Senecio betonicifolius Candolle (1838: 422)

Calvo, Joel & Freire, Efraín, 2016, A nomenclator of Senecio group Lasiocephalus (Compositae, Senecioneae): nomenclatural and taxonomic notes and new typifications, Phytotaxa 260 (2), pp. 116-130 : 118-120

2. Senecio betonicifolius Candolle (1838: 422) [“betonicaefolius”]. Type:—“in America verisim. meridionali (imo Peruv. seu Bogot.?)” [from indicatio locotypica], T.P. X. Haenke s.n. (lectotype: PRC-453200 digital image! [ Figure 1 ], designated here; isolectotypes: PR-185930 digital image!, PRC-453198 digital image!, PRC-453199 digital image!)

Senecio campanulatus Schultz Bipontinus ex Klatt (1888: 126) . Senecio campanulatus Schultz Bipontinus ex Mandon (1865: 80) , nom. nud. Senecio campanulatus Schultz Bipontinus (1866: 531) , nom. nud. Aetheolaena campanulata (Klatt) Nordenstam (1978: 54) . Lasiocephalus campanulatus (Klatt) Cuatrecasas (1978: 309) . Type:— BOLIVIA. La Paz, Larecaja, viciniis Sorata, via ad Lacatia, 8 May 1858, G. Mandon 121 (lectotype: Mandon material in LP as the first-step lectotype, designated by Cabrera (1954: 548), LP-002360 digital image! as the second-step lectotype, designated here; isolectotypes: BM-001024029 digital image!, BR-552805 digital image!, F-0076872F digital image!, F-0076873F (fragment) digital image!, G-00356038 digital image!, G-00356039 digital image!, GH-00009577 digital image!, GOET-002017 digital image!, LP-002361 digital image!, MPU-012357 digital image!, MPU-012358 digital image!, NY-00259135 digital image!, NY-00259136 digital image!, NY-00259137 digital image!, P-01816874 digital image!, P-01816875 digital image!, P-01816876 digital image!, P-01816877 digital image!, P-02272890 digital image!, S-12-25210 digital image!, S-R-5682 digital image!, US-00123396 digital image!).

Senecio loeseneri Hieronymus (1905: 510) [“Löseneri”]. Aetheolaena loeseneri (Hieronymus) Nordenstam (1978: 54) . Lasiocephalus loeseneri (Hieronymus) Cuatrecasas (1978: 310) . Type:— PERU. Cajamarca, Celendín, Cajamarca-Celendín road, 7º02’S 78º14’W, 15 July 1983, D.N. Smith & I.M. Sánchez 4279 (neotype: MO-1934403 digital image!, designated here; isoneotype: USM-85573 digital image!).

Senecio decipiens Benoist (1936: 807) . Lasiocephalus decipiens (Benoist) Cuatrecasas (1978: 309) . Aetheolaena decipiens (Benoist) Nordenstam (1997: 47) . Type:— ECUADOR. Loja, Apr 1905, P. Rivet 971 (holotype: P-00071917 digital image!).

Senecio campanulatus var. glabrescens Cabrera (1952: 198) . Type:— BOLIVIA. Potosí, Spreizend im feuchten Gebusch über Incacorral [Inca Corral], June 1911, T. Herzog 2189 (lectotype: L0002265 digital image!, designated by Cabrera (1954: 549); isolectotype: LP000420 digital image!).

Senecio campanulatus var. lanosissimus Cabrera (1954: 549) . Type:— PERU. Cusco, Calca, Pueblo de Lares , May 1950, F. Marin 2143 (holotype: LP-000421 digital image!; paratype: Peru, Cusco, Paucartambo, quebrada Llulluchayocc, 4 June 1944, J.C. Vargas Calderón 4304 (LP-000422 digital image!).

Nomenclatural notes: —After the description of S. betonicifolius by Candolle (1838: 422), this name was recorded by Steudel (1841). From then on it seems to have fallen into oblivion. Candolle (1838) included this species among other species of Senecio belonging to the Lasiocephalus group, which led to our interest on this matter. The location of the original material allowed us to conclude that S. betonicifolius and S. campanulatus are synonyms, the former having priority over the latter. Two labels of the isolectotype PR-185930 oddly show Mexico as the provenance of the collection, one of them handwritten on an envelope by Stenberg. It is known that Haenke’s material is mislabeled in some cases because he did not label every collection and the relabeling tasks were carried out afterwards by Sternberg and Presl (Otakar Šída, in litt.). This issue was already noticed by Candolle in the protologue, who uncertainly indicated South America as the provenance (“in America verisim. Meridionali (imo Peruv. seu Bogot.?”). On the basis of morphological evidence, now we can support Candolle’s premise that this material came from South America, and more specifically that Haenke probably collected it in Peru or Bolivia. It should also be noted that the leaves of the type material are narrower than the typical forms, which usually have ovate-lanceolate leaves.

Hind (2011) established that the name S. campanulatus was published in 1886 on the basis of a separately paginated preprint of the journal Leopoldina 23 kept at K. Before this new datum, the publication date was considered 1888 ( Leopoldina 24), as we still indicate here because we did not have access to the preprint and there are no implications in terms of priority. Concerning the typification of this name, Cabrera (1954) wrote “(Typus: B; Fot. Field Mus. 15.542: LP; Isotypus: S)”. Taking in account that the picture at F of the destroyed specimen that was kept at B (F- 0BN015542) cannot be considered as original material (Art. 9.3), Cabrera designated the Mandon material in LP as the lectotype. Since there are two specimens of this gathering at LP (LP-002360 and LP-002361), we consider appropriate to narrow the first-step Cabrera’s typification to a single specimen according to ICN Art. 9.17 ( McNeill et al. 2012). Thus, we here designate the specimen LP-002360 as the second-step lectotype. There are numerous isolectotypes in several herbaria, some of them displaying more complete material than the lectotype. Also, it may be interesting to note that Cabrera (1985) designated a different holotype for the same name overlooking his former typification action. According to ICN Art. 9.19 ( McNeill et al. 2012) the first typification must be followed.

The only material cited in the protologue of S. loeseneri Hieronymus (1905: 510) is the collection Jelski 801, collected in 1879 between Chota and Cutervo (Cajamarca Province, Peru). We located one picture at F (F-0BN015638) of the destroyed specimen that was kept at B, and two pictures of the same specimen at MO (MO-2282535 and MO-714299). Cabrera (1985) designated one of the MO specimens as a clastotype (containing a fragment of the type material). Indeed, on the sheet MO-714299 there is an envelope that at one time contained plant fragment(s), but unfortunately it is empty now (Jim Solomon, in litt.). Our efforts to locate any duplicate at KRA and CORD also were unsuccessful. The lack of original material leads us to propose a neotype from a region near Chota, one of the localities indicated by Hieronymus in the protologue. It is a Smith’s collection from Celendín, between Cajamarca and Celendín (Cajamarca Province).

Taxonomic notes: —It is a variable species mainly regarding the indumentum of the leaf lower surface, stem, and involucre. The leaves usually are tomentose to lanate beneath, although glabrescent forms are also found. A morphological survey along its whole distribution area will help ascertain if this character has taxonomic value to recognize infraspecific taxa.

Distribution: — Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Lectotype of Senecio betonicifolius (PRC-453200).