Next Article in Journal
Recent Updates on ALMT Transporters’ Physiology, Regulation, and Molecular Evolution in Plants
Next Article in Special Issue
Nomenclatural Type Identification of Names in North African Tamarix (Tamaricaceae)
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Identification and Expression Analysis of RLCK-VII Subfamily Genes Reveal Their Roles in Stress Responses of Upland Cotton
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evolution of the Xerocarpa clade (Opuntia; Opuntieae): Evidence for the Role of the Grand Canyon in the Biogeographic History of the Iconic Beavertail Cactus and Relatives
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 17
10.3390/plants12173169
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Genus Sagina (Caryophyllaceae) in Italy: Nomenclatural Remarks

by
Duilio Iamonico
1,
Laura Guglielmone
2 and
Emanuele Del Guacchio
3,*
1
Department of Environmental Biology, University of Rome Sapienza, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy
2
Herbarium TO, Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, 10125 Torino, Italy
3
Department of Biology, University of Naples “Federico II”, Botanical Garden, via Foria 223, 80139 Naples, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(17), 3169; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12173169
Submission received: 26 July 2023 / Revised: 12 August 2023 / Accepted: 25 August 2023 / Published: 4 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Taxonomy and Nomenclature of Caryophyllales)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A contribution to the nomenclature of the genus Sagina is presented. The following 10 taxa are recognized as being part of the Italian flora: S. alexandrae, S. apetala, S. glabra, S. maritima, S. micropetala, S. nodosa, S. pilifera, S. procumbens, S. revelierei, and S. saginoides subsp. saginoides. The names S. apetala var. decumbens (=S. apetala subsp. apetala), S. bryoides (=S. procumbens), S. patula (=S. apetala subsp. apetala), S. revelierei, Spergula glabra (=S. glabra), Spergula pilifera (=S. pilifera), and Spergella subulata var. macrocarpa (=S. saginoides subsp. saginoides) are here typified. Specimens deposited at B-W, C, E, and LY, and illustrations by Reichenbach were considered for the typifications. Specifically, two Reichenbach’s illustrations are chosen for S. bryoides and S. saginoides var. macrocarpa. A specimen at B-W is designated as the lectotype of S. glabra. Two specimens at C and G are designated as the lectotypes of S. apetala var. decumbens and S. revelierei, respectively. A specimen at LY is designated for S. patula. As we did not find original material, a neotype at G is designated for S. pilifera.

1. Introduction

Sagina L. (Sagineae J.Presl, Caryophyllaceae Juss.) is a genus of about 30 species mostly occurring in the North–temperate and arctic regions (center of diversity in Europe), while a few taxa can be found in tropical mountains [1]. Species of Sagina are small, erect, or procumbent (sometimes caespitose or cushion forming), as well as annual or perennial herbs; most species have white petals. A detailed comprehensive monography of the whole genus is still lacking, but molecular data demonstrated that Sagina is monophyletic [2,3].
The flora of Italy includes 11 Sagina taxa (all native), two of which, namely S. pilifera (DC.) Fenzl and S. revelierei, Jord. & Forr., are endemic [4].
As part of ongoing studies of Italian Caryophyllaceae [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15], in this study, we present a contribution to the knowledge of Sagina in Italy by answering open nomenclatural questions and being preliminary to the taxonomic revision of the genus at the national level.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Publication and Typification of Names

2.1.1. Sagina apetala var. decumbens

Hornemann [16] (p. 3) proposed two varieties of Sagina apetala, i.e., S. apetala var. erecta and S. apetala var. decumbens, and associated them with an illustration (“Table MMCII”, available at http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ing/Libro.php?Libro=4640&Pagina=160, accessed on 24 August 2023 This illustration represents two complete plants (one placed on the top of the plate and the other placed at the center of the plate), as well as a series of eight detailed drawings (lower part of the plate), showing the particulars of leaves, gynoecium and androecium, a first fruit with adpressed sepals, a second fruit with patent sepals, and a seed. According to the protologue by Hornemann (1834: 3), the upper plant drawing illustrates S. apetala var. erecta (“Fig. [=Figura] superior var. erecta”), whereas the complete figure corresponds to S. apetala var. decumbens (“Fig. [=Figura] infer. var. decumbens”). Although no diagnosis was provided for the two varieties, the names can be considered as validly published based onto Art. 38.9 of the ICN.
Dillenberger and Kadereit [17] (p. 20) lectotypified the name Sagina apetala var. erecta using a specimen deposited at C (C10024083), whereas no definitive conclusion was given for S. apetala var. decumbens. These authors [17] stated that the “protologue [of S. apetala varieties by Hornemann] does not provide separate information for S. apetala var. erecta and var. decumbens. Specimen No. 3 on the sheet consists of three large plants all belonging to S. micropetala and has the correct location, collector and date. Specimen No. 1 seems to include S. apetala var. decumbens, No. 2 lacks a date, and label information of No. 4 does not fit the protologue”. Furthermore, in the text, Dillenberger and Kadereit [17] (p. 15) reported in the text that: “The growth form of var. decumbens clearly excludes it from S. apetala and S. micropetala so that var. decumbens most likely represents S. procumbens”. Therefore, as a whole, the authors [17] had doubts about the identification of Hornemann’s S. apetala var. decumbens. We carefully checked both C10024083 [17] (p. 19, Figure 2) and the treatment of Sagina by Hornemann [p. 3 and Tables MMCII (Sagina apetala), MMCIII (Sagina procumbens L.), and MMCIV (Sagina maritima)] [18]. Specimen No. 1 in C10024083 consists of three complete plants (with roots, leaves, sepals, and fruits) and it is associated with the following label (bottom-right corner of the sheet): “1|Sagina apetala L. var. depressa Schultz|... bei Ratzeburg | leg. Nolte”. Two of these three plants (the first plants on the left) of specimen No. 1 in C10024083 are clearly prostrate and, therefore, match Hormenan’s concept of S. apetala var. decumbens [16] (Table MMCII–central illustration). Although the year of collection is not specified on this label, the collector and the locality are compatible with the protologue, as Ratzeburg is the capital of the district Herzogtum Lauenburg (Lower Saxony, Germany). Therefore, it is very likely that the Danish botanist used these plants to describe S. apetala var. decumbens, as well as using the plants of specimen No. 3 to describe S. apetala var. erecta [17]. Thus, we designate this latter as the lectotype of Sagina apetala var. decumbens.
Concerning the identity of Sagina apetala var. decumbens, we firstly noted that most of the authors cited by [17] (p. 3) in synonymy [18,19,20,21,22] referred to the taxon currently known as S. apetala subsp. apetala (excluding Nolte and Weber [23] (p. 119), who treated Sagina maritima Don). On the other hand, as mentioned above, Dillenberger and Kadereit [17] (p. 15) supposed that Hornemann’s S. apetala var. decumbens could be S. procumbens. This latter species is the only perennial Sagina member among those species with tetramerous flowers (see, e.g., [17,24]). Both the lectotype chosen and the illustrations by Hornemann [16] (Table XXCII) clearly show annual plants. The detailed drawing at the bottom of the plate (the second one from the right) that shows fruits with patent and obtuse sepals is referred to as S. apetala var. erecta (=S. micropetala, according to [17]). The other fruit drawn, which is subtended by adpressed and acute sepals (the third drawing from the right on the bottom of Table MMCII), clearly is S. apetala var. decumbens (=var. apetala).

2.1.2. Sagina bryoides

Reichenbach [25] (p. 793) published the name Sagina bryoides, providing a diagnosis and provenance (“Tyrol, im Bassin Lyn bei Steeg”), gathering details (“Frölich [Froelich]”, “31 Aug. 1811”), and citing an illustration of his own [25]: “Rchb. pl. crit. XI. ic. …”. Evidently, this illustration, as well as that of the subsequent Sagina ciliata Fr. [25], was planned to be published within the 19th centuria in Iconographia botanica seu plantae criticae. However, as clarified by Stafleu and Cowan [26], the series stopped after the 10th volume in either 1832 or 1834, and the remaining centuries of plates were incorporated into the first volumes of Icones florae germanicae et helveticae. In particular, the first volume would count as being published in the century of Iconographia botanica, but it is entirely devoted to monocots and, therefore, titled “Agrostographia germanica” [26]. The illustration of interest was only published in 1841 or 1842 within the fifth volume of Icones florae germanicae et helveticae, namely as the No. 4955 of the plate CC [27]. We do not know if the plate had previously been realized when Reichenbach published the protologue [25]; therefore, even if this is possible, to the best of our knowledge, it cannot be considered as original material. Nevertheless, the syntype cited by Reichenbach [25], i.e., a specimen collected by Froelich on 31 August 1811 in Tyrol, as well as any further specimen linked to Reichenbach, was not traced. According to Stafleu and Cowan [28] (p. 893), the hosting place of Froelich’s Herbarium is unknown. Therefore, the illustration cited by Reichenbach [25], albeit published only nine years later, remains the only known material definitively linked to him, and future studies might consider it to be original material. Therefore, we prefer to designate it as the neotype of the name Sagina bryoides. On the basis of the current concept in Sagina (see e.g., [24]), S. bryoides, and the chosen neotype, it can be referred to S. procumbens.

2.1.3. Sagina revelierei

Jordan and Fourreau [29] (p. 11) published the name Sagina revelierei (as “revelieri”) to honor the first collector Eugène Revelière; this name does not have a well-established Latin form and, therefore, must corrected according to Arts. 60.1 and 60.8 (a) of the ICN. Jordan and Fourreau [29] provided a detailed diagnosis and the provenance (“Hab. in montibus Corsicae: Quenza, ex dom. E. Revelière”); they also provided a morphological comparison between S. linnaei C.Presl and S. subulata, taking the work of Presl into account [30] (p. 14), which listed the valid Spergula saginoides L. as a synonym of S. linnaei. As a consequence, S. linnaei is a superfluous and illegitimate name under the Arts. 52.1 and 52.2 of the ICN.
Following Stafleu and Cowan [26] (p. 746), we searched Revelière’s specimens and traced two sheets at LY [LY0826457 and LY0826458 (at https://explore.recolnat.org/occurrence/989AB9E6EAB340EFA3629CD7DB0C398C, accessed 19 July 2023)]. These specimens were collected by Reveliére in 1863 at Quenza, and Jordan in 1865 at the Garden of Villeurbanne (plants grown from seedling cultivated in 1864 and coming from Quenza), respectively. Both specimens, which can be considered to be part of the original material for the name Sagina revelierei, morphologically match the protologue and the current concept of the species [24]. We designate the specimen LY0826457, which was directly collected by Reveliére, as the lectotype of Sagina revelierei.

2.1.4. Spergula glabra

This name, which is currently reported to be a synonym of Sagina glabra (Willd.) Fenzl, was published by Willdenow [31] (p. 821). The protologue consists of a short diagnosis (“S. [Spergula] foliis oppositis fasciculatis filiformibus glabris, floribus decandris, petalis calyce majoribus”), the illustration of “Spergula saginoides Allion. pedem. n. 1735. t. 64. f. 1” (a misapplication by Allioni of the Linnean name S. saginoides), and the provenance (“Habitat in pascuis umbrosis alpium Valdensium”). Willdenow’s name can be typified using material deposited in his collection at B or Allioni’s iconography from Flora Pedemontana.
There is one sheet at B (B-W09052; https://ww2.bgbm.org/Herbarium/specimen.cfm?Barcode=BW09052010, accessed on 10 August 2023) that bears two plants, namely Willdenow’s scripts “Sp. [Spergula] glabra” (top right corner of the specimen) and “W. [Willdenow]” (bottom-right-corner), which is a label (front of the sheet) reporting the diagnosis (“Decandria Pentagina|Spergula glabra foliis oppositis fasciculatis glabris, floribus decandris petalis calyce majoribus|Sp. Pl. 2. P 821”), and a second label (on verso of the sheet) with the following script: “Spergula saginoides|H. Ped. [Hortus Pedemontanus] vivam, diversa a planta Linnaei et Halleri (Bellardi)” (C.A.L. Bellardi was a pupil and close collaborator of Allioni, and Allioni often examined Bellardi’s material). We consider this B sheet to be part of the original material used by Willdenow [31] to describe Spergula glabra.
Between the two elements suitable for the typification of the name Spergula glabra, we decide to designate the specimen at B as the lectotype, since it is a better choice regarding the illustrations [32] (pp. 21−22).

2.1.5. Spergula pilifera

Lamarck and Candolle [33] (p. 774) provided a detailed diagnosis of the name Spergula pilifera, using data about its provenance and collectors (“Elle croît sur les hautes montagnes de l’isle de Corse, d’où M. Robert en a envoyé des échantillons que je décris dans l’herbier de M. Clarion” = it grows on the high mountains of the island of Corsica, where Mr. Robert sent samples of it, which are described in Mr. Clarion’s herbarium); this latter citation is a sintype according to Art. 9.6 of the ICN.
According to Stafleu and Cowan [28] (p. 506), Clarion’s collection is preserved at P-JU (Jussieu Herbarium). Unfortunately, among the 17 specimens preserved at P (see https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/p/item/list?scientificName=Spergula+pilifera, accessed on 10 August 2023), none are part of the original material (it was either not collected by Clarion or not noted before 1805). Also, C. Aupic (pers. comm.) confirmed that no Clarion’s specimen of Sagina pilifera is deposited at P. As a consequence, a neotypification is required by the Art. 9.8 of the ICN. We traced a specimen at G (G00212132), which is represented by one plant collected by Robert in 1808 in Corsica. This exsiccatum is, therefore, a good candidate to be a neotype for the name Spergula pilifera, as it morphologically corresponds both to the protologue and to the current concept of Sagina pilifera [26].

2.1.6. Spergella subulata var. macrocarpa

Reichenbach [27] (p. 26) proposed the name Sagina saginoides var. macrocarpa to identify plants occurring in South Tyrol (Northern Italy, Trentino-Alto Adige region). He reported “Spergula saginoides Pollini Fl. Veron. II. T. I. f. 2”, which corresponds to Spergula saginoides sensu Pollini [34] (p. 75). Reichenbach [27] provided an illustration that is original material for var. macrocarpa. According to Crow [35] (p. 42), Reichenbach’s specimens, which would be useful for typification purposes, were destroyed. As a consequence, Reichenbach’s image appears to be the only extant material, and it is here designated as the lectotype of the name Spergella subulata var. macrocarpa. We agree with Crow [35] (p. 34, 42) in terms of synonymizing Reichenbach’s name with S. saginoides.

2.2. Conspectus of the Genus Sagina in Italy

We here present a nomenclatural conspectus of the following 10 Sagina taxa occurring in Italy:
1.
Sagina alexandrae: Iamonico, Phytotaxa 282(2): 164. 2016, nom. nov. pro Sagina subulata (Sw.) Presl, Fl. Sic. 1: 158. 1826, non d’Urv. ≡ Spergula subulata Swartz, Kongl. Vetensk. Acad. Nya Handl. sér. 2, 10(1): 45. 1789 ≡ Alsine subulata (Sw.) Jessen, Deut. Excurs.-Fl.: 286. 1879 ≡ Moehringia subulata (Sw.) Clairv., Man. Herbor. Suisse: 150. 1811 ≡ Phaloe subulata (Sw.) Dumort., Fl. Belg.: 110. 1827 ≡ Sagina linnaei var. subulata (Sw.) Fiori, Fl. Italia [Fiori, Béguinot, and Paoletti] 1(2): 340. 1898 ≡ S. saginoides var. subulata (Sw.) Fiori, Nuov. Fl. Italia 1: 456. 1923.
Lectotype [designated by Crow [35] (p. 51)]: [Sweden] Halland, Osbeck s.n. (BM; possible isolectotype SBT14207, the image of the isolectotype is available at http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.sbt14207, accessed 24 August 2023).
Note: POWO [36] reported that Sagina alexandrae is a synonym of S. hawaiesis Pax. However, the question arising from the synonymization of these two names is quite complicated, and Iamonico and Dillenberger (in prep.) are studying it from both nomenclatural and molecular points of view.
2.
Sagina apetala Ard., Animadv. Bot. Spec. Alt.: 22–23. 1764 subsp. apetala ≡ Sagina erecta L., Sp. Pl. 1: 128. 1753 var. apetala (L.) Lam., Fl. Fr. 3: 9. 1778 ≡ Alsine apetala (Ard.) Jess., Deutsche Excurs.-Fl.: 287. 1879 ≡ Alsinella apetala (Ard.) Krause, Deutschl Fl. (Sturm), ed. 2. 5: 38. 1901.
Lectotype [designated by Crow [35] (p. 73)]: Herb. Linnaeus No. 177.2 (LINN!, the image of the lectotype is available at http://linnean-online.org/2016/, accessed on 10 August 2023).
=Sagina apetala var. decumbens Hornemann, Fl. Dan. [Oeder] 12(36): 3. 1834.
Lectotype (designated here): GERMANY. Bei Ratzeburg, s.d., Nolte s.n. [C10024083 specimen No. 1 on the top of the sheet; image in [17] (Figure 2 at p. 15)].
=Sagina ciliata Fr., Utkast Sv. Fl., ed. 3: 713. 1816.
Lectotype (designated by Thullin [37] (p. 222)): [Sweden] Skåne, “in arvis et inter segetes ad Nibelöf inter Ystad et Trelleborg”, s.d., Fries s.n. (UPS-V-1051094!).
=Sagina stricta Fr., Novit. Fl. Suec. Mant. 3: 122. 1817.
Lectotype [designated by Thullin [37] (p. 222)]: [Sweden] Skåne, “Cimbritshamn” [Simrishamn], 7 July 1817, Fries s.n. (UPS-V-1051091!).
=Sagina apetala var. barbata Fenzl in C. F. von Ledebour, Fl. Ross. 1: 338. 1842.
Lectotype: Not designated.
=Sagina patula Jord., Observ. Pl. Nouv. 1: 23. 1846.
Lectotype (designated by Dillenberger and Kadereit [17] (p. 17): [France] Dans les terres argileuses a graminacean / Rhône, 02 June 1845, Jordan s.n. (LY0826462!, the image of the lectotype is available at https://explore.recolnat.org/search/botanique/simplequery=LY0826462, accessed on 10 August 2023).
=Sagina melitensis Giulia ex Duthie, J. Bot. 13: 37. 1875.
Lectotype [designated by Crow [35] (p. 73)]: [Malta] Corradino, 13 March 1874, Dulthie s.n. (K000723212!, the image of the lectotype is available at https://plants.jstor.org/stable/viewer/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000723212?loggedin=true, accessed in 24 August 2023).
Notes on Sagina apetala var. barbata: Crow [35] (p. 73) proposed a specimen at LE (LE00012064, the image of the specimen is available at https://plants.jstor.org/stable/viewer/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.le00012064, accessed on 10 August 2023) collected by E. Fenzl (unkown locality of collection) as the lectotype of the name (it was reported as “Lectotype, LE!”). However, Fenzl [38] (p. 338) reported two syntypes in the protologue: “Livonia! (C. A. Meyer)” and “Podolia occidentali! (Besser)”. We noted that Fenzl [38] (p. 338) did not link these two syntypes to his two described varieties (var. barbata and var. imberbis). Regardless, according to Arts. 9.6 and 9.12 of the ICN, “In lectotype designation, an isotype must be chosen if such exists, or otherwise a syntype or isosyntype if such exists”. Thus, LE00012064, which is not a syntype, cannot be considered to be the lectotype of Sagina apetala Ard. var. barbata. This LE specimen could be considered to be a neotype according to Art. 9.10 of the ICN, albeit only if no original material exists (Arts. 9.4 and 9.8 of the ICN). Further investigation of these Fenzl’s names is needed.
Notes on Sagina melitensis: Crow [35] (p. 73) correctly lectotypified the name Sagina melitensis by reporting “Lectotype¸K!”. In fact, According to Art. 7.11 of the ICN, the phrase “designated here” was not necessary up to 1 January 2001.
3.
Sagina glabra (Willd.) Fenzl, Vers. Darstell. Alsin.: 57. 1833 ≡ Spergula glabra Willd., Sp. Pl., ed. 4. 2: 821. 1799 ≡ Spergella glabra (Willd.) Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs. 2: 794. 1832.
Lectotype (designated here): [Italy] H. Ped. [=Hortus Pedemontanus, i.e., a cultivated plant probably collected in Valdesium (Piemonte region, Northwestern Italy)], s.d., P. Bellardi[?] s.n. (B-W09052-010!, the image of the lectotype is available at http://ww2.bgbm.org/herbarium/specimen.cfm?SpecimenPK=137061&idThumb=342876&SpecimenSequenz=1&loan=0, accessed on 10 August 2023).
−“Spergula saginoides” sensu Allioni, Fl. Pedem. 2: 118. 1785.
4.
Sagina maritima Don, Herb. Brit. 7: n.° 155. 1806 ≡ Alsine maritima (Don) Jess., Deut. Excurs.-Fl.: 287. 1879 ≡ Alsinella maritima Bubani, Fl. Pyren. 3: 56. 1901.
Lectotype [designated by Dillenberger and Kadereit [17] (p. 18)]: [United Kingdom] Scotland, s.d., Don s.n. (E00455340!, the image of the lectotype is available at http://elmer.rbge.org.uk/bgbase/vherb/bgbasevherb.php?cfg=bgbase/vherb/zoom.cfg&filename=E00455340.zip&queryRow=4, accessed on 10 August 2023); isolectotype PH00022257, fide Dillenberger and Kadereit [17] (p. 18).
5.
Sagina micropetala Rauschert, Feddes Repert. 79: 413. 1969 = Sagina apetala var. erecta Hornem., Fl. Dan. [Oeder] 12(36): 3. 1834 ≡ Sagina apetala Ard. subsp. erecta (Hornem.) F.Herm., Fl. Deutschl. Fennoskand.: 182. 1912.
Lectotype [designated by Dillenberger and Kadereit [17] (p. 20)]: [Germany] Heiligenhaven, Aug 1825, Nolte s.n. (C10024083, specimen No. 3 on sheet).
Note: According to Art. 41.4 of the ICN, despite no direct or indirect reference to Hornemann’s var. erecta was reported, Hermann’s name [39] can be considered as a new combination at subspecies rank (the author reported “2 Unterarten:”, i.e., “2 subspecies”), not a new taxon as apparently it would seem. For the ascription by [40] of the var. erecta to Lamarck, see [17].
6.
Sagina nodosa (L.) Fenzl, Vers. Darstell. Alsin.: 18. 1833 ≡ Spergula nodosa L, Sp. Pl. 1: 440. 1753 ≡ Alsine nodosa (L.) Crantz, Inst. Rei Herb. 2: 408. 1766 ≡ Moehringia nodosa (L.) Clairv., Man. Herbor. Suisse: 150. 1811 ≡ Arenaria nodosa (L.) Wallr., Sched. Crit.: 200. 1822 ≡ Alsinella nodosa (L.) Bubani, Fl. Pyren. 3: 54. 1901.
Lectotype [designated by Crow [35] (p. 25)]: Herb. Linnaeus No. 604.4 (LINN!, the image of the lectotype is available at http://linnean-online.org/4282/, accessed on 10 August 2023).
−“Alsine nodosa” Krause, Deutschl. Fl. (Sturm), ed. 2. 5: 38. 1901, isonym (Art. 6 Note 2 of the ICN).
−“Sagina nodosa” Meyer, Elench.: 29. 1835, isonym (Art. 6 Note 2 of the ICN).
7.
Sagina pilifera (DC.) Fenzl, Vers. Darstell. Alsin.: 57. 1833 ≡ Spergula pilifera DC. In J.B.A.M.de Lamarck and A.P.de Candolle, Fl. Franç., ed. 3, 4: 774. 1805.
Neotype (designated here): [France] Corse, 1808, Robert s.n. (G00212132!, the image of the neotype is available at https://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/chg/adetail.php?id=211326&lang=fr, accessed on 10 August 2023).
8.
Sagina procumbens L., Sp. Pl. 1: 128. 1753 subsp. procumbens
Lectotype [designated by Jonsell and Jarvis in [41] (p. 83)]: [Icon] Alsine pusilla graminea, flore tetrapetalo” in Séguier (1745: 421, t. 5, f. 3, the image of the lectotype is available at http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ing/Libro.php?Libro=4861&Pagina=495, accessed in August 2023).
=Sagina bryoides Froel. ex Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs. 2: 793. 1832 ≡ Sagina procumbens var. typica f. bryoides (Froel. ex Rchb.) Fiori, Fl. Ital. 1(2): 340. 1898 ≡ Sagina procumbens var. Bryoides (Froel. ex Rchb.) Fiori, Nuov. Fl. Italia 1: 455. 1923 ≡ Sagina procumbens subsp. Bryoides (Froel. ex Rchb.) Dostál, Folia Mus. Rerum Nat. Bohemiae Occid., Bot. 21: 4. 1984.
Neotype (designated here): [Icon] 4955. Sagina bryoides in Rchb., Icon. Fl. Germ. 5.: Table CC No. 4955. 1841–1842.
=Sagina corsica Jord., Observ. Pl. Nouv. 7: 15. 1849 ≡ S. procumbens subsp. corsica (Jord.) Rouy and Foucaud, Fl. France 3: 287. 1896 ≡ S. procumbens var. corsica (Sw.) Fiori, Nuov. Fl. Italia 1: 456. 1923.
Lectotype [designated by Crow [35] (p. 42)]: [France] Corse, Cagnone, July 1840, Jordan s.n. (P04023513!, the image of the lectotype is available at https://mediaphoto.mnhn.fr/media/1582102227767oEFHJ2NwcZYPwICc, accessed in August 2023).
=Sagina muscosa Jord., Mém. Acad. Sci. Lyon, Sect. Sci. 1: 32. 1852.
Lectotype [designated by Crow [35] (p. 42)]: [France] Mt. Pilat (Loire), 1843, Jordan 187 (MPU021802!, the image of the lectotype is available at https://plants.jstor.org/stable/viewer/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.mpu021802, accessed in August 2023).
9.
Sagina revelierei Jord. and Fourr., Brev. Pl. Nov. 1: 11. 1866 ≡ Sagina subulata subsp. revelierei (Jord. and Fourr.) Rouy and Fouc., Fl. France 3: 294. 1896 ≡ Sagina saginoides var. revelierei (Jord. and Fourr.) Fiori, Nuov. Fl. Italia 1: 156. 1923 ≡ Sagina subulata var. revelierei (Jord. and Fourr.) Fourn., Quatre Fl. France: 312. 1936.
Lectotype (designated here): [France] Cors, Quenza, 1863, Reveliére 484 (LY0826457! image available at https://explore.recolnat.org/occurrence/132FBF97629B4B5FBF388D54D2CC6766, accessed in August 2023).
10.
Sagina saginoides (L.) H.Karst., Deut. Fl.: 539. 1882 subsp. saginoides≡ Spergula saginoides L., Sp. Pl. 1: 441. 1753 ≡ Alsine saginoides (L.) Crantz, Inst. Rei Herb. 2: 408. 1766 ≡ Alsinella saginoides (L.) Green, Fl. Francisc.: 125. 1891 ≡ Phaloe saginoides (L.) Dumort., Fl. Belg.: 110. 1827 ≡ Spergella saginoides (L.) Rchb., Fl. Germ. Excurs. 2: 794. 1832 ≡ Sagina linnaei C.Presl, Reliq. Haenk. 2: 14. 1831, nom. superfl. et illeg. (Art. 53.3 of the ICN) ≡ Alsine linnaei Krause, Deutschl. Fl. (Sturm), ed. 2. 5: 35. 1901.
Lectotype [(designated by Crow [35] (p. 73)]: Herb. Linnaeus No. 604.06, Gmelin s.n. (LINN!, the image of the lectotype is available at http://linnean-online.org/4284/, accessed in August 2023).
=Spergula micrantha Bunge in C.F. von Ledebour, Fl. Altaic. 2: 183. 1830 ≡ Sagina linnaei var. micrantha (Bunge) Fenzl in C.F. von Ledebour, Fl. Ross. 1: 339. 1842 ≡ Sagina micrantha (Bunge) Fernald, Rhodora 27: 130. 1925.
Lectotype [designated by Crow [35] (p. 34)]: [Russia] Pr. [Prope] Barnaul, Tomskoi Sawod, s.d., Bunge s.n. (LE, non vidi fide Crow [35] (pp. 34, 42)].
=Sagina saginoides var. macrocarpa Rchb., Icon. Fl. Germ. Helv. 5: 26. 1841 ≡ Sagina macrocarpa (Rchb.) Maly, Enum. Pl. Phan. Austria: 243. 1848 ≡ Sagina linnaei var. macrocarpa (Rchb.) Beck, Fl. Niederosterreich: 358. 1890 ≡ Sagina saginoides subsp. macrocarpa (Rchb.) Soó, Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung.: 177. 1973 ≡ Sagina linnaei var. typica f. macrocarpa (Rchb.) Fiori, Fl. Italia [Fiori, Béguinot and Paoletti] 1(2): 340. 1898 ≡ Sagina saginoides var. macrocarpa (Rchb.) Moss, J. Bot. 52: 60. 1914.
Lectotype (designated here): [Icon] Sagina saginoides var. (b) macrocarpa in Reichenbach (1841: Table CCII, the image of the lectotype is available at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/28648#page/199/mode/1up, accessed in August 2023).
−“Sagina saginoides” Britton, Mem. Torrey Bot. Club 5: 151. 1894, isonym (Art. 6 Note 2 of the ICN).
−“Sagina saginoides var. macrocarpa” Reichenbach, Icon. Fl. Germ. Helv. (H.G.L. Reichenbach) 5: 26. 1841, isonym (Art. 6 Note 2 of the ICN).
Note: Crow [35] (p. 34) and Tropicos [42] report that Beck’s combination is illegitimate. However, the name was correctly proposed by Beck (Art. 55.2 of the ICN).

3. Material and Methods

The present study was carried out through an extensive literature analysis and the examination of specimens kept at B, BM, C, E, G, K, L, LE, LY, MPU, NAP, P, PH, RO, TO, and UPS (herbarium codes were determined according to the Index Herbariorum [43]). The articles cited through the text follow the Shenzhen Code (hereafter “ICN”) [42]. Besides the accepted names and their basionyms, all of the homotypic synonyms were examined, and the most frequent heterotypic names.

4. Conclusions

On the basis of a detailed study of both the protologues and the original material regarding several names of Sagina and Spergula, we are able to clarify their identities via the designation of neo- or lectotypes. Most of these names are confirmed to be heterotypic synonyms. Concerning the homotypic synonyms, we noted that many genera were considered to identify the various taxa, e.g., Alsine L. (currently Stellaria L.), Moehringia L. (currently accepted), Phaloe Dumort. (currently Sagina), Spergella Rchb. (currently Sagina), Spergula L. (currently accepted), etc. Also, the various taxa were originally described or recombined during the time at all ranks, ranging from species to subcategories (subspecies, variety, and form). This proliferation of names and taxa reveals the high phenotypic variability in the genus Sagina, on one hand, as well as the confusion in their attribution to both the genus and the correct rank, on the other hand. The nomenclatural study here presented thus shows the importance of nomenclature in Systematic Botany, as it provides a base for future taxonomic investigations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.I.; methodology, D.I. and E.D.G.; investigation, all authors; resources, all authors; writing—original draft preparation, D.I.; writing—review and editing, E.D.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Project funded under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.4—Call for tender No. 3138 of 16 December 2021, rectified by Decree n.3175 of 18 December 2021 of Italian Ministry of University and Research funded by the European Union—NextGenerationEU. Project code CN_00000033, Concession Decree No. 1034 of 17 June 2022 adopted by the Italian Ministry of University and Research, CUP B83C22002950007, Project title “National Biodiversity Future Center—NBFC”.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We offer our thanks to the Directors and Curators of the Herbaria who were quoted in this paper for providing support during visits or the loan of specimens/photographs. This work was partially supported by NRRP (National Recovery and Resilience Plan), NBFC (National Biodiversity Future Centre).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with a minor correction to the Funding statement. This change does not affect the scientific content of the article.

References

  1. Hernández-Ledesma, P.; Berendsohn, W.G.; Borsch, T.; von Mering, S.; Akhani, H.; Arias, S.; Castaneda-Noa, I.; Eggli, U.; Eriksson, R.; Flores-Olvera, H.; et al. A taxonomic backbone for the global synthesis of species diversity in the angiosperm order Caryophyllales. Willdenowia 2015, 45, 281–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fior, S.; Karis, P.O.; Casazza, G.; Minuto, L.; Sala, F. Molecular phylogeny of the Caryophyllaceae (Caryophyllales) inferred from chloroplast matK and nuclear rDNA ITS sequences. Am. J. Bot. 2006, 93, 399–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Greenberg, A.K.; Donoghue, M.J. Molecular systematics and character evolution in Caryophyllaceae. Taxon 2011, 60, 1637–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bartolucci, F.; Peruzzi, L.; Galasso, G.; Albano, A.; Alessandrini, A.; Ardenghi, N.M.G.; Astuti, G.; Bacchetta, G.; Ballelli, S.; Banfi, E.; et al. An updated checklist of the vascular flora native to Italy. Plant Biosyst. 2018, 152, 179–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Iamonico, D. Taxonomical and chorological study on the Central Mediterranean Basin endemic Arenaria bertolonii Fiori & Paol. (Caryophyllaceae). Plant Biosyst. 2013, 147, 923–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Iamonico, D. Arenaria tenuifolia versus Arenaria hybrida (Caryophyllaceae): Nomenclatural study and taxonomic implications. Phytotaxa 2014, 173, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Iamonico, D. A new nomenclatural change in Polycarpon (Caryophyllaceae): P. tetraphyllum subsp. sauvagei comb. & stat. nov., an endemic taxon from Morocco. Phytotaxa 2015, 197, 225–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Iamonico, D. Nomenclatural notes on four Linnaean names in Arenaria (Caryophyllaceae). Taxon 2016, 65, 610–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Iamonico, D. A new name in Sagina, Sagina alexandrae (Caryophyllaceae). Phytotaxa 2016, 282, 164–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Iamonico, D. A conspectus of Silene sect. Lasiocalycinae (Caryophyllaceae). Phyton Horn Austria 2018, 57, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Iamonico, D. Taxonomical, chorological and ecological notes on the Eastern Alps endemic Arenaria huteri (Caryophyllaceae-Alsinoideae). Phyton 2019, 59, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
  12. Iamonico, D. Italian alien species in Caryophyllaceae: Nomenclatural remarks. Phytotaxa 2020, 446, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Iamonico, D. Typification of the Linnaean name Illecebrum paronychia (Caryophyllaceae). Taxon 2022, 7, 444–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Iamonico, D.; Domina, G. Nomenclatural notes on the Polycarpon tetraphyllum aggregate (Caryophyllaceae). Plant Biosyst. 2015, 149, 720–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. De Luca, D.; Del Guacchio, E.; Conti, F.; Iamonico, D.; Caputo, P. Relationships within Mcneillia indicate a complex evolutionary history and reveal a new species of Minuartiella (Caryophyllaceae, Alsinoideae). Plants 2022, 11, 2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hornemann, J.W. Flora Danica; Typis Expressit Director Jani Hostrup Schultz: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1834; Volume XXVI. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dillenberger, M.S.; Kadereit, J.W. The distinction between Sagina apetala and S. micropetala (Caryophyllaceae: Sagineae), their phylogenetic relationships, and a note on the coastal origin of some widespread ruderals. Willdenowia 2022, 52, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Röhlings, J.C. Deutschlands Flora; Friedrich Wilmans: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 1823; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  19. Linnaeus, C. Mantissa Plantarum Altera; Laurentius Salvius: Stockholm, Sweden, 1771. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sowerby, J.E. English Botany; or Coloured Figures of British Plants, 3rd ed.; Wilks and Taylor: London, UK, 1801; Volume 13. [Google Scholar]
  21. Billberg, G.J. Svenks Botanik; Tryckt hos Karl Deleen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1819; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hornemann, J.W. Forsøg til en Dansk Oekonomisk Plantelaere; Buchs Forlag: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1826. [Google Scholar]
  23. Nolte, E.F.; Weber, G.H. Novitiae Florae Holsaticae; Libraria Academica: Kilonii, Germany, 1796. [Google Scholar]
  24. Clapham, A.R.; Jardin, N. Sagina L. In Flora Europaea (Psilotaceae to Platanaceae), 2nd ed.; Tutin, T.G., Burges, N.A., Charter, A.O., Edmonson, J.R., Heywood, V.H., Moore, D.M., Valentine, D.H., Walters, S.M., Webb, D.A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993; Volume 1, pp. 176–178. [Google Scholar]
  25. Reichenbach, L. Flora Germanica Excursoria; Apud Carol Cnobloch: Lipsiae, Germany, 1832; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  26. Stafleu, A.F.; Cowan, R.S. Taxonomic Literature, 2nd ed.; Scheltema & Holtema: Bohn, Germany; Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1983; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  27. Reichenbach, L. Icones Florae Germanicae et Helveticae; Sumptibus Ambrosii Abel: Lipsiae, Germany, 1841 1842; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  28. Stafleu, A.F.; Cowan, R.S. Taxonomic Literature, 2nd ed.; Scheltema & Holtema: Bohn, Germany; Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1976; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  29. Jordan, C.T.A.; Forreau, J.P. Breviarum Plantarum Novarum; F. Savy: Paris, France, 1866; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  30. Presl, C.B. Reliquiae Haenkeanae; J. G. Calve: Pragae, Czech Republic, 1831; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  31. Willdenow, C.L. Species Plantarum, 4th ed.; G. C. Nauk: Berlin, Germany, 1799; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jarvis, C.E. Order Out of Chaos: Linnaean Plant Names and Their Types; Linnean Society of London and the Natural History Museum: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  33. de Lamarck, J.-B.P.A.d.M.; de Candolle, A.P. Flore Françoise ou Description Succincte de Toutes les Plantes qui Croissant Naturellement en France, 3rd ed.; Imprimerie de Stoupe: Paris, France, 1805; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pollini, C. Flora Veronensis Quam in Prodromum Florae Italiae Septentrionalis; Typis et expensis Societatis Typographicae: Verona, Italy, 1823; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  35. Crow, G.E. A taxonomic revision of Sagina (Caryophyllaceae) in North America. Rhodora 1978, 80, 1–91. [Google Scholar]
  36. POWO. Plant of the World Online. Sagina alexandrae Iamonico. Available online: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77159102-1 (accessed on 14 July 2023).
  37. Thullin, M. Typification of Sagina ciliata and S. stricta (Caryophyllaceae), two taxa described from Sweden, and notes on the taxonomy of the S. apetala complex. Phytotaxa 2022, 572, 222–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fenzl, E. Sagina L. In Flora Rossica; von Ledebour, C.F., Ed.; Sumptibus Librariae E. Schweizerbart: Stuttgart, Germany, 1842; pp. 338–340. Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tropicos. Tropicos, Missouri Botanical Garden. Available online: https://www.tropicos.org/home (accessed on 14 July 2023).
  40. Hermann, F. Flora von Deutschland und Fennoskandinavien sowie von Island und Spitzbergen; Theodor Oswald Weiger: Leipzig, Germany, 1912. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jarvis, C.E.; Barrie, F.R.; Allan, D.M.; Reveal, J.L. (Eds.) A List of Linnaean Generic Names and their Types. Regnum Veg. 1993, 127, 1–100. [Google Scholar]
  42. Turland, N.J.; Wiersema, J.H.; Barrie, F.R.; Greuter, W.; Hawksworth, D.L.; Herendeen, P.S.; Knapp, S.; Kusber, W.-H.; Li, D.-Z.; Marhold, K.; et al. International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (Shenzhen Code); adopted by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress, Shenzhen, China, 19 July 2017; Regnum Vegetabile 159; Koeltz Botanical Books: Hessen, Germany, 2018; Available online: https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php (accessed on 10 August 2023). [CrossRef]
  43. Thiers, B. Index Herbariorum: A Global Directory of Public Herbaria and Associated Staff; New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium. 2023. Available online: http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih/ (accessed on 14 July 2023).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Iamonico, D.; Guglielmone, L.; Del Guacchio, E. The Genus Sagina (Caryophyllaceae) in Italy: Nomenclatural Remarks. Plants 2023, 12, 3169. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12173169

AMA Style

Iamonico D, Guglielmone L, Del Guacchio E. The Genus Sagina (Caryophyllaceae) in Italy: Nomenclatural Remarks. Plants. 2023; 12(17):3169. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12173169

Chicago/Turabian Style

Iamonico, Duilio, Laura Guglielmone, and Emanuele Del Guacchio. 2023. "The Genus Sagina (Caryophyllaceae) in Italy: Nomenclatural Remarks" Plants 12, no. 17: 3169. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12173169

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop