Potentilla (Christenhusz & Vare, 2012)

Eriksson, Torsten, Persson, Nannie L. & Smedmark, Jenny E. E., 2022, What is Potentilla? A phylogeny-based taxonomy for Potentillinae (Rosaceae), TAXON 71 (3), pp. 493-505 : 496

Potentilla L. 1753

Linnaeus (1753) included 22 species in Potentilla . Some other Potentillinae species were assigned to Tormentilla ( Potentilla anglica , P. erecta ) or as a part of Fragaria ( P. sterilis ). Among the ones included were a few that are now in Fragariinae ( Dasiphora fruticosa , Drymocallis rupestris , Sibbaldianthe bifurca ). Rydberg (1908b) designated Potentilla reptans L. ( Linnaeus, 1753: 499) as the type for Potentilla , and the species is well supported in the Reptans clade (e.g., Eriksson & al., 2003; Dobeš & Paule, 2010; Töpel & al., 2011; Feng & al., 2017; Persson & al., 2020a).

Kechaykin & Shmakov (2016) argued that Rydberg’ s choice of Potentilla reptans as the type was an unfortunate one, based on their view that a general life-form (“taprooted polycarpic herb”) is characteristic of the majority of Potentilla species. It is notable that this life-form is a likely plesiomorphy as it is present outside of Potentilla , in much of Potentilleae . They suggested that Potentilla should be conserved with a new type, because this would serve to decrease the instability caused by their own reinstatement of the rarely used genus Tormentilla for a paraphyletic part of the Reptans clade that includes P. reptans . Rydberg (1910) published a good historical argument for the choice of P. reptans as type, and we can see no good reason for changing the type as it would break with how Potentilla has been consistently treated during the last century or more, regardless of classification. The suggestion of Kechaykin & Shmakov (2016) is ill-founded, and would be unfortunate if carried through.