(3000) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Soda</i> against <i>Sevada</i> (<i>Chenopodiaceae</i> s.str. / <i>Amaranthaceae</i> s.l.)

(3000) Soda (Dumort.) Fourr. in Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon, ser. 2, 17: 145. 1869 (Salsola sect. Soda Dumort., Fl. Belg.: 23. 1827) [Angiosp.: Chenop. / Amaranth.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: S. inermis (Moench) Fourr. (Kali inerme Moench, Salsola soda L.). (=) Sevada Moq. in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 154. 5 Mai 1849, nom. rej. prop. Typus: S. schimperi Moq. The issue of typification and, consequently, proper taxonomic application, of the genus name Salsola L. (Sp. Pl.: 222. 1753) was recently intensely debated (see, e.g., Akhani & al. in Taxon 63: 647–650. 2014; Mosyakin & al. in Taxon 63: 1134–1135. 2014, in Israel J. Pl. Sci. 64(1–2): 18–30. 2017) in view of the new phylogenetic data (e.g., Akhani & al. in Int. J. Pl. Sci. 168: 931–956. 2007, in Phytotaxa 249: 159–180. 2016; Wen & al. in Pl. Syst. Evol. 288: 25–42. 2010; Kadereit & Freitag in Taxon 60: 51–78. 2011; Voznesenskaya & al. in J. Exp. Bot. 64: 3583–3604. 2013; Schüssler & al. in J. Exp. Bot. 68: 207–223. 2017, and references therein) which clearly demonstrated that many species previously placed in Salsola s.l. in fact represent several rather distant phylogenetic lineages that should be treated as many recircumscribed monophyletic genera placed in two tribes, Salsoleae and Caroxyleae (‘Caroxyloneae’). In particular, acceptance of one of the conflicting typifications, S. kali L. (designated by Hitchcock in Sprague & al., Nom. Prop. Brit. Bot.: 137. 1929; see Mosyakin & al., l.c. 2014, 2017) or S. soda L. (designated by Britton & Brown, Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed. 2, 2: 24. 1913; see Akhani & al., l.c. 2014, and Mosyakin & al., l.c. 2014, 2017) were important for the taxonomy and nomenclature of representatives of two clades usually treated as corresponding to two (or more) genera. In the first case, the name Salsola is applicable to the clade containing S. kali, S. tragus L., S. australis R. Br., S. collina Pall. and related species (see Mosyakin in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 74: 409–420, 521–531. 2017, 75: 3–19. 2018, in Phytotaxa 409: 283–290. 2019; see also Rilke in Biblioth. Bot. 149: 1–190. 1999), while S. soda is then treated in a separate genus Soda (Dumort.) Fourr. (in Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon, sér. 2, 17: 145. 1869) as Soda inermis (Moench) Fourr. (l.c.). In the second case, the name Salsola would refer to the clade containing S. soda, while the clade of S. kali would be treated as the genus Kali Mill. (Gard. Dict. abr. ed. 4: [unpaged]. 1754; corresponding to the “Kali clade” sensu Akhani & al., l.c. 2007). It should be noted that Kali inerme Moench (Methodus: 331. 1794, ‘inermis’), the basionym of Soda inermis, was often cited as an illegitimate and/or superfluous name. In fact, the name is legitimate because of Moench's simultaneous valid publication of Kali soda Moench (l.c.; ≡ Salsola kali L.), an illegitimate later homonym of K. soda (L.) Scop. (Fl. Carniol., ed. 2, 1: 175. 1771; ≡ Salsola soda L.). That precluded his transfer of Salsola soda to Kali, thereby blocking the use of the epithet “soda” for the species for which he published the replacement name ‘K. inermis’ (see Art. 11 Note 2 of the ICN: Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Recently, Akhani (in Frontiers Pl. Sci. (Online journal) 11, art. 546518: 30. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.546518) again briefly discussed the current typification of Salsola and commented that “this unexpected decision [conservation of Salsola with the conserved type S. kali – SM] necessitates several nomenclatural changes which we apply for those affected species occurring in the area of this paper”. Indeed, the name Salsola was conserved with S. kali as the conserved type (see Wilson in Taxon 66: 981. 2017), but that conservation is definitely not “unexpected” and is in fact at present unnecessary, because the same type for Salsola, S. kali, is now secured by the acceptance of the proposals made by the Special Committee on Publications Using a Largely Mechanical Method of Selection of Types (see McNeill & al. in Taxon 65: 1441–1442, 1443–1448. 2016), now included in Art. 10.5–10.7 of the current Shenzhen Code (Turland & al., l.c.). Following the now accepted typification of Salsola, Akhani (l.c. 2020) also made 13 new combinations in Soda for southwestern Asian taxa earlier usually placed in Salsola s.l., plus published one invalid intended combination (“Soda drummondii (Ulbr.) Akhani”, l.c. 2020: 30, nom. inval.), for which the basionym was omitted. However, Akhani also failed to notice that, if accepted in that rather wide circumscription, embracing all members of the phylogenetically defined Soda clade (“Salsola clade” sensu Akhani & al., l.c. 2007), the genus that he treated as Soda (sensu lato) should have another name. It has been demonstrated that the taxa earlier placed in the genera Sevada Moq. (in Candolle, Prodr. 13(2): 154. 1849), Lagenantha Chiov. (Fl. Somala 1: 292. 1929), Fadenia Aellen & C.C. Towns. (in Kew Bull. 27: 501. 1972), Choriptera Botsch. (in Bot. Zhurn. (Leningrad) 52: 804. 1967), and Gyroptera Botsch. (l.c. 1967: 807) are closely related; they were placed by Botschantzev (in Kew Bull. 30: 367–370. 1975) in the subtribe Sevadinae (see also Boulos & al. in Nordic J. Bot. 11: 309–316. 1991). It is evident now that this group of taxa is phylogenetically rooted in the Soda clade, where they occupy a rather phylogenetically advanced position (e.g., Voznesenskaya & al., l.c.; Schüssler & al., l.c.). The Soda clade also includes taxa earlier placed in Seidlitzia Bunge ex Boiss. (Fl. Orient. 4: 950. 1879), Hypocylix Woł. (in Denkschr. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss., Wien, Math.-Naturwiss. Kl. 51(2): 275. 1886), Darniella Maire & Weiller (in Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Afrique N. 30: 301. 1939; see also Brullo in Webbia 38: 301–328. 1984), and Neocaspia Tzvelev (in Ukrayins'k. Bot. Zhurn. 50(1): 81. 1993), which has already been acknowledged (see Akhani & al., l.c. 2007; Hernández-Ledesma & al. in Willdenowia 45: 281–383. 2015). As we noted earlier, “that generic name [Soda – SM] in the strictest sense will be applied most probably to a small group of species related to S. [Salsola – SM] soda L. and S. acutifolia (Bunge) Botsch. (= S. mutica C.A. Mey. ex A.K. Becker), while other species of the Salsola clade sensu Akhani et al. (2007) [Soda clade – SM] will be placed in again resurrected and probably somewhat recircumscribed genera […]” (Mosyakin & al., l.c. 2017: 24). However, the earliest generic name applicable to the whole Soda clade is neither Soda nor any other name listed above, but Sevada. Before recent molecular phylogenetic studies (see references above) and the related discussion on the proper typification of the generic name Salsola (Akhani & al., l.c. 2014; Mosyakin & al., l.c. 2014, 2017), both Soda and Sevada were almost equally taxonomically obscure names that were until recently applied to one species each, Soda inermis (occurring mainly from the Mediterranean to Central Asia, occasionally introduced in other regions) and Sevada schimperi Moq. (l.c.; northeastern Africa and the Arabian Peninsula), respectively. Sevada was even quite often confusingly considered earlier a synonym of Suaeda Forssk. ex J.F. Gmel. (e.g., Bentham & Hooker, Gen. Pl. 3(1): 67. 1880; Volkens in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3(1a): 80. 1893; Baker & Clarke in Thiselton-Dyer, Fl. Trop. Afr. 6(1): 92. 1909; Ulbrich in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam., ed. 2, 16c: 558. 1934). However, now the situation is different. Most of the currently accepted species-rank entities included in the Soda clade now have available names in the genus Soda (14 species currently accepted in the Plants of the World Online database: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:7001-1, accessed 17 Aug 2023; with several [5–6] species to be added after further research: Mosyakin & Freitag, in prep.), while only one species-rank name is still available in Sevada. Thus, renaming the genus encompassing all taxa of the Soda clade as Sevada will require numerous new combinations, instead of those now available in Soda (see Mosyakin & al., l.c. 2017; Akhani, l.c. 2020). To avoid this and to maintain nomenclatural stability in this group, it would be useful to conserve the name Soda against Sevada. It should be noted that the acceptance of our proposal will not eliminate the name Sevada from the nomenclature of this group. If two or several genera are recognized in the morphologically and phylogenetically diverse Soda clade, as we suggested earlier (Mosyakin & al., l.c. 2017), then the names Soda (s.str.) and Sevada will be available for naming the corresponding subclades, one containing Soda inermis (≡ Salsola soda) and its several close relatives (such as Soda acutifolia (Bunge) Mosyakin & al. and S. grandis (Freitag & al.) Akhani), and another containing Sevada schimperi and related taxa. However, if the whole Soda clade is treated as one genus, then the name Soda will be used for that group, instead of the earlier name Sevada. SLM, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3570-3190 We are grateful to John H. Wiersema (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) for his useful comments and editing and to John McNeill (Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K. & Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) for several 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.