(2675) Proposal to conserve Alectoria fuscescens ( Bryoria fuscescens ), nom. cons., against the additional names Usnea implexa , Alectoria capillaris , A. cana , A. rubens , A. fuscidula , A. degenii , A. forissii , A. ostrobotniae , A. kuemmerleana , A. haynaldiae , A. achariana , A. lanestris , A. prostratosteola , and A. viridescens ( Fungi , Ascomycota , Lecanorales , Parmeliaceae )

Full text

(2675) Proposal to conserve Alectoria fuscescens (Bryoria fuscescens), nom.
cons., against the additional names Usnea implexa,Alectoria capillaris,A. cana,
A. rubens,A. fuscidula,A. degenii,A. forissii,A. ostrobotniae,A. kuemmerleana,
A. haynaldiae,A. achariana,A. lanestris,A. prostratosteola, and A. viridescens
(Fungi,Ascomycota,Lecanorales,Parmeliaceae)
David L. Hawksworth,
1
Teuvo Ahti,
2
Leena Myllys
2
& Carlos G. Boluda
3
1Comparative Plant and Fungal Biology, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Surrey TW9 3DS, U.K.; and Department of Life Sciences, The
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.
2Botanical Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History LUOMUS, P.O. Box 7, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
3Unité de Phylogénie et Génetique moléculaires, Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques, 1292 Chambésy, Geneva, Switzerland
Address for correspondence: David L. Hawksworth: d.hawksworth@kew.org
DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12037
(2675)
Alectoria fuscescens Gyeln. in Nyt Mag. Naturvidensk. 70:
55. 25 Jan 1932 (‘1931’), nom. cons. (Bryoria fuscescens
(Gyeln.) Brodo & D. Hawksw.).
Typus: Finland, Tavastia austr., Hollola, ad truncos Pini
locis apricioribus in silva, 18 Sep 1882, Norrlin in Norrlin
& Nylander, Herb. Lich. Fenn. [exs.] No. 466a (BP No.
33947; isotypi: BM, CANL Nos. 29907 & 32345, H
barcodes H9500263 & H9511272). Epitypus (vide Boluda
& al. in Persoonia 42: 87. 2018): Finland, Etelä-Savo,
Savitaipale, 600 m NW of Mustapää, Picea forest near
Tikkioja, on twigs of Picea abies, 61.1721° N, 27.6900° E,
2005, Myllys 464 (H barcode H9209715).
(=)
Lichen chalybeiformis L., Sp. Pl.: 1155. 1 Mai 1753
(nom. cons.) (Bryoria chalybeiformis (L.) Brodo & D.
Hawksw.), nom. rej.
Typus: Herb. Linnaeus No. 1273.291 (LINN) (typ. cons.).
(=)
Usnea implexa Hoffm., Deutschl. Fl. 2: 134. 1796 (Bryoria
implexa (Hoffm.) Brodo & D. Hawksw.), nom. rej. prop.
Neotypus (vide Hawksworth in Taxon 18: 395. 1969):
Hoffmann 8569 (MW).
(=)
Alectoria capillaris (Ach.) Cromb. in J. Bot. 9: 177. 1 Jun
1871 (Parmelia jubata var. capillaris Ach., Methodus:
273. Jan–Apr 1803) (Bryoria capillaris (Ach.) Brodo &
D. Hawksw.), nom. rej. prop.
Lectotypus (vide Hawksworth in Taxon 18: 393. 1969):
Suecia (H-ACH No. 1799A [barcode H9503990]).
(=)
Alectoria cana (Ach. ex Westr.) Leight., Lich. Fl. Gr. Brit.:
88. 1 Sep 1871 (Lichen jubatus [unranked] canus Ach. ex
Westr., Sv. Lafv. Färghist.: 185. 1807), nom. rej. prop.
Lectotypus (hic designatus, IF 556317): [icon in]
Westring, Sv. Lafv. Färghist.: t. [14], fig. B. 1807.
(=)
Alectoria rubens (Kernst.) Gyeln. in Folia Cryptog. 1:
598. 2 Mai 1928 (Alectoria cana f. rubens Kernst. in
Verh. K. K. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 42: 341. 1892), nom.
rej. prop.
Lectotypus (vide Hawksworth in Taxon 18: 394. 1969):
Italy, “Tirolia, ad ramulos Abietum in sylva versus montem
Roën in jugo Mendel”,Arnold 1339 [Zahlbruckner, Krypt.
Exs. Vindob. No. 1048] (W; isolectotypus: BM).
(=)
Alectoria fuscidula (Arnold) Vain. in Ann. Acad. Sci.
Fenn., Ser. A, 27(6b): 70. 1928 (Alectoria cana f.
fuscidula Arnold, Lich. Exs. Nos. 914a, 914b. 1882)
(Bryoria fuscidula (Arnold) Bystrek), nom. rej. prop.
Lectotypus (vide Hawksworth in Lichenologist 5: 211.
1972): Italy, “Südtirol, an dünnen Zweigen einer Pinus
Cembra am oberen Waldsaume gegen den Vocche See bei
Paneveggio”, 30 Jul 1882, Arnold in Arnold, Lich. Exs.
No. 914a (M; isolectotypi: BM, H barcode H9511275, H-
NYL No. 35921 [barcode H9511274]).
(=)
Alectoria degenii Szatala in Magyar Bot. Lapok 29: 96.
1930, nom. rej. prop.
Lectotypus (vide Hawksworth in Taxon 18: 394. 1969):
Bulgaria, “Čepelarska planina, in jugo “Čepelare”, supra
corticem Piceae excelsae”, alt. ca. 1600 m, 4 Jun 1929,
Szatala (BP No. 33940; isolectotypi: BP No. 33941, H
barcode H9511282).
(=)
Alectoria subcana (Nyl. ex Stizenb.) Gyeln. in Magyar Bot.
Lapok 30: 54. 22 Mai 1931 (A. prolixa var. subcana Nyl.
ex Stizenb. in Ann. K. K. Naturhist. Hofmus. 7: 129.
1892) (Bryoria subcana (Nyl. ex Stizenb.) Brodo & D.
Hawksw.), nom. rej.
Lectotypus (vide Hawksworth in Lichenologist 5: 249.
1972): Scotland, Ben Lawers, 1873, Crombie (H-NYL
No. 35835 [barcode H9511273]; isolectotypi: BM bar-
codes BM000974527 & BM000974528).
(=)
Alectoria forissii Gyeln. in Magyar Bot. Lapok. 30: 53. 22
Mai 1931, nom. rej. prop.
Lectotypus (vide Hawksworth in Taxon 18: 394. 1969):
France, Hautes-Pyrénées, sur sapins, Aug 1927, Jeanjean
(BP No. 33946).
© 2019 International Association for Plant Taxonomy.
TAXON 68 (2) •April 2019: 400–402Hawksworth & al. •(2675) Conserve Alectoria fuscescens
PROPOSALS TO CONSERVE OR REJECT NAMES
Edited by John McNeill, Scott A. Redhead & John H. Wiersema
400

(=)
Alectoria ostrobotniae Gyeln. in Magyar Bot. Lapok 30: 54.
22 Mai 1931, nom. rej. prop.
Holotypus: Finland, “Ob., Simo, kuusella”[= on Picea], 15
Jun 1915, Räsänen (BP No. 33956; isotypus H barcode
H9500279).
(=)
Alectoria kuemmerleana Gyeln. in Magyar Bot. Lapok 30:
54. 22 Mai 1931 (‘kümmerleana’)(Bryoria kuemmerleana
(Gyeln.) Brodo & D. Hawksw.), nom. rej. prop.
Holotypus: Slovakia, “Hungaria, Com. Szepes, fenyveserdő
alomalján, a “Stösschen”lejtöjén a Magas Tátrában, ca.
1380 m”, 17 Jul 1917, Timkó 3264 (BP No. 33952).
(=)
Alectoria haynaldiae Gyeln. in Nyt Mag. Naturvidensk. 70:
49. 25 Jan 1932 (‘1931’)(‘haynaldii’), nom. rej. prop.
Holotypus: Slovakia, “Hungaria, Csorbai erdőből”, 20 Jul
1883, Amália Haynald (BP No. 33949).
(=)
Alectoria achariana Gyeln. in Nyt Mag. Naturvidensk. 70:
54. 25 Jan 1932 (‘1931’), nom. rej. prop.
Holotypus: Hungary, Fenyőn, “D. Tomnatecului”nyugati
oldalában a Kudzsiri havasokban Hunyad megyében,
1320 m, Fóriss 2425 (?BP deest).
(=)
Alectoria lanestris (Ach.) Gyeln. in Nyt Mag. Naturvidensk.
70: 58. 25 Jan 1932 (‘1931’)(Alectoria jubata var. lanestris
Ach., Lichenogr. Universalis: 593. Apr–Mai 1810) (Bryoria
lanestris (Ach.) Brodo & D. Hawksw.), nom. rej. prop.
Lectotypus (vide Hawksworth in Lichenologist 5: 222.
1972, ‘holotype’): Helvetia, [Schleicher 926] (H-ACH No.
1808A [barcode H9503032]).
(=)
Alectoria prostratosteola Gyeln. in Nyt Mag. Naturvidensk.
70: 58. 25 Jan 1932 (‘1931’), nom. rej. prop.
Lectotypus (vide Gyelnik, Ann. Mus. Natl. Hung. 32: 156.
1939): Hungaria, Com. Esztergom, Fraxinus korhadt
tuskóján a Keserűs-hegy Vadálló-köveknél, Dömös
mellett, 400 m, 18 Jul 1914, Timkó (BP).
(=)
Alectoria viridescens Gyeln. in Nyt Mag. Naturvidensk. 70:
50. 25 Jan 1932 (‘1931’), nom. rej. prop.
Holotypus: Russia, “Fennia, Karelia ladogensis, Sortavala,
Kirjavalahti, Vaaralahti (“Vaalavahti”), ad piceam”, 7 Jun
1923, Linkola (BP No. 33964; isotypus: H barcode
H9500207).
Alectoria fuscescens, the basionym of Bryoria fuscescens (Gyeln.)
Brodo & D. Hawksw. (in Opera Bot. 42: 83. 1977) has already been
conserved against Lichen chalybeiformis (with a conserved type) and
A. subcana (Nyl. ex Stizenb.) Gyeln. (A. prolixa var. subcana Nyl.
ex Stizenb.). That proposal was made by Hawksworth & Jørgensen
(in Taxon 62: 1057. 2013), recommended for approval by the Nomen-
clature Committee for Fungi with a 75% vote in favour (May in Taxon
66: 483–495. 2017), and accepted at the XIX IBC in Shenzhen (Wilson
in Taxon 66: 743. 2017; Turland & al. in Taxon 66: 1236. 2017).
A comprehensive multi-authored molecular study of this com-
plex using five genes and data from 18 microsatellite markers revealed
a mismatch between phenotypes and genotypes, and concluded that
the current taxonomy based on chemical components, thallus colour,
and some minor morphological features could not be upheld, and
the currently accepted 11 species should be reduced to just 4 (Boluda
& al. in Persoonia 42: 75–100. 2018).
In order to irrefutably fix the application of names in this com-
plex, molecular sequence data are essential, which would require
epitypification by sequenced specimens of all pertinent species epi-
thets. While this has not been done for the species names proposed
for rejection above, we consider it unlikely that this would place them
elsewhere on the basis of what is known of their chemical products
and morphological characters. It is therefore prudent to propose their
rejection in order to safeguard the epithet of the already conserved
name Alectoria fuscescens.
We considered taking up the earliest species name in the com-
plex, but that would have meant resurrecting the rejected Lichen
chalybeiformis and typifying it with a sequenced epitype as only
Alectoria fuscescens is conserved over that name. The epithets of
Lichen chalybeiformis, and also the two other earliest species rank
names in the complex, Usnea implexa and Alectoria capillaris, are
all traditionally linked to particular suites of morphologies and chem-
ical products (e.g., Hawksworth in Taxon 18: 393–399. 1969; Brodo
& Hawksworth in Opera Bot. 42: 1–165. 1977; Myllys & al. in Nordic
Lich. Fl. 4: 36–37. 2011; Velmala & al. in Ann. Bot. Fenn. 51: 345–
371. 2014; Myllys & al. in Bryologist 119: 29–38. 2016), and so their
use could indicate that reference was being made to a taxon with their
traditionally diagnostic features. This would be less of an issue in
persisting with Bryoria fuscescens as material referred to it has actu-
ally already been reported as including several chemotypes
(Hawksworth & al. in Bull. Brit. Lichen Soc. 109: 9–11. 2011; Myllys
& al. in Lichenologist 43: 617–638. 2011; Boluda & al. in Lichenol-
ogist 47: 279–286. 2015); as a result, many records will have unwit-
tingly already included other chemotypes than the fumarprocetraric
acid one represented by its lecto- and epitypes.
We concluded that the addition of a further 14 names to those
over which Alectoria fuscescens is already conserved best serves no-
menclatural stability. Amongst these names, are ones that have long
been regarded as synonyms of the species being newly synonymized.
This act avoids the possibility of any of those names being taken up
through new epitypifications to threaten other species names in the
complex. The proposal does not, however, preclude any of the addi-
tional names proposed here for rejection from being taken up in
future should fresh molecular work indicate that they should be treated
as distinct from A. fuscescens.
The names Alectoria subachariana Gyeln. (in Acta Fauna Fl.
Universali, Ser. 2, Bot. 1(1): 4. 1932; holotype: BP No. 33963) and
A. vrangiana Gyeln. (in Magyar Bot. Lapok 31: 46. 31 May 1932;
holotype: BP No. 33967) are not proposed for rejection here as these
were published after 25 Jan 1932. Further, the name Alectoria
rubescens Anders (Strauch- & Laubflechten Mitteleur.: 181.
Nov–Dec 1928; ascribed to “Kernstock”) is also omitted as this was
evidently intended to be a raising of Kernstock’sA. cana f. rubens
Kernst. (see above) to species rank with an intentional or unintentional
change in orthography, but Gyelnik had already made the combination
in May 1928 so Anders’name is superfluous and illegitimate (Art. 52.1
of the ICN; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018).
The interpretations or typifications provided for three of the
names treated above merit further explanation:
(1) The interpretation of the rank of “Usnea implexa”and similar
names in Hoffmann’sDeutschlands Flora of 1796 has been a long-
standing cause of debate. Some appeared in parentheses in small type
TAXON 68 (2) •April 2019: 400–402 Hawksworth & al. •(2675) Conserve Alectoria fuscescens
401

blocks of text under numbered accepted species, as in this case, while
others appear as if a new entry but with no number (e.g., Usnea
ramulosa). Hawksworth (in Taxon 18: 395. 1969) argued that
because Hoffmann explained that he used parentheses when he was
unsure of the rank to apply on the fourth (unnumbered) page of his
“Vorbericht”, the name should be regarded as an unranked “taxon
vagum”, although the Taxon Editor at the time decided to list it as
of species rank in the final publication. In section “P4”of the
unpaginated Index, however, not discussed in 1969, the name is listed
in an identical way to all other species names in the work, and that can
be interpreted as a clear indication of species rank. The name is there-
fore now accepted as validly published at species rank in 1796.
(2) There is a discrepancy in date and locality information given
for the lectotype specimen of Alectoria jubata var. subcana, H-NYL
35835, when selected by Hawksworth (in Lichenologist 5: 249.
1972) and those presented here and in App. IV of the Shenzhen Code
(available as an online searchable database at https://botany.si.edu/
references/codes/props/). The specimen just has the words “Anglia ?
Scotia ? misit Crombie 1875”, and the date of 1875 given in 1972
was therefore when it was sent to Nylander (“misit Crombie 1875”)
and not a collection date. The earlier 1873 date and the additional lo-
cality information were based on the material in BM dated 1873 and
that has the locality name Ben Lawers which was cited by Crombie
(in J. Bot. 14: 360. 1876) when the name first appeared in print and
said to be “on the trunks of old firs”. In validating the varietal name,
Stizenberger (l.c.) stated “Schottland (an alten Coniferenstämmen):
Crombie”which we interpret as citing a duplicate of the 1873
Crombie material and so making the H-NYL specimen acceptable as
a lectotype (Art. 9.4).
(3) The selection of a specimen from France as “lectotype”for the
name Alectoria jubata var. cana by Hawksworth (in Taxon 18: 393.
1969) was based on the understanding that the varietal epithet was first
published by Acharius (in Lichenogr. Universalis: 593. 1810). He
overlooked the fact that the varietal epithet was actually taken from a
usage by Acharius in an earlier book by Westring on Swedish lichens
used for dyeing and that included an illustration that has to be regarded
as original material and so is designated above as lectotype.
Author information
DLH, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9909-0776;
TA, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7549-0962
Acknowledgement
We are deeply indebted to John McNeill for his painstaking scru-
tiny, editing, and advice on interpretations in several entries in this
proposal. DLH wishes he had had the benefit of John’s insights when
first publishing on the nomenclature and making typifications in this
complex 50 years ago.
(2676) Proposal to conserve the name Lepisorus nom. cons. against the
additional name Macroplethus (Polypodiaceae)
Jaideep Mazumdar
Department of Biological Sciences, Burdwan Town School, Burdwan 713101, India
Address for correspondence: Jaideep Mazumdar, jaideepmazumdar10@gmail.com
DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12038
(2676)
Lepisorus (J. Sm.) Ching in Bull. Fan Mem. Inst. Biol. 4:
56. 1933 (Drynaria [unranked] Lepisorus J. Sm. in Bot.
Mag. 72(Comp.): 13. 1846), nom. cons.
Typus: Drynaria sesquipedalis J. Sm., nom. illeg.
(Pleopeltis nuda Hook., L. nudus (Hook.) Ching).
(=)
Macroplethus C. Presl, Epimel. Bot.: 141. Oct 1851; in
Abh. Königl. Böhm. Ges. Wiss., ser. 5, 6: 501. Oct 1851,
nom. rej. prop.
Typus: M. platyrhynchos (Kunze) C. Presl (Hymenolepis
platyrhynchos Kunze).
The paleotropical fern genus Lepisorus (J. Sm.) Ching (in Bull.
Fan Mem. Inst. Biol. 4: 56. 1933) is currently represented by about
60–70 species widely distributed in tropical Africa and Asia, but most
diversified in subtropical Asia, one species extending to Hawaii
(Wang & al. in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 162: 28–38. 2010a).
Based on convincing molecular phylogenetic results (Kreier & al.
in Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 48: 1155–1167. 2008; Wang & al. in Molec.
Phylogen. Evol. 54: 211–225. 2010b), Wang & al. (l.c. 2010a) merged
Belvisia Mirb. (in Lamarck & Mirbel, Hist. Nat. Vég. 3: 473, 5: 111.
1802), Paragramma (Blume) T. Moore (Index Filic.: xxxii. 1857)
and Drymotaenium Makino (in Bot. Mag. (Tokyo) 15: 102. 1901) un-
der a broadly circumscribed Lepisorus. Due to the priority of these ear-
lier names, Hovenkamp & al. (in Taxon 60: 591–592. 2011) proposed
to conserve the name Lepisorus against Belvisia,Paragramma and
Drymotaenium. Their proposal was accepted (Applequist in Taxon
61: 1111. 2012; Wilson in Taxon 65: 381. 2016) and is now included
in the online Appendices to the ICN (http://botany.si.edu/references/
codes/props/).
However, Hovenkamp & al. (l.c.) overlooked the existence of an-
other earlier name, Macroplethus C. Presl (Epimel. Bot.: 141. 1851; in
Abh. Königl. Böhm. Ges. Wiss., ser. 5, 6: 501. 1851; apparently pub-
lished simultaneously) for which Macroplethus platyrhynchos
(Kunze) C. Presl (Hymenolepis platyrhynchos Kunze) was the only
species name included in the protologue and hence is the original
type of the generic name. This species was included in Belvisia
TAXON 68 (2) •April 2019: 402–403Mazumdar •(2676) Conserve Lepisorus
402