Callicoma ternata Montrouz.

Hopkins, Fortune & Bradford, Jason C., 2009, Nomenclature and typification of names in the endemic genus Pancheria (Cunoniaceae) from New Caledonia, Adansonia (3) 31 (1), pp. 103-135 : 108-112

1. Callicoma ternata Montrouz.

Flore de l’Île Art , Mémoires de l’Académie royale des sciences, belles-lettres et arts de Lyon, section des sciences, sér. 2, 10: 211 (1860). — Protologue: “ Callicoma ternata (Mihi.) Frutex 3-5 pedalis. Folia verticillato-ternata, 3-5 pedatim palmata; lobis oblongis, serratis, apice acuminatis; medio petiolato, 2-3 poll. longo, 1 poll. lato; lateralibus sessilibus; petiolo communi subbi-pollicari, partiali 3-4 lineari. Stipulae interpetiolares, magnae. Pedunculi axillares et terminales nunc tricapitati, nunc tribus pedicellis tricapitatis stipati, folio breviores. Pedicelli bracteis 3 instructi, longi. Capitula globosa, Callicomae serratifoliae capitulis simillima. Cet arbuste fleurit en 9 bre. Il croît sur les coteaux arides”. — Type (as given in protologue): none. — Lectotype (here designated): [Île Art, 1857- 1858], ♂ fl., Mountrouzier 65 ( G [image]! G00191249 [ Fig. 2A]; isolecto-, Mountrouzier117, MPU [image]! MPU002485 [ Fig. 2B]).

REMARKS

Montrouzier (1860) described Callicoma ternata in Flore de l’Île Art, and the protologue made no mention of a particular specimen. Although Guillaumin (1911a: 138) initially considered that the name might belong to a species of Geissois , presumably because the leaves were described as palmately compound, Guillaumin & Beauvisage (1914: 89) equated Callicoma ternata Montrouz. with Pancheria ternata Brongn. & Gris : “Le type du Callicoma ternata Montr. , p. 211, manque dans les herbiers, mais il semble certain que c’est la même plante que le P. ternata Brong. [sic] & Gris.” The combination of compound leaves in whorls of three, leaflets with toothed margins, and capitula, indicates that Montrouzier’s plant was indeed a Pancheria . However, no known species of this genus has 5-foliolate palmately compound leaves although 5-foliolate imparipinnate leaves occur in several.

Whether Callicoma ternata Montrouz. is conspecific with Pancheria ternata Brongn. & Gris obviously depends on the characters of their types and the circumscription of the latter name. In most of the following discussion they are assumed to be conspecific and the generic name used depends upon the context.

The history of Montrouzier’s collections from New Caledonia was discussed by Guillaumin & Beauvisage (1914: 75) who mentioned “trois herbiers du P. Montrouzier”, one at the Faculté de Médecine, Lyon (now part of the herbarium at the Jardin botanique de Lyon, abbreviation: LYJB), one at the Institut botanique, Montpellier (now Université Montpel- lier II, abbreviation: MPU) and one at the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (P). The material at Lyon was sent by Montrouzier in 1859 and probably accompanied the manuscript for his Flore ( Guillaumin & Beauvisage 1914: 75); the specimens were exclusively from Île Art and New Caledonia (i.e. Grande Terre). Some duplicates from amongst this material were sent by Beauvisage to Boissier in Geneva and others to Paris, in 1894 (indicated on specimen) or 1896 ( Guillaumin & Beauvisage 1914: 75). The specimens at Montpellier were sent by Montrouzier in 1866 and came from numerous localities, such as Mexico, Europe, Africa, the Indian Ocean, Malesia, Australia and the Pacific, including New Caledonia and Île Art ( Guillaumin & Beauvisage 1914: 75-77); some New Caledonian plants missing from among those sent to Lyon were represented at Montpellier. The third herbarium, at Paris, was sent by Montrouzier in 1868 and consisted of plants from Australia, Grande Terre and Île des Pins ( Guillaumin & Beauvisage 1914: 77).

Neither Index Herbariorum’s catalogue of collectors ( Vegler 1976) nor the entry for Montrouzier in TL2 ( Stafleu & Cowan 1981) indicate additional herbaria where Montrouzier material is likely to be found. However, a collection of Castanospermum australe A.Cunningham ex R.Mudie (sent by Montrouzier as seeds under the name Vieillardia grandiflora Montrouz. ) is at MEL (J. Milne in litt. to V. Malécot, 15.III.2008) and others might perhaps be found at PH since Montrouzier became a corresponding member of the Academy in Philadelphia in 1867 ( Beauvisage 1898), although he was not included by Mears (1981) in a list of collectors whose material is in PH.

Guillaumin & Beauvisage (1914: 89) listed four collections under the name Pancheria ternata : “ 63 in herb. Lugd.!, 65 in herb. Lugd.!, Boiss., 117 in herb. Monsp.”. “Lugd.” is an abbreviation for Lugdunum, the Roman name for Lyon; “Monsp.” refers to Montpellier; and “Boiss.” refers to Boissier’s herbarium at G ( Stafleu & Mennega 1993), though any material from New Caledonia is in the general herbarium, not G-BOISS. The specimen numbers were provided by Beauvisage and “!” indicates those sheets that had been compared in Paris with other material ( Guillaumin & Beauvisage 1914: 77).

Montrouzier’s specimens at Lyon no longer exist (P. Morat pers. comm.2005), having been destroyed between 1955 and 1970. Enquiries in 2005 were unable to trace any material relevant to the names Callicoma ternata or Pancheria ternata at LY or LYJB (G. Guignard pers. comm. 2005).

The specimen at G (“Boiss.”) comprises a single fragment attached to a piece of paper plus a separate label ( Fig. 2A). The name Callicoma ternata , “Montrouzier”, and the number “65” in red ink, are indicated on both the paper and the label, and show that the fragment was a duplicate of number 65 at Lyon.Beauvisage’s signature is on the label with “ Plantes de la Nlle Caledonie du R. P. Montrouzier. Don de la Faculté de medecine de Lyon, par le Dr. Beauvisage, en juin 1894 ” written beneath it. The locality of Île Art is not mentioned .

The specimen at MPU (“ 117 in herb. Monsp.”) has two labels ( Fig. 2B). That in the lower righthand corner has printed on it “Herb. Facult. Scient. Monspel.”, Montrouzier’s name and the date 1866; the number 117 is hand-written in red ink, and the name “ Pancheria ternata Brongn. et Gris ” has been hand-written (apparently not by Beauvisage), although the initials “GB” are below it in Beauvisage’s hand. The hand-written label in the lower left-hand corner states “ Pancheria ternata Br. et Gris ” in one hand, apparently in pencil, and “ 117, Callicoma ternata Montrouzier , in Mém.Acad. Lyon, X, p. 211) [ex descriptione, quanvis foliola crenata nec serrata, et apice minime acuminata: cf. herb. Fac. med. Lugd. no 65]” in ink, written by Beauvisage, with his signature. Again, the locality Île Art is not mentioned.

So of the four sheets identified as Pancheria ternata by Guillaumin & Beauvisage (1914: 89), two have been traced, and no additional specimens were found at P in 2005 (pers. obs.) nor have any been located at other herbaria, such as MEL ( J. Milne in litt. to V. Malécot, 27.III.2008) or PH ( S. Helm pers. comm., 14.XI.2008) .

It appears that Montrouzier’s specimens were dispatched by him without numbers and at least some without names ( V. Malécot pers. comm. 2008) and none of the data on the labels of Montrouzier 65 and 117 were written by him. Equating the four specimens mentioned by Guillaumin & Beauvis- age with the name Pancheria ternata Brongn. & Gris was presumably due to Guillaumin, since he worked at P and was familiar with the material studied by Brongniart & Gris. Guillaumin & Beauvisage (1914: 77) indicated that Montrouzier 63 and 65 at Lyon had been compared directly with material at P .

Although Guillaumin & Beauvisage stated that the type of Callicoma ternata was lacking amongst Montrouzier’s collections (1914: 89, quoted above), it is unlikely that their use of the term “ type ” was equivalent to its current meaning. They may have meant merely that none of the specimens had been dispatched with a label bearing the name Callicoma ternata , rather than that none of them was the basis for Montrouzier’s description (V. Malécot pers. comm. 2008). Guillaumin & Beauvisage clearly considered the four specimens they saw were sufficiently similar to Montrouzier’s description be equated with the name C. ternata . Both Montrouzier 65 (G) and Montrouzier 117 (MPU) have capitula of male flowers and trifoliolate leaves in whorls of three, and the nodes in the inflorescence have large persistent, recurved bracts though the stipules between the petioles have fallen. The welldeveloped inflorescences resemble that described by Montrouzier for C. ternata , though the leaves are not an exact match with the protologue, as noted by Beauvisage on the label of Montrouzier 117.

In order to cite one of Montrouzier’s collections as the lectotype of Callicoma ternata we must have evidence that it came from Île Art, rather than from Grande Terre or Île des Pins, where Montrouzier also collected. The only evidence of provenance is provided by Guillaumin & Beauvisage (1914: 89), who stated that all four of the specimens they studied came from Île Art. However, we do not know what their proof of provenance was. They may have deduced that the specimens were from Île Art since those at Lyon were dispatched in 1859, apparently with the manuscript of the Flore and perhaps before Montrouzier had made collections elsewhere in New Caledonia, but if Beauvisage knew their origin with certainty, it is curious that he did not write it on the specimen labels. However, we must accept Guillaumin & Beauvisage’s statement of provenance, and so Montrouzier 65 (G) is designated as the lectotype of the name Callicoma ternata with Montrouzier 117 as an isolectotype, since it is sufficiently similar to be part of the same gathering, even though it was sent to France at a later date, and since the number was assigned postfacto by Beauvisage.

As previously mentioned, Guillaumin & Beauvisage regarded Callicoma ternata Montrouz. as conspecific with Pancheria ternata Brongn. & Gris , and with Montrouzier 65 as the lectotype for the former name, we concur. However, Pancheria ternata Brongn. & Gris is a complex species that shows a range of morphological variation correlating only partially with geography and ecology (Hopkins & Pillon pers. obs.).

Île Art has been little collected recently because of local political difficulties and the only recent collection of Pancheria that we have seen from this island is MacKee 19323 ( Fig. 2C), which matches Montrouzier’s description in general but not in detail. The specimen has trifoliolate leaves in whorls of three but the stipules between the mature leaves have already fallen and the inflorescence structure is less well developed than that described by Montrouzier. While we identify MacKee 19323 as P. ternata , the shape of its leaflets is not an exact match with collections from elsewhere in the New Caledonian archipelago, and neither is it an exact match with Montrouzier 65 and 117.

Montrouzier (1860) and Brongniart & Gris (1862) both used the epithet ternata for their plants but there is no evidence that Brongniart & Gris were taking up Montrouzier’s name as a comb. nov., and the name Pancheria ternata has always been attributed to them alone. In their introduction to the Saxifragaceae-Cunonieae of New Caledonia, Brongniart & Gris (1862) described the taxonomic history of the group in the Pacific and mentioned similarities and differences between Pancheria , Callicoma and Codia , but they made no reference to either Montrouzier or to Callicoma ternata Montrouz. Indeed on p. 68 they stated that prior to their work based on the collections of Vieillard, Deplanche and Pancher, only three species of Cunoniaceae were already known in the Pacific, “le Codia montana de Forster , le Geissois racemosa de Labillardière et le Spiraeanthemum vitiense de M. Asa Gray ”. Thus it appears that they independently used the same epithet as Montrouzier and the two names are not therefore based on the same type.

Montrouzier’s name is older than that of Brongniart & Gris but it cannot be transferred to Pancheria because the name P. ternata is already occupied. Callicoma ternata Montrouz. could be given a new name, but if so, that name would merely become a synonym of P. ternata Brongn. & Gris. Thus , if the two names are considered to refer to the same species in the genus Pancheria , as here, the correct name is P. ternata Brongn. & Gris , and C. ternata Montrouz. is a taxonomic synonym (conforming to Art. 11.3 of the Code); if this species was assigned to the genus Callicoma , the correct name would be C. ternata Montrouz. However , if in the future, the plant from Île Art is considered to belong to a separate species of Pancheria from a more narrowly defined P. ternata on Grande Terre and Île des Pins, it would have to be given a new name because no combination based on Montrouzier’s name would be possible in Pancheria .