Carpinus orientalis Mill

Holstein, Norbert & Weigend, Maximilian, 2017, No taxon left behind? - a critical taxonomic checklist of Carpinus and Ostrya (Coryloideae, Betulaceae), European Journal of Taxonomy 375, pp. 1-52 : 20

27. Carpinus orientalis Mill .

The Gardeners Dictionary ed. 8, no. 3 ( Miller 1768). – C. nigra Moench, Verzeichniss ausländischer Bäume und Stauden: 19 ( Moench 1785) nom. illegit. superfl. – Type: Oriens, J.P. de Tournefort s.n. (lecto-, designated here: BM!). – Additional original material: Oriens, J.P. de Tournefort s.n. (P [Tournefort 5561], LINN no. HS1481.2!, LINN no. HS1481.3!). – Note: the Tournefort specimen in BM was designated to be lectotype because 1) Miller cited Tournefort’s Corollarium T. 40 in the protologue, just as given on the label and 2) Miller’s material is deposited in BM ( Stafleu & Cowan 1976 –1988). The other specimen in BM, dating from that time (BM001041899), is a cultivar from Leiden (“Hort. Bni. [botanici] Boerhaave”). Miller most likely had material from Boerhaave at hand, but he did not mention cultivated material from Leiden in the protologue. Hence it be or may not be that this specimen could be considered as original material. There are two C. orientalis specimens in the Smith Herbarium (LINN-HS 1481.2 and LINN-HS 1481.3). One (LINN-HS 1481.3) refers only to Tournefort’s Institutiones Rei Herbariae ( Tournefort 1700) and the other one to both Tournefort’s publications ( Tournefort 1700, 1703) but not to the actual page number in contrast to the specimen in BM. Additionally, Miller did not refer to the Institutiones Rei Herbariae nor do the LINN specimens match the description since they have (sub-)acute leaf apices, while Miller explicitely refers to obtuse apices. Hence, we do not believe that Miller saw the material in the Smith Herbarium for his description. The lectotypification with the Tournefort specimen in Paris by Olshanskyi (2014: 68) is not effective because the author forgot the phrase “designated here” or an equivalent (Art. 7.10, McNeill et al. 2012). We deviate from his suggestion because Miller’s herbarium is in fact now located in BM ( Stafleu & Cowan 1976 –1988), hence lectotypes of his names should preferably be placed there.