Helenium uniflorum (Spreng.) P.L.R.Moraes, comb. nov.

Basionym:— Galinsoga uniflora Sprengel (1826: 580), syn. nov. Protolog:— URUGUAY. “ Monte Video. Sello”. Type:— URUGUAY. Montevideo, s.d., F. Sellow s.n. (Lectotype designated here: P! barcode P03618185, ex Herb. Sprengel 1558).

Synonyms:— Actinea heterophylla Jussieu (1803: 425) . Type:— URUGUAY. Montevideo, May 1767, P. Commerson herb. 98 (Lectotype designated by Bierner 1987: 261, as “ Holotype: P-JU”: P-JU! [Cat. No. 9032] barcode P00673404; isolectotypes: F barcode V0049578F [fragment], P! barcode P00704926) ≡ Actinella heterophylla (Juss.) Persoon (1807: 469) ≡ Actinea alternifolia Sprengel (1826: 574), nom. illegit. superfl. ≡ Cephalophora heterophylla (Juss.) Lessing (1832: 240) ≡ Helenium heterophyllum (Juss.) O.Hoffm. ex Seckt (1930: 50), hom. post. [non Candolle 1836: 667] ≡ Helenium mattfeldianum Herter (1937: 206) ≡ Helenium alternifolium Cabrera (1941: 250), nom. illegit. superfl.

Cephalophora radiata Lessing (1831: 516) . Protolog:— URUGUAY. “Sellow in Campis ad Rio Nigro [Negro]”. Type:— URUGUAY. “Cap. a Nueba [Capilla Nueva de las Mercedes] (Campo)”, January 1823, F. Sellow s.n. [Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1053] (Neotype designated by Bierner 1987: 261, as “ Lectotype ”: G-DC barcode G00456636; isoneotype: P! barcode P03618174) ≡ Actinea radiata (Less.) Kuntze (1891: 303) ≡ Helenium radiatum (Less.) Seckt (1930: 50); Helenium radiatum (Less.) Bierner (1987: 261) . Other specimens:— URUGUAY. “Cap. a Nueba [Capilla Nueva de las Mercedes]”, January 1823, F. Sellow s.n. [Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1051] (P! barcode P03618188); loco haud indicato, s.d., F. Sellow s.n. [Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1042] (G-DC barcode G00456631, P! barcode P03618189); loco haud indicato, s.d., F. Sellow s.n. [Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1013] (G-DC barcode G00456650, P! barcode P03618190); BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul: Caçapava do Sul, December 1825, F. Sellow 3265 (P! barcode P03618184).

Specimen P03618185 has the original Sprengel label annotated with “Galinsogea / Gutierrezia uniflora * / Monte Video”, which must be taken as original material of Galinsoga uniflora, thus eligible for lectotypification of the name. Its identity with “ Cephalophora heterophylla Less. ” is noted by Schultz-Bipontinus on the label of the type, which has not been annotated by anyone else.

Bierner (1987) designated “the specimen labeled no. 1053 G-DC” (G00456636) as a lectotype of Cephalophora radiata Less., without giving any comment about his choice, nor about the provenance of the specimen as from the “Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1053” (P03618174 = Sellow s.n.). The specimens that Lessing (1831: 516) saw at B, indicated in the protolog as “Sellow in Campis ad Rio Nigro (v. sp. s. ∞)”, cannot be assumed to be exactly the same as those collections that Candolle (1836) annotated and had seen at P, from “ Rio Grande ”, i.e. from the Herbier Impérial du Brésil (“v. s. in h. Mus. reg. Par. ex h. Mus. imp. Bras. sub n. 1013, 1042, 1051 et 1053”). Therefore, Bierner’s choice of a duplicate of “Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1053” at G-DC cannot be taken as from original material used by Lessing for the description of C. radiata, according to Art. 9.4 of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018). Instead, the absence of any original material (Art. 9.13) for C. radiata means that Bierner’s use of lectotype is an error to be corrected to neotype, under Art. 9.10 of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018).