Research Article
Print
Research Article
Lectotypification and nomenclature notes of the name Caragana opulens (Fabaceae, Papilionoideae) and its synonyms
expand article infoShabir A. Rather‡, Anand Kumar§, Hongmei Liu‡
‡ Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla, China
§ Central National Herbarium, Botanical Survey of India,, Howrah, India

Corresponding author: Shabir A. Rather ( shabir@xtbg.ac.cn )

Academic editor: Patrick Herendeen
© 2023 Shabir A. Rather, Anand Kumar, Hongmei Liu.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation: Rather SA, Kumar A, Liu H (2023) Lectotypification and nomenclature notes of the name Caragana opulens (Fabaceae, Papilionoideae) and its synonyms. PhytoKeys 226: 79-87. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.226.104110
Open Access

Abstract

Morphological characters currently used to differentiate Caragana opulens as a species have been found to be insufficient and inconsistent. Through extensive research and comparisons of specimens, it has been revealed that C. opulens and its synonyms have overlapping geographical distributions, and that typification is necessary for C. opulens. Therefore, a lectotype is designated for the name C. opulens, with comments on its typification. Additionally, the current typification status is discussed for all its synonyms, accompanied by substantive notes.

Keywords

Lectotype, Leguminosae, opulens complex, overlapping traits, taxonomy

Introduction

The legume genus Caragana Fabr. (Fabaceae, Papilionoideae) is ecologically and pharmacologically important, comprising approximately 100 species distributed in temperate arid and semi-arid areas of the Northern Hemisphere (Polhill 1981; Zhang et al. 2009; Rather et al. 2021). China alone hosts more than 70% of the species diversity of these legumes, with about 66 species (Li and Ni 1985). The Euro-Asian range, which includes 80 species, extends towards Japan, Korea, and Siberia in the north and northeast, towards Central Asia and Europe in the west, and along the Himalaya towards Northern India, Bhutan, and Nepal in the south (Polhill 1981; Lock 2005; Liu et al. 2010; Rather et al. 2021).

Identifying closely related species in Caragana has been challenging through the alpha taxonomic approach, as some species have overlapping morphological traits. One such case is of the C. opulens species complex, consisting of three species, namely C. opulens, C. kansuensis and C. licentiana. Although diagnostic characters have been identified, such as ovary/fruit pubescence, leaf shape, bract shape, and leaf pubescence, these traits have been found to be variable and labile (Moore et al. 2010). To make matters worse, several specimens housed in major herbaria in China have been misidentified (Zhao 1993). Extensive investigation of literature and comparison of specimens has revealed that these species have overlapping geographical distribution and require lectotypification.

During our ongoing revisionary studies of the genus Caragana in the Pan-Himalaya region, we found the typification of C. opulens Kom. requires clarification by designating a lectotype. By carefully studying the protologue and the material arguably studied by Komarov, we designated the lectotype for the above name. Furthermore, we discussed the types of all synonyms of this species, including C. kansuensis Pojark., C. licentiana Hand.-Mazz., C. opulens var. angustifolia Y.Z. Zhao ex Zhao Y. Chang & F.C. Shi., C. opulens var. perforata Merrgen & Ma., and C. opulens var. trichophylla Z.H. Gao & S.C. Zhang. Nomenclatural notes discussing the selection of type specimens are given for each name, and known isotypes are also cited.

Material and method

This study is based on the examination of relevant literature on the floristics of China and adjacent nations, and the examination of specimens held in the following herbaria: LE, P, PE, and W (Brach and Song 2006). We made special efforts to examine material studied by Komorov by reaching out to the curators of the Komarov Botanical Institute (LE) and the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien (W) to inquire about the availability of type specimens. To select types, we compared images and specimens with protologues, and the most complete and representative specimens were selected as lectotype for the name, according to Art. 9.3 of the “Shenzhen Code” (Turland et al. 2018).

Taxonomic treatment

Types of Caragana opulens and its synonyms

Caragana opulens Kom., Trudy Imp. S.-Peterburgsk. Bot. Sada. 29: 208. 1908.

Type

China. Kansu: Bara-Topra, 26 April 1880, N.M. Przewalski 42 (lectotype LE [barcode LE01024209, image!], designated here, Fig. 1). Remaining syntypes: China. Kansu: Bara-Topra, 11 May 1880, N.M. Przewalski s.n. (LE [barcode LE01024210, image!]). China. Thibet [Tibet]: route de Lhassa à Batang, May 1890, Henry D’Orléans s.n. (P [barcode P02767097, image!]).

Figure 1. 

Lectotype of Caragana opulens Kom. (LE01024209). Komarov Botanical Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia (LE).

Caragana licentiana Hand.-Mazz., Oesterr. Bot. Z. 82: 249. 1933.

Type

China. Kansu, 16 June 1918, Licent 3932 (holotype W [barcode W0196552, image!, Fig. 2]; isotypes K [barcode K000511783, image!], P [barcode P02767130, image!]). China. Kansu: Kiangra, 9 October 1918, Licent 4908 (paratypes W [barcode W0016458, image!], P [barcode P02767129, image!]).

Figure 2. 

Holotype of Caragana licentiana Hand.-Mazz. (W0196552). Natural History Museum, Vienna-Herbarium (W).

Caragana kansuensis Pojark., Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. Komarova Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R. 13: 138. 1950.

Type

China. Kansu [Gansu]: Tjan-lo-ba dicto, 14 July 1908, S. Czetyrkin s.n. (holotype LE [barcode LE01024198, image!, Fig. 3]).

Figure 3. 

Holotype of Caragana kansuensis Pojark. (LE01024198) Komarov Botanical Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia (LE).

Caragana opulens var. perforata Merrgen & Ma, Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Intramongol. 20: 554. 1989.

Type

China. Nei Mongol: Hohhot, Daqing Shan, 31 May 1973, Y.C. Ma & C.J. Wu 32 (holotype HIMC [barcode HIMC0017878, image!] [https://www.cvh.ac.cn/spms/detail.php?id=e33a1be3]). Paratypes: China. Nei Mongol: Baotou, Wudang Zhao, 8 July 1959, Y.C. Ma et al. 4-47 (HIMC [barcode HIMC0017877, image!]). China. Ulanqab Meng, Helinger, 19 July 1959, Y.C. Ma et al. 1-173 (HIMC [barcode HIMC0017879, image!]).

Caragana opulens var. trichophylla Z.H. Gao & S.C. Zhang, Bull. Bot. Res., Harbin 9(3): 63. 1989.

Type

China. Gansu: Minqinxian (Cultivated in Garden of Minqin Desert Botanica), 13 May 1988, Z.H. Gao & S.C. Zhang 88001 (MQ, n.v.). Paratype: China. Gansu: Qilianshan, Qilianlinchang, Z.H. Gao 86002 (MQ, n.v.).

Caragana opulens var. angustifolia Y.Z. Zhao ex Zhao Y. Chang & F.C. Shi, Bull. Bot. Res., Harbin 31: 136. 2011.

Type

China. Shaanxi: Suide, Jiuyuangou, near Wujiapan, 20 May 1956, Huanghe Exped. 6879 (holotype WUK [barcode WUK0086537, image!] [https://www.cvh.ac.cn/spms/detail.php?id=bfd87e11]; isotype PE [barcode PE00180919, image!]). Paratypes: China. Shanxi: Wuzhai, Hanjialou, on a slope, alt. 1400 m, 13 June 1965, J.X. Yang 3303 (WUK [barcode WUK024889, image!], HNWP [barcode HNWP86481, image!]). China. Shanxi province: Xingxian, Caijiaya, on a slope, 22 August 1955, Huanghe Exped. 2074 (PE [barcode PE01580673, image!]) China. Shaanxi: Yanchuan, near Suyahe, alt. 580 m, 5 September 1955, K.T. Fu 7857 (WUK, n.v.).

Nomenclature notes

Caragana opulens was described by the famous Russian botanist Vladimir Leontyevich Komarov (1869–1945) in 1908, who cited accessions from three major provinces: Gansu, Mongolia, and Tibet (Komarov 1908). The protologue included a total of eleven accessions, including four syntypes from Mongolia, six from Gansu, and one from Tibet. We were able to retrieve three specimens, namely two specimens at LE and one at P. Additionally, we found one specimen at PE with a label indicating ‘Paratypus’, but it lacked any herbarium collection label. Most importantly, there was no annotation by Komarov. Thus, no evidence supported that Komarov studied this specimen when he described C. opulens. Therefore, we excluded this specimen from our study. As Komarov worked at St. Peterburg, many accessions studied by him are expected to be held at the institute now named after him, the Komarov Botanical Institute at St. Petersburg, Russia (LE). Therefore, we gave preference to designate a lectotype from the collection maintained at LE. Two syntype specimens were present at LE, but the specimen was collected by the Russian explorer N.M. Przewalski (1839–1888) from Gansu, with the barcode number LE01024209, was the closest match to the protologue. Additionally, the specimen also bore pencil line drawings of dissected parts of flowers and fruit. Although the specimen bore the annotation ‘Lectotypus’ by N. Imch, this designation was never published. Here, we proposed to accept N. Imch’s selection and designated this specimen as the lectotype of Caragana opulens, according to Art. 9.3 of the “Shenzhen Code” (Turland et al. 2018).

In 1933, the Austrian botanist Heinrich Raphael Eduard Handel-Mazzetti (1882–1940) described Caragana licentiana Hand.-Mazz. based on two collections, Licent 3932 and Licent 4908, from the Gansu Province of China (Handel-Mazzetti 1933). In the protologue, Licent 3932 was cited as the type. Furthermore, Handel-Mazzetti (1931) stated, “Die Exemplare befinden sich im Herbar des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien” [The specimens are in the Herbarium of the Natural History Museum in Vienna]. We corresponded with the curator of the W and received one image of Licent 3932 and one image of Licent 4908. Thus, the holotype Licent 3932 was confirmed to be housed at W, while the duplicates at K and P represented isotypes. Licent 4908 housed at W and P were assigned to be paratypes.

The name Caragana kansuensis Pojark. was described based on a collection by S. Czetyrkin obtained from the Gansu Province of China (Pojarkova 1950). We traced a single specimen of S. Czetyrkin at LE bearing Pojarkova’s annotation ‘Caragana kansuensis sp. nov.’ in her own handwriting. The specimen also comprised the dissected parts of flowers. Each and every part of the drawing of the protologue was also prepared from this specimen by the author. Therefore, we found conclusive evidence that this specimen represented the holotype.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Dr. Irina Illarionova, Dr. Alisa Grabovskaya, and Dr. Leonid Averyanov at the Komarov Botanical Institute (RAS), Herbarium of Higher Plants (LE), St. Petersburg, Russia, for providing us with the high-resolution images of type specimens. We also thank Dr. Christian Bräuchler and Dr. Heimo Rainer of the Natural History Museum, Vienna-Herbarium (W), for granting us access to the highly valuable specimens held in their herbarium. The second author (AK) is thankful to the Director of the Botanical Survey of India (BSI) and the Head of Office, Central National Herbarium, BSI, for providing the facilities. We would also like to express our gratitude to Prof. Harald Schneider for reviewing the manuscript and improving its quality. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and suggestions.

We acknowledge the financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 32250410305) and the Yunnan Postdoctoral Research Project funded by the Yunnan Science and Technology Department (Grant No. Y8BSH11008) for this study.

References

  • Brach AR, Song H (2006) eFloras: New directions for online floras exemplified by the Flora of China Project. Taxon 55(1): 188–192. https://doi.org/10.2307/25065540
  • Komarov VL (1908) Prolegomena ad floras Chinae nec non Mongoliae. Generis Caraganae mongraphia. Cum 16 tabulis et icone in textu. Trudy Imperatorskago S.-. Peterburgskago Botaniceskago Sada 29: 179–388.
  • Li PC, Ni CC (1985) Chesneya and Gueldenstaedtia. In: Wu CY (Ed.) Flora Xizangica. Science Press, Beijing, 789–797.
  • Liu YX, Chang ZY, Yakovlev GP (2010) Caragana. In: Wu ZY, Hong DY, Raven PH (Eds) Flora of China (Vol. 10). Science Press, Beijing & Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St Louis, 528–545.
  • Lock JM (2005) Tribe Hedysareae. In: Lewis G, Schrire B, MacKinder B, Lock M (Eds) Legumes of the World. Kew Publishing, London, 489–495.
  • Moore MJ, Soltis PS, Bell CD, Burleigh JG, Soltis DE (2010) Phylogenetic analysis of 83 plastid genes further resolves the early diversification of eudicots. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(10): 4623–4628. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907801107
  • Pojarkova AI (1950) Araliaceae. Flora USSR (Vol. 16). Moscow–Leningrad, 646 pp.
  • Polhill RM (1981) Carmichaelieae, Galegeae, and Hedysareae. In: Polhill RM, Raven PH (Eds) Advances in Legume Systematics, part. 1. Royal Botanic Garden, Kew, 357–370.
  • Rather SA, Wang S, Dwivedi MD, Chang ZY (2021) Molecular phylogeny and systematic evaluationof the Caragana opulens species complex (Fabaceae, Papilionoideae) based on molecular and morphological data. Phytotaxa 478(2): 179–200. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.478.2.1
  • Turland NJ, Wiersema JH, Barrie FR, Greuter W, Hawksworth DL, Herendeen PS, Knapp S, Kusber WH, Li DZ, Marhold K, May TW, Mcneill J, Monro AM, Prado J, Price MJ, Smith GF (2018) International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) adopted by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress, Shenzhen, China, July 2017. Regnum Vegetabile 159. Koeltz Botanical Books, Glashütten, 254 pp. https://doi.org/10.12705/Code.2018
  • Zhang ML, Fritsch PW, Cruz BC (2009) Phylogeny of Caragana (Fabaceae) based on DNA sequence data from rbcL, trnS–trnG, and ITS. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 50(3): 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2008.12.001
  • Zhao YZ (1993) Taxonomic study of the genus Caragana from China. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Intramongolicae 24: 631–653.
login to comment