(2802) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Brugmansia aurea</i> Lagerh. against <scp><i>B. aurea</i></scp> Harrison (<i>Solanaceae</i>)

(2802) Brugmansia aurea Lagerh. in Gartenflora 42: 33. 1893 [Angiosp.: Solan.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: Ecuador, “culta in Quito, Colombia [sic]”, Hartweg (LD No. 1017574; isotypus: K barcode K000586056). (H) Brugmansia aurea Harrison in Floric. Cab. & Florist's Mag. 5: 144. 1 Jun 1837, nom. rej. prop. Typus: non designatus. In the Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 60 (Brummitt in Taxon 58: 291–292. 2009) it was stated that the Committee was recommending that Brugmansia aurea Harrison (in Floric. Cab. & Florist's Mag. 5: 144. 1837) was to be considered validly published. In the following year, however, in the Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 61 (Brummitt in Taxon 59: 1275. 2010) it was pointed out that that report had been in error, and that the Committee had, in fact, voted 14 : 3 that it was to be considered not validly published, and concluded by recommending that the name be so treated. As a consequence, Brugmansia aurea Lagerh. (in Gartenflora 42: 33. 1893) appeared in our monograph of Brugmansia Pers. (Hay & al., Huanduj: Brugmansia: 103. 2012) as a legitimate name. It transpired, though, that while our book was in press, it was communicated in the Report of the General Committee: 11 (Barrie in Taxon 60: 1212. 2011) that the recommendation in Brummitt (l.c. 2010) had been rejected. Although the General Committee cited the corrected report, it nevertheless ruled 13 : 5 : 0 : 5 that the name was validly published. The Melbourne Congress approved the General Committee's recommendations, and the binding decision that Brugmansia aurea Harrison was validly published appeared in the Appendices to the Melbourne Code (Wiersema & al. in Regnum Veg. 157: 451. 2015) and is also now enshrined in the Shenzhen Code (Art. 38 Ex. 9 in Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) and its Appendix VI (Wiersema & al., ICN Appendices I–VII, online at https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/codes-proposals/ [accessed 27 Nov 2020]), with the consequence that Brugmansia aurea Lagerh. is illegitimate after all. Brugmansia aurea Harrison had first appeared in 1836 (in Floric. Cab. & Florist's Mag. 4: 296 (‘266'). 1836) with more meagre descriptive information than was associated with its appearance there the following year which description the Committees considered. I am not aware of any further published occurrence of the name until 1841 (Parkins in Floric. Mag. & Misc. Gard. 5: 178. 1841, again with minimal description; and in Gard. Chron. 1841: 666 & 767. 1841, the name merely listed there in each instance). There is no type nor illustration, and it is presumed that this name refers to a yellow form of Brugmansia sanguinea (Ruiz & Pavón) D. Don (in Sweet, Brit. Fl. Gard.: ad t. 272. Aug 1833–1 Aug 1834), a species that became successfully established in British and Continental horticulture with the importation to England of seeds from Ecuador in 1832. The following year they yielded both the common red-and-yellow bicoloured corolla form and pure yellow-flowered seedlings (see Hay & al., l.c.: 136–138). Almost simultaneously with the publication of Brugmansia aurea Harrison (l.c. 1837), there appeared “B. flava” (mentioned without any descriptive material by “Cels frères” in Ann. Fl. Pomone 1836–1837: 96. 1837) and B. lutea Berlése (in Ann. Soc. Roy. Hort. Paris 20: 354. 1837). All three of these seem to be little more than horticultural trade names for yellow-flowered forms of B. sanguinea (likely all derived from the same original source), as there is no evidence of any other yellow-flowered Brugmansia species or hybrid in cultivation in Britain or elsewhere in Europe (or North America) at that time. Of them, the binomial Brugmansia aurea was the first to fall out of use in this sense, apparently (on searching the digitised literature) disappearing altogether from horticultural and botanical publications after the above-mentioned instances in 1841, other than once being used synonymously with “B. flava” (Anon. [“A Practical Gardener”] in Floric. Cab. & Florist's Mag. 23: 51. 1855), and not reappearing until 1893 when applied to an entirely different species as Brugmansia aurea Lagerh.; the name B. aurea has been used in that sense ever since. Brugmansia aurea Lagerh. is a common and widespread species in the Andes of Colombia and Ecuador. The type cited above was selected by Lockwood in an unpublished thesis (Taxon. Revis. Brugmansia: 180. 1973) and formally designated by Hay & al. (l.c.: 103). Like all seven species (and the many hybrids) of Brugmansia, it is highly ornamental, as well as containing significant quantities of tropane alkaloids, making it a plant of interest across a wide range of fields. The name is in common use in both specialist horticultural-botanical books (e.g., Preissel & Preissel, Brugmansia (Datura) Engelstrompeten. 1991 & Brugmansia and Datura – Angel's Trumpets and Thorn Apples. 2001; Gottschalk, Engelstrompeten. 2002; Kirchner-Abel & al., Grosse Buch Engelstrompeten. 2004; Hay & al., l.c.) and general horticultural reference works (e.g., Griffiths, Index Gard. Pl.: 349. 1994; Seagall, Botanica: Illustr. A–Z Gard. Pl.: 157. 1997; Ellison, Cult. Pl. World: 106. 1999; Cullen & al., Eur. Gard. Fl. 6: 250. 2000; Hogan, Flora: Gard. Encycl.: 261. 2003). Gardeners' interest in Brugmansia has expanded enormously since the late 1980s, with many online forums and social media pages devoted to this genus having thousands of members worldwide well familiar with the currently used species names. The International Cultivar Registration Authority for Brugmansia and Datura now details almost 2500 Brugmansia cultivars of which the great majority are hybrids that include B. aurea Lagerh. in their heritage (https://www.brugmansia.us/hybridizer-database/). Casting the net more widely, the name Brugmansia aurea Lagerh. is to be found in use in diverse fields: medical (e.g., Lampe & al., A.M.A. Handb. Poisonous Injurious Pl.: 398. 1985), phytochemical (e.g., Schultes & Hoffmann, Bot. Chem. Hallucinogens: 265. 1980; Eich, Solanaceae Convolvulaceae: Secondary Metabolites: 159. 2008), ethnobotanical (e.g., Schultes & Raffauf, Healing Forest: Med. Toxic Pl. NW Amazonia: 420. 1990; Duke & Vasquez, Amazonian Ethnobot. Dict.: 33. 1994), anthropological (e.g., Kuss, Music Latin Amer. & Caribbean 1: Performing Beliefs: Indigenous Peoples S. Amer., C. Amer., Mexico: 190. 2004; Pratt, Encycl. Shamanism 1: 68. 2007), biotechnological (e.g., Niño & al. in Pl. Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 74: 289. 2003), floristic (e.g., Møller-Jørgensen & Léon-Yánez, Cat. Vasc. Pl. Ecuador: 1058. 1999), ecological (e.g., Walla & Greeney in J. Insect Sci. 12: 106. 2012), and phylogenetic (Olmstead & al. in Taxon 57: 1159–1181. 2008; Dupin & Smith in Taxon 65: 359–375. 2018), and it appears in further reference works and research papers far too numerous to list here more exhaustively. Rejection of this proposal would result in a highly disruptive name change for so widely known a plant, as the only available synonym, Brugmansia pittieri (Saff.) Moldenke (in Boissiera 7: 1. 1943) (≡ Datura pittieri Saff. in J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 11: 187. 1921), has never had any traction as a name in use, beyond in the most sporadic instances. [Brugmansia affinis (Saff.) Moldenke (l.c.) (≡ Datura affinis Saff., l.c.: 186) has also occasionally been treated as a synonym of B. aurea Lagerh., but it is problematic as Safford based it on Brugmansia arborea sensu Lagerheim (in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 20: 663. 1895; non B. arborea (L.) Sweet), which appears to be a mixed concept of B. aurea Lagerh. and B. ×candida Pers. (Syn. Pl. 1: 216. 1805), and lacks a type (Hay & al., l.c.: 167).] The guidelines for proposals such as this ask that any negative impact of their acceptance be considered. In this case I can see none: The rejection of Brugmansia aurea Harrison has no further consequences. AH, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2884-6430 I am grateful to David Mabberley, Nicholas Turland, and John Wiersema for their advice, and to John McNeill for numerous editorial improvements.

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.