Argyrochosma flavens (Sw.) A.R.Sm. & M.Kessler, 2023

Kessler, Michael, Smith, Alan R., Øllgaard, Benjamin, Matos, Fernando B. & Moran, Robbin C., 2023, Prodromus of a fern flora of Bolivia. XLII. Update I., Phytotaxa 630 (3), pp. 183-210 : 201-202

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/phytotaxa.630.3.2
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10425280
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03923D56-C624-A031-71B2-F8BEFE40E224
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Argyrochosma flavens (Sw.) A.R.Sm. & M.Kessler
status	comb. nov.

Treatment

Argyrochosma flavens (Sw.) A.R.Sm. & M.Kessler View in CoL , comb. nov.

= Acrostichum flavens Sw., Syn. Fil. (Swartz) : 16, 204. 1806.

= Notholaena flavens (Sw.) T. Moore, Index Fil. (T. Moore) 2: LXX. 1857 [April 1857] [as “ Nothoclaena ”].

= Notholaena flavens (Sw.) Raimondi, Elem. Bot. (Raimondi) View in CoL 2: 59. 1857 [as “ Nothoclaena flava ”], probable isonym, as discussed by Molinari-Novoa (2021).

Protologue: p.16 “Cavan. - America Meridionali”, p. 204 “habitat in America Meridionali. Nee”.

Type:—“ Nova Granata, Herb. Swartz, Cavanilles misit” [Cavanilles, the Director of the Botanical Garden in Madrid, sent it] (holotype S, herb. number S06-1742 !), https://herbarium.nrm.se/specimens/S06-1742/image/912777].

= Notholaena nivea Desv. var. flava Hook., Sp. Fil. [ W. J. Hooker] 5: 112. 1864.

= Argyrochosma nivea (Poir.) Desv. var. flava (Hook.) Ponce, Hickenia View in CoL 2(38): 177. 1996.

= Argyrochosma flava (Hook.) M.Kessler & A.R.Sm., Phytotaxa View in CoL 332(2): 206. 2017.

Syntypes: — PERU: Poeppig & Mathews 755, Mclean s.n., and Lechler 1830; ECUADOR: Spruce 5632, Seemann s.n. ( K, only Seemann s.n. seen: http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/ K000633284 ) .

According to the Nomenclature Code ( Turland et al. 2018, Art. 11.4), the epithet flavens Sw. , at species rank, has priority over flava , at varietal rank.

Full synonymy, including the later names Acrostichum tereticaulon Desv. and Notholaena chrysophylla Klotzsch , was given by Tryon & Weatherby (1956).

Molinari-Novoa (2021) discussed this species and surmised that the type, a collection by Née, was likely from Panama or Colombia. This species is accorded a range from Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, northwestern Argentina, and southern Brazil ( Tryon & Weatherby 1956, Mickel & Smith 2004), but nearly all recent collections are from Peru southward. Tryon did cite Colombia in the range (Mutis 2102, 2104, US) and Ecuador (Sodiro s.n., P; Seemann s.n., K). The determinations of the Mutis specimens, judging from images, are dubious, in part because the specimens are poor; however, they do appear to be Argyrochosma , possibly A. nivea s.s, known from Ecuador, or perhaps some other species of Argyrochosma , although we know of no other argyrochosmas from Colombia or Panama ( Moran 1995). Née is known to have collected in Panama-Colombia but we doubt this locality, because this fairly distinctive species has never been collected there since. Based on more recent collections, a more tenable hypothesis is that the specimen came from southern Ecuador or Peru, where Née is also known to have collected. Née was good friends with Cavanilles and sent most of his specimens to Cavanilles in Madrid, who in turn sent a frond from the Née collection to Swartz. We surmise that the specimen in S somehow was mislabeled as to locality, a common occurrence with early collectors, including Née.