(3144) Proposal to reject the name Carludovica flabellata ( Cyclanthaceae )

(3144) Carludovica flabellata C.D. Bouché in Gartenflora 6: 139. May 1857 Angiosp.: Cyclanth., nom. utique rej. prop. Typus: non designatus. In 1850, the binomial “Carludovica flabellata” appeared for the first time in the literature, in an advertisement offering plants for sale by the German commercial gardener Julius Allardt (ca. 1800–1858) in Berlin, Germany (Allardt in Allg. Gartenzeitung 18: 176. 1850). According to the advertisement, the plant bearing this designation originated from the Valencia region of Venezuela and had been sent to Allardt's establishment by the German plant collector Hermann Wagener (1823–1877), who collected extensively for many years in the northern states of Venezuela along the Caribbean coast. In the subsequent years, this designation was applied to plants cultivated in the German botanical gardens of Berlin, Herrenhausen, and Pfaueninsel (Wendland, Index Palm.: 43. 1854), was treated as a “species dubiae et minus cognitae” by Lemaire (in Ill. Hort. 2: 20. 1855) and appeared in an exhibition record (Koch in Verh. Vereins Beförd. Gartenbaues Königl. Preuss. Staaten 1855: 162. 1855). In these records, the designation was accompanied by the abbreviation “Hort. Berol.”, which refers to Hortus Berolinensis and suggests that the designation originated from the Botanic Garden of Berlin. The name Carludovica flabellata was validly published seven years after its first appearance, in an article on the cultivation of Cyclanthaceae authored by the then-inspector of the Berlin Botanic Garden, Carl David Bouché (1809–1881) (Bouché in Gartenflora 6: 139. 1857). Bouché provided the following description: “Mit kurzem 8 bis 10 Zoll hohem Stamme; Blätter fächerförmig, im Alter 3theilig, dreinervig, gefaltet; Blattstiele 4 bis 5′ lang” (plant with a short stem 8–10 inches tall; leaves fan-shaped, becoming three-lobed with age, with three primary veins and a plicate lamina; petioles 4–5 feet long). In this publication, after the specific epithet, Bouché added “Hort. Berolin.”, indicating that the name of the described species was already in use for plants cultivated in his garden. Later, Bouché himself attributed the authorship of the specific name to Johann Friedrich Klotzsch (1805–1860), curator of the herbarium at the Berlin Botanic Garden (Bouché in Wochenschr. Vereines Beförd. Gartenbaues Königl. Preuss. Staaten 4: 335. 1861). Indeed, a photograph of a specimen from B, now housed at the Field Museum in Chicago (F; Project Berlin Negatives, available at https://fm-digital-assets.fieldmuseum.org/25/751/4296.jpg), bears a label annotated “Carludovica flabellata Klotzsch | Ex horto bot. Berol. illegible April 47 | Columbian Karsten” in Klotzsch's handwriting, probably in 1847, 10 years prior to Bouché's publication, although Klotzsch apparently never formally published the name. Because the protologue (Bouché, l.c. 1857) includes no such ascription, the correct authorship should be simply C. flabellata C.D. Bouché. The specimen at B examined by Klotzsch and probably also seen by Bouché consisted of a single, apparently juvenile leaf, which may be interpreted as constituting original material of the name under Art. 9.4(e)(1) of the Madrid ICN (Turland these reproductive structures were clearly not available to, nor examined by, Klotzsch or Bouché, and there is therefore no evidential basis to assume that they correspond to the taxon circumscribed by them as Carludovica flabellata. Unfortunately, both sheets were destroyed during World War II, and only the photograph cited above remains. Bouché's description of C. flabellata was most likely based on observations of living cultivated plants and was not accompanied by the citation of preserved specimens or illustrations. For the purposes of typification, no extant original material can be confidently identified, and, given the uncertainty surrounding the taxonomic identity of the material involved, the designation of a neotype for C. flabellata is considered inappropriate. After its formal validation, the name Carludovica flabellata was subsequently recorded as being cultivated in Amsterdam (Miquel based on Carludovica caput-medusae Hook. f. in Bot. Mag.116: t. 7118. 1890). Both are terrestrial herbs, acaulescent or with a very short stem, bearing flabellate, tricostate leaves on a long petiole (Bouché, l.c. 1857; Hooker, l.c.), a combination of characters that gives them a distinctive appearance among the Cyclanthaceae known from Venezuela. Carludovica caput-medusae was originally described from specimens of unknown provenance cultivated at Kew Gardens. Harling, who had access to the complete original material of this species housed at K, subsequently identified, “beyond all doubt”, material from Colonia Tovar, Aragua, Venezuela, as A. caput-medusae (Harling, l.c. 1958: 218). This locality, together with the broader Valencia region, was explored by Karsten and Wagener, who introduced into Europe plants identified as C. flabellata. While these observations are consistent with a possible conspecific relationship between C. flabellata and A. caput-medusae, the reproductive structures of the former were never described and remain unavailable for study, thereby preventing a definitive assessment of whether the two names refer to the same biological entity. Given that the description of Carludovica flabellata is insufficient for clear identification and no original material could be traced, this name could potentially be neotypified with a specimen or illustration of Asplundia caput-medusae (see Art. 9.8). Such a typification would not contradict its protologue and would therefore need to be accepted. In this case, if C. flabellata were transferred to Asplundia, it could become the valid name for the species currently known as A. caput-medusae, as C. flabellata (1857) takes precedence over C. caput-medusae (1890), its basionym. The entity associated with the name A. caput-medusae is recorded in 12 Venezuelan states, between 200 and 1700 m above sea level, being common in the coastal zone of Venezuela, from the Paria peninsula to the montane forests of the Cordillera de la Costa, extending inland through the Venezuelan Andes (Gordon in Acta Biol. Venez. 23(2–3): 1–15. 2003; Rivas in Ernstia 13: 1–28. 2003; Cardozo López Eriksson in Hokche Cardozo López in Ernstia 22: 79–99. 2012). Its occurrence is expected in Colombia (Tuberquia in Bernal Seres & Ramirez in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 82: 65. 1995). Despite its limited geographic range, I believe that replacing an Asplundia name, currently used by Venezuelan botanists, for an obscure, almost forgotten name would be undesirable and clearly detrimental to nomenclatural stability. Therefore, in order to maintain the current usage of A. caput-medusae and avoid an unwarranted change in nomenclature, and in line with Art. 56.1, I propose the rejection of the name Carludovica flabellata. It is unlikely that the identity of C. flabellata will ever be clarified, and I consider it more appropriate to reject this name than to attempt an arbitrary typification. Rejection of the proposal would allow C. flabellata to remain a potential threat, possibly replacing A. caput-medusae as the accepted name in the future. I am grateful to John H. Wiersema for helpful editorial improvements.