracts central umbel entire, simple sometimes 2–3-fid; rays 8–15; sepals present; fruit more than 10 mm long, 6–7 broad, dorsally non-compressed, covered irregular tubercules l.c.; Tikhomirov, Jury Castroviejo al., Iberica 10: 153. 2003). Linnaeus (l.c.) published providing short diagnosis “CACHRYS foliis pinnatis: foliolis acutis multifidis” cited from (Hort. Cliff.: 94. 1738), Van Royen (Fl. Leyd. Prodr.: 99. 1740), Sauvages (Meth. Fol.: no. 105 [on page 256]. 1751), followed two synonyms: “Cachrys semine fungoso sulcato plano minore, peucedani angustis” Morison (Pl. Hist. Univ. 267, sect. 9, t. 1, fig. 3 6. 1699) “Libanotis ferulae folio, anguloso” Bauhin (Pinax: 158. 1623). protologue includes loci classici “Habitat Sicilia, Monspelii”. provided illustrations, aspero Peucedani, Nobis” (l.c.: 3) sem. [semine] 6), can considered original material (images illustrations available at https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/viewer/14345/?offset=#page=753&viewer=picture&o=bookmark&n=0&q=). addition, there sheet Burser Herbarium UPS (Herb. VIII: [UPS-BURSER]) linked synonym under protologue; this specimen undoubtedly part below). Furthermore, Herbarium, specimen, Herb. Lugd. Bat. No. 908.260-772, L 902280 (with 0141116), bears only leaf. annotated base “Herb. van Royen” contains also label as “A Cachriis; / sulcato, plano, mayore, angustis. Mór. Umb. 624. Cachriis venior Libanotis Galeni. Lob. Ic. 783. Libano - tis cachryophoros quibusdam, floribus luteis B. 3. P. 40!” preserved Adriaan because worked A. consulted his herbarium preparation Leiden's Hortus Botanicus during stay city before departing Sweden 1738 (Jarvis, Order out Chaos: 2007). We have unable trace any further other Linnaean Linnaean-linked herbaria. first lectotype designation whole are described well detail (l.c. 1973), some differences regarding interpretation certain aspects possible ways solving problem. 1973: 431, 4) designated 30) Jarvis, l.c.: 371). four plant fragments: an mature fruits, separate leaf, leaf basal plant, stem immature umbels; Ferulae semini guloso Baúh. minor, Galeni Nom procul Monspeli monte”. However, identified belonging trifida Mill. (Gard. Dict., 8: 1. 1768), that over 250 years was unambiguously applied another but would become libanotis. At same time, illegitimate proposed conservation against earlier homonym G. Gaertn. (Oekon. Wetterau 249. 1799) 23: 438. 1974). Committee Spermatophyta (Brummitt 27: 286. 1978) did recommend proposal, dealing names, action based on refusal accept existing Cachrys: “The after detailed consideration committee concluded latter figure, tab. 6 Morison, pars. 3, selected proposers type.” contradicted one Prangos. Committee's view came accepted thereafter, usage revived, (Mill.) Herrnst. Heyn Boissiera 26: 58. 1977) replace A Herrnstadt illustration: Pl. Umbell.: 1672 (image illustration https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/viewer/12179/?offset=5#page=122&viewer=picture&o=bookmark&n=0&q=). statement does change fact Art. 9.19 Shenzhen Code (Turland Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) indeed (UPS)”. Under Leningrad Code, Article 8.1 (“8.1 author who designates neotype must followed, choice superseded if holotype or, case neotype, rediscovered; may shown upon misinterpretation protologue, made arbitrarily”; see Stafleu 97. 1978). no their accordance rules therefore effective. Sydney 1981 possibility supersession precise “if serious conflict protologue” Voss 111. 1983). As anguloso. Bauh. pin. 158” seen him (Gruenberg-Fertig l.c. 431) folio anguloso”, hardly even directly (cf. ICN 9 Note 7). preservation desirable, noting identifiable trifida, we consider better solution problem might reached applying 14.9 ICN. Therefore, conserved here. Thus, here propose complete well-preserved (barcode 119667) type, duplicate 106653). all diagnostic characters collected (Trapani, Érice), locality matches provenances mentioned Sicilia […]”. agrees position taken (Brummitt, l.c.), though ineffectively, preserve Link. Rejection undesirable consequence should currently known (≡ trifida), name, bocconii Boiss. as-yet-uncertain 1974), what called up now. PPFG, http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7595-9302 JFA, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9461-3008 thank Dr. John McNeill Wiersema advice, assistance, valuable comments improved proposal. Thanks Mats Hjertson (UPS), Javier Hernández García (SALA), Roxali Bijmoer (L) help study sheets, Leopoldo Medina (MA) several references.