(3027–3028) Proposals to conserve the names Polypodium asperum (Cyathea aspera) and C. muricata (Cyatheaceae) with conserved types

(3027) Polypodium asperum L., Sp. Pl.: 1093. 1 Mai 1753, nom. cons. prop. Typus: Haiti, Departement Sud, Massif de la Hotte, western group, Camp Perrin, N slope of M. Vandervelde, Jardin Coutard, ca. 18.36°N, 73.91°W, ca. 800 m, 12 Dec 1925, Ekman H5215 (US No. 1710124 barcode 00801008; isotypi: F barcode C0677598F, S No. S16-36272, US No. 1303054 barcode 00801007), typ. cons. prop. Linnaeus in Species plantarum often referenced names with several sources, but in the case of Polypodium asperum L. (Linnaeus, Sp. Pl.: 1093. 1753), Petiver (Pterigraph. Amer.: 1 no. 47, t. 4, fig. 7. 1712) is the only reference cited. Proctor (Ferns Jamaica: 143. 1985) lectotypified the name with the illustration in Petiver (l.c.) because no specimen could be found at that time or to this day. Unlike Plumier (Traité Foug. Amér. 1705), Petiver (l.c.) gave no exact information about the origin of the illustrated plant, except for the rather vague enumeration of Caribbean islands in the title, i.e., "Insulis nostris Charibbaeis Viz. Antego, Barbados, St. Christophers, Nevis, Jamaica, etc.", meaning all Caribbean islands that were under British control at that time. However, due to the similarity between the illustrations and short phrases describing the plants in Plumier's and Petiver's works it is generally assumed that Petiver bolstered the variety of ferns displayed in his plates by copying Plumier's illustrations in reduced size and quality, in this case that in Plumier (l.c.: 4–5, t. 3) (Proctor, l.c.; Cremers Proctor, l.c.), the morphological concept of which is based mainly on the illustration of a Jamaican plant given by Hooker accessed 19 Apr 2024) alone, would have to be renamed C. aspera because that name has priority. (2) The specimens hitherto identified as Cyathea aspera, of which there are 702 on Pteridoportal (including synonyms) and 1142 on GBIF (www.gbif.org; accessed 19 Apr 2024), would have to be relabeled with a name from its synonymy. However, this species represents a species complex and is currently under revision (Lehnert Proctor, l.c.; Christenhusz, l.c.), thus rejecting the former epitype (Art. 9 Note 8 of the ICN, Turland isotypi: F barcode C0677738F image!; MO barcode MO-2386164 image!), typ. cons. prop. In his protologue, Willdenow (Sp. Pl. 5(1): 497. 1810) cited polynomials from both Plumier (Traité Foug. Amér.: 5–6, t. 4. 1705) and Petiver (Pterigraph. Amer.: 1 no. 48, t. 4, fig. 8. 1712) as: "Filix arborescens humilis et spinosa. Plum. fil. 5, t. 4." and "Filix arborescens humilis et spinosa. Petiv. fil. 48, t. 4, f. 8" plus "Habitat in Martinica." Proctor (in Howard, Fl. Lesser Antilles 2: 105. 1977) designated Plumier's (l.c.) plate 4 as the lectotype of Cyathea muricata, and later treated the name as synonymous with C. aspera (L.) Sw. (Proctor, Ferns Jamaica: 143. 1985). This synonymy agrees with the earlier revision by Barrington (in Contr. Gray Herb. 208: 39. 1978; as Trichipteris aspera (Sw.) R.M. Tryon). During our work on Plumier's plates (Cremers however, recent revision of this species complex favors the recognition of C. muricata as a separate species (Lehnert & Kessler, unpub. data). The choice of the Vaillant specimen also means that the designated epitype is taxonomically in conflict with Willdenow's (l.c.) description and protologue. To correct this situation, and in agreement with Art. 9.20 of the ICN, we propose to conserve Cyathea muricata with a different conserved type, a specimen with verified origin from the type locality, thus rejecting the earlier epitype (Art. 9 Note 8), in order to conserve the application of the name to the species currently understood as C. muricata. Our choice of Duss 4600 is of a widely distributed collection, with three sheets in United States herbaria documented so far. Although no duplicate was found at P, there is a high probability that further isotypes will be discovered in other herbaria.