(2760) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Primula sinensis</i> Sabine ex Lindl. against <i>P. sinensis</i> Lour. (<i>Primulaceae</i>)

(2760) Primula sinensis Sabine ex Lindl., Coll. Bot.: t. 7. 1 Apr 1821 [Angiosp.: Primul.], nom. cons. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): China, Guangdong, 1818, Reeves (BM barcode BM000996827!). (H) Primula sinensis Lour., Fl. Cochinch. 1: 105. Sep 1790, nom. rej. prop. Typus: non designatus. Primula sinensis Lour. (Fl. Cochinch. 1: 105. 1790) was based on plants collected by Loureiro from Guangzhou, south China, where he resided for a period of 3–4 years before 1790 (Merrill in Philipp. J. Sci. 15: 226. 1919). Since its publication, the name P. sinensis Lour. has only been occasionally and evidently misused (Grosier, De la Chine 3: 70. 1819; Dietrich, Nachtr. Vollst. Lex. Gärt. 6: 535. 1820). In his commentary on Loureiro's Flora Cochinchinensis, Merrill (in Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. 24(2): 403. 1935) argued that this species is clearly neither a Primula nor a primulaceous plant, but he could not suggest its placement because of the indefinite description and the lack of specimens for examination. In the protologue, Loureiro provided the Chinese name “Yu tsuan hoa [玉簪花]” and the description “Herba annua, 6-pollicaris; radice crassâ, subdivisâ. Folia radicalia, cordato-ovata, acuminata, integerrima, glabra; petiolis longis, erectis. Scapi teretes, nudi, erecti, sub-triflori, foliis longiores; involucro 2-phyllo, floribus subæquali. Corolla alba, hippocrateriformis: limbo plano 5-6 fido, laciniis acutis, integris.” So there are good reasons for assuming that Loureiro's plant is not a member of Primula but is referable to Hosta plantaginea (Lam.) Asch. (in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 21: 53. 1863), a plant commonly cultivated in gardens for ornament in China (Chen & Boufford in Wu & al., Fl. China 24: 133. 2000). Primula sinensis Sabine ex Lindl. (in Coll. Bot.: t. 7. 1 Apr 1821) was described based on living plants grown by Thomas Palmer of Bromley, Kent, a relative of Captain John Reeves, a resident of Canton (Guangzhou), China, who had previously provided plants and drawings to the Horticultural Society of London, including, in 1819, a drawing of a Chinese primrose cultivated in gardens in Canton along with dried specimens. Another name, Primula praenitens Ker Gawl. (in Bot. Reg. 7: t. 539. 1 May 1821), was based on the same collection and was published only a month later. Although Reeves later sent living plants and seeds, the only plants that grew were those described and illustrated by Lindley and Ker Gawler. Joseph Sabine, the Secretary of the Horticultural Society, had given the name “Primula sinensis” to the plant, something of which Ker Gawler was also aware, but he proposed a new name because of the existence of the earlier homonym Primula sinensis Lour. (l.c.). The name P. sinensis Sabine ex Lindl. is an illegitimate later homonym of P. sinensis Lour. under Art. 53.1. The name P. praenitens is thus the correct name for the species (Richards, Primula, ed. 2: 117. 2002; Wu & al., Fl. China 1: 161. 2013; Flora of China Homepage, http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=200017411 [accessed 1 Apr 2020]), but, until these two recent adoptions, this name was only sporadically used and only in the 19th century (Sweet, Brit. Fl. Gard. 2: t. 196. 1825–1827; Nees & Sinning, Samml. Schönbl. Gew.: 51. 1831; Upton in Hort. Reg. & Gen. Mag. 2: 164. 1833; Dietrich, Syn. Pl. 1: 643. 1839; Dix in Proc. Roy. Hort. Soc. London 2: 361. 1862; Smith in Fl. World Gard. Guide 6: 13. 1863). The original material of the name Primula sinensis Sabine ex Lindl. included a Reeves specimen, a Chinese drawing, and a simultaneously published illustration. We select, above, the Reeves specimen at BM (BM000996827) as the lectotype. Although Primula praenitens was evidently based on plants from the same source as P. sinensis Sabine ex Lindl., there is no evidence that Ker Gawler ever used the specimen or the Chinese drawing. In the almost 200 years since the almost simultaneous publication of these two names, P. sinensis Sabine ex Lindl. has been widely used for this Chinese primrose in over 30 taxonomic revisions, floras and horticulture guide-books. These include: Pax & Knuth in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 237 (Heft 22): 21. 1905; Smith & Forrest in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 16: 40. 1928; Smith & Fletcher in Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 61: 432. 1946; Chittenden, Roy. Hort. Soc. Dict. Gard. 3: 1680. 1956; Li, Gard. Fl. China: 176. 1959; Bailey & Bailey, Hortus Third: 910. 1976; Hu in Chen & Hu, Fl. Reipubl. Pop. Sin. 59(2): 50. 1990; Halda, Primula Cultivation & Wild: 63. 1992; Hu & Kelso in Wu & Raven, Fl. China 15: 127. 1996; Basak & al., Primula India: 107. 2014; Dietz, Compl. Lang. Fl.: 174. 2020. It is clear that the name Primula sinensis Sabine ex Lindl., although an illegitimate later homonym, is much better known and more widely used since the mid-19th century than P. praenitens. A Google Scholar search [by the editors] on 15 May 2020 gave 5780 results for “Primula sinensis” against 64 for “Primula praenitens”. The name P. sinensis Lour. is not in use and is probably a synonym of Hosta plantaginea (Lam.) Asch. Although Richards (l.c.) pointed out that the name P. sinensis Sabine ex Lindl. could be conserved to be available for use, he has never formally submitted such a proposal. Here, we formally propose to conserve the name P. sinensis Sabine ex Lindl. against its earlier homonym, P. sinensis Lour. in the interests of nomenclatural stability. As it has one month's priority over P. praenitens, acceptance of this proposal will make it the correct name for the species. YX, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7922-6787; YFD, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0876-3286; GH, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6125-9305. We are grateful to Dr. John McNeill (Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K. & Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) for his valuable advice on nomenclature and for his editorial comments and to Dr. John Wiersema, Department of Botany, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. for valuable comments on the proposal. We would like to thank the herbaria of BM, E, K & MO for facilities to consult specimens and for literature. This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 31700173) and the Special Funds for the Young Scholars of Taxonomy of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. ZSBR-012).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.