Table Of ContentContr.Univ.MichiganHerb.19:149-164.1993.
INFRAGENERICNOMENCLATURE:CORRECTIONSAND
ADDITIONSINTHECARYOPHYLLACEAE
RichardK.Rabeler
UniversityofMichiganHerbarium
NorthUniversityBuilding
AnnArbor,MI48109-1057
INTRODUCTION
AmajortaskfacingtheauthorofafamilytreatmentfortheGenericFloraof
theSoutheastern UnitedStates involves investigation ofthe infrageneric nomen-
clature ofeach genusknown fromthe region. Inthe Caryophyllaceae, I discov-
eredproblemsintheinfragenericnomenclatureofninegenera.Theintentofthis
paperistoreportchangesthatarenecessarytosupporttheinfragenericclassifica-
tionIintendtopresentintheGenericFloratreatment.
Errorsinvolvinginfragenericnomenclaturemaybe ofseveraltypes. One of
the mostprevalent involves assumptionsofrankfor names thatwere published
without a clear indication of rank. A primary example is the treatment of the
CaryophyllaceaeinBoissier'sFlora Orientalis(1867).Thisworkisoftencitedas
the source for a numberofsection names in several ofthe large genera in the
Caryophyllaceae (e.g.,Dianthus, Gypsophila,andSilene). Ineachofthesecases,
theepithetappearsinboldfaceprecededby"§";inmanyworks,thismarkdoes
indicatetherankofsection(Stearn1966).WhileBoissierusedthismarkforthe
single infrageneric divisions in Dianthus and Minuartia, he also used it within
rankedinfragenericdivisionsinothergenera.InCerastiumandGypsophila,epi-
thets preceded by § are used within sections (so designated). The 31 epithets
preceded by § in Silene appear within series and subseries that Boissier does
designate. I followChaterandWalters (1964),Devjatov (1987),McNeill (1962),
Reeve (1967), and Sourkova (1977) in assuming such combinations, in various
genera,tobeunranked.
Anothercommonerrorinvolvesadoptionofnamesthatwere proposedbut
notvaUdlypubhshed.Volume6oftheFlora URSS(Schischkin 1936)includeda
significanttreatmentofthe Caryophyllaceae. In treating the largergenera (e.g.,
Dianthus, Gypsophila,andSilene),Schischkinincludedaninfraspecificclassifica-
tionforeachofthem,oftenwithmanynewnamesandcombinations. Allofhis
newtaxaweredescribedinRussianwithoutaccompanyingLatinandthusarenot
validlypublished,since Article36.1 ofthe Coderequires aLatindescription or
diagnosisforanynamepublishedafter1January1935.
Twoothererrorsthataresometimesseeninvolvetheuseofnamesthat are
notvalidlypublished,because theyweregiven a rankcontrarytothehierarchy
eLsetdaebbloisuhred(1i8n41A-r1t8.453,,eC.ge.r,asFteinuzml,'sp.us3e96o-f41"6D,ivpiusbiloi"shweidthinin18a4s2efcitdieonStoafflCeeur&asCtoiuwmani,n
1979),andtheincorrecttypificationofinfragenericnamesthatarebasedon mono-
typicgenera,e.g.,Barkoudah's(1962)errorsinGypsophila.
149
150 CONTR.UNIVERSITYOFMICHHiANHERBARIUM VOLUME19
A few changes arc necessitated by changes in application of infrageneric
autonyms.InthreeeditionsoftheCode(Lanjouwetal. 1956, 1961, 1966),Art.22
included the following statement: "a section including the type species of any
subgenusmustbearasitsepithetthecorrectepithetofthesubgenus."Woodand
Webster(1968)proposed"torestrictthetautonymicprovisionsofArticles 19,22,
and 26 to taxa which include the nomenclatural types." These proposals were
acceptedatthe 1969SeattleCongress(Stafleu 1970)butledtosubsequentdebate
(summarizedinBrummitt,1981)andextensionoftheirconcepttoallinfrageneric
ranks at the Sydney Congress (Voss 1982). In the current edition ofthe Code
(Greuteret al. 1988), Art. 22.1 and Note 1 continue to allowautonymsonlyfor
taxaincludingthetypeofthegenericname;allothernamesmusthaveadescrip-
tion or diagnosis or be associated with a reference to such (Art. 32.1). Article
34.3, allowing valid publication "where the same combination is simultaneously
used at different ranks," allows many of the autonyms formed under pre-1969
provisionstostandunlessanearliernameexists.
One assumption that I have made in this presentation deserves additional
comment. In several pre-1953 cases, e.g., Arcnaria sect. Eremogone, it is not
entirelyclearwhetheran author, by not adopting anearlieravailableepithet, is
deliberately publishing a new name or actually making (although implicitly) a
new combination. I have assumed the latter argument here, with the earliest
name serving as the basionym even if it was not explicitly cited. Later variant
spellings of homotypic names are then rejected under Art. 75 and heterotypic
namesunderArt.64.
The necessary changes in Caryophyllaceae are presented below, arranged
alphabeticallybygenus.Onlynamesthatrequirechangesarepresented.
CORRECTIONSBYGENUS
Arenaria
McNeill(1962)revisedmostoftheinfragenericnomenclatureinArenaria.He
describedserieswithin fivesectionsand used [then] autonymsfortheseriesthat
included the type ofthe section; use below the section level was not mandated
(norprohibited)bytheCode(Lanjouwetal. 1961)atthattime.
Oneoftheseries,Arenaria,isnowmandatedunderArt.22.1.Theotherfour
werevalidlypublished,sinceMcNeillprovidedaLatindescription,typecitation,
and a clear indication ofrank foreach name. McNeill cited Arenaria sect. Ere-
niogoneasan"autonym"withinArenariasubg.Eremogone:thecorrectcitationis
givenbelow.
Arenariasect. Eremogone(Fenzl) Edgew.& Hook,f.,Fl. Brit.India 1:236. 1874
["Eremogoneae"]. EremogoneFenzl,Vers. Darst.Verbr.Alsin. 13. 1833.
Arenariaa. Eremogone(Fenzl)Fenzl in Endl.,Gen. pi.967. 1840.—Lic-
ToiYPi;; Arenaria graminifolia Schrader (vide McNeill, Notes Roy. Bot.
Card.Edinburgh24: 121. 1962).
Ckrastiuim
The citation for Cerasiium sect. Schizodon must be changed to reflect an
earliercombination.AlthoughWilliamscitedthe nameas"Sect.Sehizondontia:^
1993 RABELER:CARYOPHYLLACEAE 151
he did include Cerastium dichotomum L., one ofthe two syntypes included in
Fenzl'sprotologueandheredesignatedasthelectotypeofthenameofthesection.
Cerastiumsect.Schizodon(Fenzl)Williams,Bull.Herb.Boiss.6:899.1898["Schiz-
odontia"]. Cerastium b. Schizodon Fenzl. in Endl., Gen. pi. 970. 1840.
Cerastium sect. Schizodon (Fenzl) Schischkin, Fl. URSS 6: 447. 1936.—
Lectotype,heredesignated:CerastiumdichotomumL.
TwoofthesubsectionalnamesusedbyRico(1990)requiremodification.The
earliestnamefortheC.fontanumBaumg.complexisnotCerastiumsubsect.Caespi-
tosaPax&K.Hoffm.(1934)butthefollowing(Art.22.4.).
Cerastium subsect. Vulgata Hayek, Fl. Steierm. 1: 304. 1908.—Type: Cerastium
vulgatumL.,nom.ambig.[^CerastiumfontanumBaumg.].
ThecitationforCerastiumsubsect.Fugaciamustbechanged.Theauthorship,
given by Rico (1990) as Fenzl, is incorrect, since Fenzl treated the group as a
"Divisio"inLedebour(1841-1843,Cerastium,p.396-416,publishedin 1842,fide
Stafleu&Cowan, 1979);underArt.33.4thenameisnotvalidlypubhshed,since
Fenzl'suseof"Divisio"withinasectioniscontrarytothehierarchyestabhshedin
Art.5.Thecorrectcitationis:
Cerastiumsubsect.FugaciaHayek,Fl.Steierm.1:307.1908.
DlANTHUS
1) RankingBoissier'snames. Rechinger (1988) assumed that § = section, in
myopinionincorrectly,forfiveofthesixsectionsthatherecognizedinhistreat-
ment ofDianthusin the Flora Iranica. Boissier (1867) noted that the species of
Dianthuswerecloselyrelatedand"insectionesnaturalesdifficuledistribuendae."
Fivenamesmustbereplacedbytheearliestrankedcombinations.
Dianthussect.Carthusiani(Boiss.)F.Williams,J.Bot.23:341. 1885 ["Carthusia-
num"].Dianthus§ [withoutrank]5.CarthusianiBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:481.
1867.
Dianthussect.SuffruticosiF.Williams,J.Bot.23:341. 1885.Dianthus§ [without
rank]4.DentatiBoiss.,Fl.Orient 1:480. 1867.
Dianthus sect. Tetralepides Pax in Engler, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(lb): 77. 1889.
Dianthus § [without rank] 2. LeiopetaU Boiss., Fl. Orient. 1: 479. 1867.
Dianthussect. Tetralepides LeiopetalaF. Wilhams,J. Bot. 23: 346. 1885,
nom.inval.
Dianthussect.Verruculosi(Boiss.)Schischkin,Fl.URSS6:860. 1936.Dianthus§
[withoutrank] 1.VerruculosiBoiss.,Fl.Orient.1:479.1867.
Dianthussect.Fimbriati(Boiss.)F.Williams,J.Bot.23:343. 1885["Fimbriatum"].
Dianthus§[withoutrank]3.FimbriatiBoiss.,Fl.Orient.1:480.1867.
152 CONTR.UNIVERSITYOFMICHIGANHERBARIUM VOLUME19
2) Usage ofnamesproposed by Schischkin in 1936. Schischkin included 14
newseriesnamesinhistreatmentofDianthus. Validationofthese namesshould
awaitthedesperatelyneededcomprehensiverevisionofthisgenus.
3)Sectionalnamesthaihavepriority. Two sectionalnames must be replaced
byearliernames.
Dianthus sect. Armeriastrum Scr. in DC, Prodr. 1: 355. 1824. Dianthus sect.
Armerium F. Williams,J. Bot.23:340. 1885.—Tyim;: DianthusarmeriaL.
(Art.22.4).
Dianthussect.ChamaegarophalonGriseb.,Spic.Fl.Rumel. 1: 193. 1843.Dianthus
sect. Barhulatum F. Williams, J. Bot. 23: 344. 1885.—Lfxtotypi:, here
designated:DianthusmyrtinerviusGriseb.
Gypsophila
Severalnomenclatureproblems,mostlyarisingfromBarkoudah's(1962)revi-
sionofGypsophila,mustbeaddressed.
1) Ranking Boissier\s names. Barkoudah (1962) assumed, in my opinion in-
correctly, that the six names set in boldface and preceded by § that Boissicr
(1867) includedwithinsectionsshouldbeconsideredassubsections.Theauthor-
ship must therefore be changed in four of Barkoudah's subsectional combina-
tions.
Gypsophila subsect. Pulvinares (Boiss.) Barkoudah, Wentia 9: 37. 1962. G\p-
sophila§[withoutrank] 1.PulvinaresBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:534. 1867.
Gypsophilasubsect. Caespitosae(Boiss.) F. Williams,J. Bot.27:325. 1889. Gyp-
sophila§[withoutrank]3.CespitosaeBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:535. 1867.
Gypsophilasubsect. Paniculatae (Boiss.) F. Williams,J. Bot. 27:325. 1889. Gyp-
sophila§[withoutrank[4.PaniculataeBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:535. 1867.
Gypsophila subsect. Suffruticosae (Boiss.) Barkoudah, Wentia9: 42. 1962. Gyp-
sophila^[withoutrank]5.SuffruticosaeBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:535. 1867.
2) Usage ofnames proposed by Schischkin in 1936. As noted above, new
names appearing in Schischkin (1936) are not validly published. Three names
used,butnotvalidated,byBarkoudah(1962)arcvalidatedhere.
Gypsophilasubsect. AcutifoliaeRabeler,subsect. nov. Gypsophilaser. '^Acutifo-
liae"Schischkin,Fl.URSS6:757. 1936.—Typi::Gyp.sophilaacutifoliaFisch.
Plantae plus minusve glaucae, inflorescentia furcis valde glanduloso-pubes-
centibusinstructa;calyx3-4mmlongus,glaber,dentibusacutis.
Gypsophilaser.ElegantesSchischkinexRabeler,ser.nov.Gypsophilaser."Elegan-
tes"Schischkin,Fl.URSS6:763. 1936.—Typh:Gyp.sophilaelegansM.Bieb.
1993 RABELER:CARYOPHYLLACEAE 153
Herbaeannuaevelrariusperennes;caulesramosiglabri.Petalaalbavclrosea,
emarginata,sepalis2^plolongiora,ovarium 12-18ovulisinstructum.
Gypsophilaser. Hispidae (Rech.f.) Schischkinex Rabeler,stat. nov. Gypsophila
ser."Hispidae"Schischkin,Fl.URSS6:770.1936.Gypsophilasect.Hispi-
dae Rech.f., Fl. Iran 163: 241. 1988.—Type: Gypsophilafedtschenkoana
Schischkin(Rechinger1988).
Barkoudah's (1962) choice of Gypsophila pilosa Huds. as the type of this
series has no standing, since the name for Schischkin's series was not validly
published.
3)Citationandtypificationofnamesinvolvingmonotypicgenera.WhenHetero-
chroaBungewasdescribedin1830,Bungeincludedonespecies,H.petraeaBunge.
MostsubsequentauthorshavetreatedBunge'sgenusasGypsophilasect.Hetero-
chroa (Bunge) Fenzl (e.g., Barkoudah 1962; Rechinger 1988), based on FenzFs
treatment ofthe Caryophyllaceae in Endlicher's Genera Plantarum (1836-1840;
Gypsophila, p. 971-972, published in 1840, fide Stafleu & Cowan, 1976). Ifone
accepts the arguments of Brizicky (1969) for considering infrageneric names
appearing in that volume "as published without an indication ofrank,"as I did
earlier in the case of Petrorhagia (Rabeler 1984), then FenzFs combination is
rankless andcannot be used.Thisis alsoconsistentwith McNeiirs (1962) treat-
mentofFenzFsnamesinArenariaandMinuartia.Thecorrectedcitationis:
Gypsophila sect. Heterochroa (Bunge) A. Braun, Flora 26: 383. 1843. Hetero-
chroa Bunge in Lcdebour, Fl. Alt. 2: 131. 1830. Gypsophila b. Hetero-
chroa (Bunge) Fenzl in Endl., Gen. pi. 972. 1840.—Type: Heterochroa
petraeaBunge{^Gypsophilasericea(Ser.)Krylov].
The choice ofGypsophila microphylla (Schrenk) Fenzl as the type ofGyp-
sophilasect.HeterochroabyBarkoudah(1962)andRechinger(1988)isincorrect.
Bunge included a single species in his protologue ofHeterochroa; according to
Art. 10.2,thetypeofitsnamemustbethetypeofthegenericname.Thistypeis
maintainedforallcombinationsinvolvingthatname(Art.7.12).
The attribution ofGypsophilasect. Dichoglottispresentsasimilarsituation.
In 1835,FischerandMeyerdescribedDichoglottis,includingonespecies,D.line-
arifoliaFischer&C.Meyer.MostsubsequentauthorshaveincludedDichoglottis
within Gypsophila, most recently as a section (e.g., Barkoudah 1962; Rechinger
1988).Inthiscase, Barkoudah(1962)attributedthecombination toBoissierand
didnotrecognize FenzFsearliersubgenericplacementinEndlicher(1836-1840).
Becauseanearliercombinationexists,thecorrectcitationisasfollows.
Gypsophilasect.Dichoglottis(Fischer&C.Meyer)A.Braun,Flora26:383.1843.
DichoglottisFischer&C.Meyer,IndexSem.Hort.Petropol. 1:25.1835.—
Type: Dichoglottislinearifolia Fischer& C. Meyer [=Gypsophila lineari-
folia(Fischer&C.Meyer)Boiss.].
ThechoiceofGypsophilaelegansM.Bieb.astypeofGypsophilasect.Dichoglot-
tis by Barkoudah (1962) and Rechinger (1988) is incorrect. Since Fischer and
MeyerincludedasinglespecieswithinDichoglottis,thetypeofitsnamemustbe
l-'^4 CONTR.UNIVERSITYOFMICHIGANHERBARIUM VOLUMH19
the type ofthe name ofthe genus (Art. 10.2) and anysubsequentcombinations
(Art.7.12).
Within Gypsophila sect. Dichoglottis, Barkoudah (1962) described subsect.
Purpurae, typifying it with G. elegans M. Bieb. Barkoudah (1962) included G.
ccapiilaris(Forssk.)C.ChristinGypsophilasubsect. Purpurae.Rokejekucupillaris
Forssk. isthe type ofthe monotypicgenus Rokejeka Forssk. andan earliersub-
sectionalcombinationinGypsophila.Hence,Barkoudah^snameandtypefallinto
synonymyofthecorrectname:
Gypsophilasubsect. Rokejeka(Forssk.)F.Williams,J.Bot.27:325. 1889["Roke-
jekae"j. Rokejeka Forssk., Fl. Acgypt. Arab. 90. 1775. Gypsophila sub-
sect.PurpuraeBarkoudah,Wentia9:44. 1962.—Type:Rokejekaeapillaris
Forssk.[=Gypsophilaeapillaris(Forssk.)C.Christ.].
4)ThecorrectnameforGypsophilasuhg. Pseudosaponaria.Barkoudah(1962)
followed Williams (1889) in recognizing Gypsophila subg. Pseudosaponaria Wil-
liams, but Rechinger (1988) accepted the name Gypsophila subg. Hagenia
(Moench) Fenzl. Although Gypsophila sect. Hagenia is the correct name at the
rank ofsection, Hageniawas not transferred tosubgenericrankuntil 1934. Con-
trary to Rechinger (1988), Fenzl (in Endlicher 1836 1840) did not make any
combination involving Hageniabut included Hagenia in the synonymy ofhis ''a.
Dichoglottis.^"
Lychnis
ModifyingPaxandHoffmann\s(1934)treatmentofLychnistoreflect more
current views (Chater 1964; ,Ialas & Suominen 1986) requires adopting an
autonym {Lychnissubg. Lychnis=Pax and Hoffmann's Lychnissubg. Eulvchnis
DC,nom.inval.)aswellasonechangeinauthorshipandonenewcombination.
The correct author citation of Lychnis subgenus Coronaria is (Guett.) Pax,
ratherthan(L.)Pax.LinnaeanusageofCororumadatesfrom 1737(Gorshkovain
Schischkin 1936),butGuettardwasthe firsttoadopt itafter 1753 (Dandy 1967).
Althoughtwoearliercombinationsatthisrank exist in Reichenbach (1828), nei-
ther can be used. Usage of Lychnissubg.Agrostemma (L.) Reichenb. would be
countertoArt. 10.2since thetypeofthegenericnameAgrostemmaL. {A.githa-
goL.)isexcluded.ReichenbachalsolistedLychnissubg.^'Muscipula"Riv.,apre-
LinnaeannamethatcanbeattributedtoRuppius(Pfeiffer 1874),asequivalentto
Coronaria L.; the lack of a description (or correct reference to one) prevents
usage(Art.32).
TheinclusionoftheratheraberrantPolyschenionenivalis(Kit.exJ.A.Schul-
tes) Schott, Nyman & Kotschy within Lychnis by diater (1964) and Jalas and
Suominen (1986) suggests the need for the followingcombination to emphasize
thedisparitybetweenthisspeciesandothermembersofthegenus.
Lychnis subg. Polyschenione (Schott, Nyman & Kotschy) Rabeler, comb. nov.
PolyschemoneSchott,Nyman& Kotschy,AnalectaBot.55. 1854.^Tyi'e:
LychnisnivalisKit.exJ.A.Schultes.
1993 RABELER:CARYOPHYLLACEAE 155
MiNUARTIA
McNeill(1962),inrevisingtheinfragenericclassificationoiMlnuartia,included
seven autonyms at the series level. One of these, Minuartia ser. Minuartia, is
expected.NamesthatMattfeldpublishedasserieshavepriorityovertheremain-
ing six; only one was used by both Mattfeld and McNeill. McNeill (1962) cited
Minuartiasubsect.Spectabiles(Fenzl)McNeillasanautonym;thiscombinationis
validlypubhshedunderArt.34.3.
Minuartiaser.BifloraeMattf.,Repert.Spec.Nov.RegniVeg.Beih.15: 183.1922.
Minuartiaser.SpectabilesMcNeill,NotesRoy.Bot.Card.Edinburgh24:
140.1962.
Minuartiaser. Laricifoliae Mattf., Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. Beih. 15: 182.
1922;McNeill,NotesRoy.Bot.Card.Edinburgh24:142.1962.
Minuartiaser.CerastiifoliaeMattf.,Repert.Spec.Nov.RegniVeg.Beih.15:136.
1922. Minuartia ser. Lanceolatae McNeill, Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edin-
burgh24:143.1962.
Minuartia ser. Flaccidae Mattf., Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. Beih. 15: 148.
1922. Minuartia ser. Acutiflorae McNeill, Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edin-
burgh24:145.1962.
Minuartiaser. Fasciculatae Mattf., Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. Beih. 15: 54.
1922.Minuartiaser.XeralsineMcNeill,NotesRoy.Bot.Gard.Edinburgh
24:149.1962.
Minuartia ser. Tenuifoliae Mattf., Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. Beih. 15: 32.
1922.Minuartiaser.Sabulina McNeill,NotesRoy.Bot.Gard.Edinburgh
24:150. 1962.
Two ofthe sectional names used byMcNeill (1962) require author citation
changes to reflect earliercombinations made by Hayek (1908-1911; p. 273-277
publishedin1908,fideStafleu&Cowan,1979).
Minuartiasect.Aretioideae(Fenzl)Hayek,Fl.Steierm.1:277.1908.
Minuartiasect.Sabulina(Reichenb.)Hayek,Fl.Steierm. 1:273. 1908 ["Sabu-
lineae"].
TheattributionofMinuartiasubg.Rhodalsinemustalsobechanged.McNeill
A(1s9c6h2e),rscointin&gMGirnauearbtniears(u1b9g1.3-R1h9o1d9a;lspi.ne77(4G,ayp)ubGlirsaheebdneirn,1r9e1f8e,rrefiddetoStp.af7l7eu4 i&n
Cowan, 1976) as theplaceofpublicationforthiscombination. Graebnerindeed
recognizedthissubgenus,butasMinuartiasubg.Psammophilae(Fenzl)Graeb-
ner, and cited Rhodalsine in synonymy; under Art. 34.1(c), the combination
McNeill cited is not validly published. Pax^s earlier (1889) recognition ofAlsine
156 rONTR.UNIVERSITYOFMICHIGANHERBARIUM VOLUME19
subg.Rhodalsine(Gay)Pax,however,predatesGraebncr'scombination,andallows
retentionofthenamethatMcNeillchose.Thecorrectcitationis:
Minuartiasubg.Rhodalsine(Gay)McNeill,NotesRoy.Bot.Gard.Edinburgh24-
134.1962.
Paronychia
Twoofthe subgenericcombinationsproposedbyChaudhri(1968) hadbeen
previouslypublished.
Paronychia subg. Siphonychia(Torrey & A. Gray) Reichenb., Deut. Bot.-Herb.
Buch. 162. 1841;Chaudhri,Meded. Bot. Mus.Herb. Rijks Univ Utrecht
285:82. 1968.
Paronychiasubg. Anoplonychia (Fenzl) Reichenb., Deut. Bot.-Herb. Buch. 162.
1841; Chaudhri, Meded. Bot. Mus. Herb. Rijks. Univ. Utrecht 285- 91
1968.
One of the three autonyms that Chaudhri (1968) chose within Paronychia
subg.Anoplonychia(Fenzl)Reichenb.mustbereplacedbyanearhername.
Paronychia sect. Anoplonychia (Fenzl) Fenzl in Ledeb., Fl. Ross. 2: 162. 1843.
Paronychiaa.AnoplonychiaFenzlinEndl.,Gen.pi.958. 1839.
The other two names, Paronychia subsect. Anoplonychia (Fenzl) Chaudhri
and Paronychia subsect. Heterosepalae (Chaudhri) Chaudhri, are validly pub-
lishedaccordingtoArt.34.3;these namesweresimultaneouslyusedforsections
andsubsections.
Saponaria
1) Typification amiplacementofSpanizium. Grisebach described the genus
Spanizium in 1843, including a single species originally described in Saponaria,
Saponaria ocymoides (L.) Griseb. Two separate issues arise from Grisebach's
action: the identityofthe type ofthegenericname and the placementofSpan-
iziumwhenitstypeisincludedinSaponaria.
ShultzresurrectedSpaniziumin 1984,usingittosegregateSaponariaprostra-
ui Willd. from Saponaria. He argued (Shultz 1984, 1989) that Grisebach (1843)
misidentificdaspecimenofS.prostrataasS.ocymoideswhenhedescribedSpan-
izium. Shultzcitedthe typeofSpaniziumas".S\ ocymoides(L.)Griseb.p.p.excl.
basionymo {=S.prosfratum (Willd.) V. A. Shultz),'' an attempt tocorrect Grise-
bach's error. Article 10.2 does not allow such a correction; Spanizium must be
typified by .V. ocymoides regardless of what Grisebach cither had in hand or
shouldhavewritten.BecauseShultzexplicitlyexcludedGrisebach'stypeofSpan-
izium, hecreatedalaterhomonymofSpanizium(Art.48).Twocoursesofaction
are possible. Spanizium sensu Shultz can be retained only ifconserved with S.
prostratum as the type (Art. 14.8).The alternative isasubstitute name tosegregate
— —
1993 RABELER:CARYOPHYLLACEAE 157
SaponariaprostrataandS.kotschyiBoiss.fromtherestofthegenus.Irefrainfrom
eithercourse,sinceIamnotconvincedofthevalidityofthissegregation.
Boissier(1867)firstusedSpaniziumasaninfragenericepithetwithinSapona-
ria, in this case with rank clearly indicated. He described Saponaria sect. Span-
izium(Griseb.) Boiss.,includingtwospecies,S. kotschyiandS.prostrata. Anew
name isrequired,since the type ofSpanizium,S. ocymoides, isnowplaced in a
differentsubgenus(Simmler1910).AccordingtoArt.10.2,thetypeofSpanizium
mustbeS.ocymoidessince Grisebachnamedonlyonespecies {S.ocymoides)in
theprotologue.Thefollowingnameisthusproposed:
Saponariasect.ProstrataeRabeler,nom.nov.Saponariasect.Spanizium(Griseb.)
Boiss.,Fl.Orient 1:529. 1867,descr.excl.type. Typf::Saponariaprostrata
Willd.
2)Anoverlookedsubgenericname. Brizicky (1969) notedthatonesource of
subgenericnamesoftenoverlookedisReichenbach'sConspectusregnivegetabilis.
ThenameSaponariasubg.SaporhizaeaSimmler(1910)mustbe replacedbyone
suchoverlookedcombination.
Saponariasubg.Proteinia(Ser.)Reichenb.Consp.Regn.Veg.206. 1828["Protei-
na"].Saponariasect.ProteiniaSer.inDC.,Prodr. 1:366. 1824.Saponaria
subg.SaporhizaeaSimmler,Denkschr.Kaiserl.Acad.Wiss.,Math.-Natur-
wiss. Kl.85:456. 1910. Lectotype:SaponariaorientalisL. (vide Shultz,
Bot.Zhurn.69:1479.1984).
SiLENE
Chowdhuri (1957) published the most recentsynopsis ofSilene, inwhich he
divided the genus into44 sections including44 subsections. A number ofprob-
lemsexistinhisnomenclature.
1)RankingBoissier'snames. Asdiscussedabove,Isuggestthatnamessetin
boldface and preceded by § in Boissier's Flora Orientalis (1867) be treated as
unranked combinations. In his remarks aboutSilene (p. 567), Boissier admitted
the genus is not well understood, stated clearly "non sectiones proposui," and
placed"speciesOrientalesingregesquoadpotuerimnaturales";thesegregesare
the31 groupswithnamesprecededby§andassumedbyChowdhuri(1957)tobe
sections. The citations ofthe following 14 names have been modified to reflect
the firstclearrankingassections. Some ofthese combinationsappearin Chater
and Walters (1964); yet, the fact that Melzheimer (1988) followed Chowdhuri
(1957) in hisrecentSilenetreatmentinFloraIranicasuggeststhedesirabilityto
presentthemhere.
Silenesect.Italicae(Rohrb.)Schischkin,Fl.URSS6:675. 1936.Silene§ [without
rank] 19. Panicidatae Boiss., Fl. Orient. 1: 574. 1867. Silene ser. Italicae
Rohrb.Monogr.Silene77.1868.
Silene sect. Lasiostemones (Boiss.) Schischkin, Fl. URSS 6: 631. 1936. Silene §
[withoutrank]21.LasiostemonesBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:574.1867.
l.S<S CONTR.UNIVERSITYOFMICHIGANHERBARIUM VOLUME19
Silene sect. Sclerocalycinae (Boiss.) Schischkin, Fl. URSS 6: 636. 1936. Silenc §
[withoutrank]23.SclerocalycinaeBoiss.,Fl.Orient. I:515. 1867.
Silenesect. Tiinicoideae (Boiss.) Chowdhuri, Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh
22:235. 1957.Silene§[withoutrank]30. TiinicoideaeBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:
577. 1867.
Silene sect. Spergulifoliae (Boiss.) Schischkin, Fl. URSS 6: 652. 1936. Silene §
[withoutrank] 14.SpergulifoliaeBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:572. 1867.
Silene sect. Ampullatae (Boiss.) Chowdhuri, Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh
22:238. 1957.Silene§ [withoutrank] 12.AmpullataeBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:
571. 1867.
Silenesect.Finibriatae(Boiss.)Chowdhuri,NotesRoy.Bot.Gard.Edinburgh22:
241. 1957.Silene§[withoutrankj 17.FimhriataeBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:574.
1867.
Silenesect. Brachypodae (Boiss.) Chowdhuri,Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh
22:241. 1957. Silene§ [withoutrank] 24. BrachypodaeBoiss., Fl. Orient.
1:575. 1867.
Silenesect.Auriculatae(Boiss.)Schischkin,Fl.URSS6:656. 1936.Silene§ [with-
outrank] 15.AuriculataeBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:572. 1867.
Silenesect.Compactae(Boiss.)Schischkin,Fl.URSS6:615. 1936.Silene§ [with-
outrank]6.CompactaeBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:569. 1867.
Silene sect. Succulentae (Boiss.) Chowdhuri, Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh
22:244. 1957.Sdene§ [withoutrank]25.Succulentae Boiss. Fl.Orient. 1:
576. 1867.
Silene sect. Saponarioideae (Boiss.) Schischkin, Fl. URSS 6: 682. 1936. Silene §
[withoutrank]3.SaponarioideaeBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:568. 1867.
Silenesect.Rigidulae(Boiss.)Schischkin,Fl.URSS6:681. 1936.Silene§[without
rank[ W.RigidulaeBoiss.,Fl.Orient. 1:571. 1867.
Silenesect.Lasiocalycinae(Boiss.)Chowdhuri,NotesRoy.Bot.Gard.Edinburgh
22:246. 1957.Silene§ [withoutrank]8. LasiocalycinaeBoiss.,Fl.Orient.
1:569. 1867.
Mel/heimer's (1988) attributions of the following two sectional names are
likewisecorrectedhere.
Silenesect. ScorpioideaeChowdhuri,Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 22: 247.
1957. Silene ^ [without rank] 9. BipartitaeBoiss..Fl. Orient 1:594. 1867.
Sileneser. Bipartitae(Boiss.)Rohrb.,Ann.Sci.Nat. Bot. V.8:371. 1868.
Sileneser.ScorpioideaeRohrb.Monogr.Silene67. 1869,nom.superfl.
