Sarratia berlandieri Moquin-Tandon (1849: 268−269)

Iamonico, Duilio, 2016, Nomenclature survey of the genus Amaranthus (Amaranthaceae). 5. Moquin-Tandon’s names, Phytotaxa 273 (2), pp. 81-114 : 109

44. Sarratia berlandieri Moquin-Tandon (1849: 268−269)

Type (lectotype here designated):— MEXICO. Tamulipas, Ranchos del Mojete de Matamoros à San Fernando, October 1830, Berlandier 2279 (G189573/3 [digital image!], image of the lectotype is available at http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/chg/adetail.php?id= 187131&base=img&lang=en).

= Amaranthus polygonoides Linnaeus (1759: 27) .

≡ Amaranthus berlandieri (Moq.) Uline & Bray (1894: 268) .

≡ Amaranthus polygonoides subsp. berlandieri (Moq.) Thellung (1914: 352) .

Type (lectotype designated by Henrickson 1999: 797):— JAMAICA. [Icon] t. 92, f. 2 “Blitum polygonoides viride seu ex viridi et albo variegatum polyanthos” from Sloane (1707: 144, image of the lectotype is available at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/ 11242#page/528/mode/1up).

Nomenclatural notes: — Sarratia berlandieri was described by a short diagnosis and a detailed description. Moquin-Tandon (1849: 268−269) also provided the provenance (“ In Mexico inter S. Fernando ae Matamoros ”) and cited a specimen (“ Berland.! N. 2279 ”). I found four exsiccata [three at G (see at http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/ chg/advanced.php?lang=en), one at PH (http://ph.ansp.org/get_image.php?barcode=00022348&mode=full)] collected by Berlandier in Mexico in 1830 and numbered as 2279: these specimens are syntypes according to the Art. 9.5. Among them, one (preserved at G, barcode 189573/3) bears the more complete annotation (“ Ranchos del Mojete de Matamoros à San Fernando. 8 bre 1830. Berlandier. 2279 ”) and it is here selected as the lectotype of the name Sarratia berlandieri .

Taxonomical notes: — Amaranthus berlandieri was differently treated during the time, being recognized both as separate taxon related to Am. polygonoides L. ( Linnaeus 1759b: 27) and as heterotypic synonym of this latter Linnaean taxon. Henrickson (1999) widely discussed these names, and clarified the confusion among them showing that the characters used for their separation (e.g., the dehiscence/indehiscent of the fruits) are not constant. I follow the solution proposed by Henrickson (l.c.) although further studies are necessary to be carried out, as stated by Mosyakin & Robertson (2003).