(3039) Proposal to reject the name <i>Lycopsis virginica</i> (<i>Myosotis virginica</i>) (<i>Boraginaceae</i>)

(3039) Lycopsis virginica L., Sp. Pl.: 139. 1 Mai 1753 [Angiosp.: Boragin.], nom. utique rej. prop. Neotypus (vide Miller in Taxon 53: 803. 2004): U.S.A., Virginia, Henrico County, border of woods, east of Fulton Hill, 6 Jun 1940, Fernald & Long 12175 (MO No. 1569664 [barcode MO-2562917]; isoneotypus: GH barcode 00135002). In the process of writing the treatment of Myosotis L. (Sp. Pl.: 131. 1753) for the Flora of North America project, it was necessary for the author of this proposal to address the confusion associated with the name Lycopsis virginica L. (l.c.: 139). Linnaeus's diagnosis for this species was “foliis lineari-lanceolatis confertis tomentosis mollibus, caule erecto”, with a brief habitat description of “Habitat in Virginia ad vias.” This was based upon an account in Gronovius (Fl. Virgin.: 140. 1743), of “Lycopsis erecta; foliis lineari-lanceolatis tomentosis mollibus confertis: flore minimo coeruleo, caulis summitate recurva. Crescit juxta vias publicas loco sterili. Clayt. add.” The two diagnoses are similar and are not incongruent, but Linnaeus did not mention the small blue flowers in this species that were noted by Gronovius (“flore minimo coeruleo”). Later, Britton & al. (Prelim. Cat.: 37. 1888) transferred L. virginica to the genus Myosotis, as M. virginica (L.) Britton & al., placing M. verna Nutt. (Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 2: Addend. 1818) in its synonymy. Note that M. virginica should not be confused with M. virginiana L. (l.c.: 131), the basionym of what is currently known as Hackelia virginiana (L.) I.M. Johnst. (in Contr. Gray Herb. 68: 45. 1923). Fernald (in Rhodora 43: 636–637. 1941) discussed the problem of recognizing Myosotis virginica (L.) Britton & al. over Nuttall's M. verna for the same species, indicating the ambiguity of M. virginica because it essentially was based upon a blue-flowered plant, versus the unambiguous M. verna, which Nuttall based upon a white-flowered plant (“flowers small and white”; Nuttall, l.c.). Fernald indicated that the Clayton specimen at BM, the basis for Gronovius's species and hence of Linnaeus's Lycopsis virginica, would need closer examination to verify its identity, and he also noted that it was possible that L. virginica could represent the basionym for a European species. Nuttall (l.c.) had already expressed doubt about its identity, writing “Lycopsis virginica?” after his original description of M. verna. Miller (in Taxon 53: 803. 2004) claimed that no such Clayton specimen of Lycopsis virginica existed at BM. Despite Fernald's argument that the name seemed to apply to a blue-flowered species, Miller neotypified the name using a Fernald specimen of what Fernald identified as Myosotis verna from Henrico County, Virginia, U.S.A. However, at BM there is a Clayton specimen with possible application to L. virginica, collected in Virginia, bearing BM barcode BM000051658, and twice annotated as M. verna (once clearly prior to 2004). This suggests it may have been a better choice for type material, but as a lectotype, rather than the neotype selected by Miller, and perhaps is eligible to supersede the neotype (Art. 9.19 of the ICN; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). This specimen bears Clayton's description of “Buglossum pusillum flore albo, foliis hirsutus”, nearly identical to Gronovius's description of “Lycopsis pusilla”, which Gronovius attributed to Clayton. Gronovius's “Lycopsis pusilla” was presented immediately above “Lycopsis erecta” in Flora Virginica (Gronovius, l.c.). Also written on this specimen at BM, beneath Clayton's description of “Buglossum pusillum”, is Linnaeus's (l.c.) diagnosis of L. virginica. This specimen at BM may be a species of Myosotis (as currently circumscribed), but it does not seem to be a good match for any species currently recognized from the North American flora. The leaves of this specimen have trichomes with large, pustulose bases, much more so than any species in North America (native or non-native) except perhaps the introduced European M. stricta Link ex Roem. & Schult. However, the fruiting calyces are not like those of M. stricta, bearing hairs far too long for that species. The hairs of the fruiting calyces also are much too long for M. verna but are more like those of the introduced European species M. arvensis (L.) Hill or especially the native North American species M. macrosperma Engelm. However, the strongly pustulose-based leaf hairs do not seem to be those of any of these species. The material seems most similar to M. macrosperma, but if it is that species then the plants on the sheet are aberrant individuals. It is the opinion of the author of this manuscript that the specific identity of the plants in this specimen is uncertain, although others may disagree and later determine what species it represents. Prior to, but only rarely after, Fernald's (l.c. 1941) account of the problem of using Myosotis virginica rather than M. verna, M. virginica was used as an accepted name in many applicable North American floristic works (e.g., Britton & Brown, Ill. Fl. N. U.S., ed. 2, 3: 87. 1913; Small, Man. S.E. Fl.: 1124. 1933; Abrams, Ill. Fl. Pacific States 3: 542. 1951), but in the subsequent 70+ years, M. verna has been used far more extensively, with M. virginica often cited in synonymy or otherwise often noted as misapplied and sometimes ignored altogether (e.g., Fernald, Gray's Manual, ed. 8: 1204. 1950; Scoggan, Fl. Canada 4: 1292. 1979; Kaul in McGregor & Barkley, Fl. Great Plains: 700. 1986; Gleason & Cronquist, Man. Vasc. Pl. N.E. U.S.: 422. 1991; Magee & Ahles, Fl. Northeast: 861. 1999; Miller in Zuloaga & al., Cat. Pl. Vasc. Cono Sur 2: 1654. 2008; Brandenburg, Field Guide Wildfl. N. Amer.: 159. 2010; Kelley & Joyal in Baldwin & al., Jepson Man.: 479. 2012; Giblin in Giblin & al., Fl. Pacific N.W.: 433. 2018; Weakley & al., Fl. S.E. U.S.: 1351. 2022; Nat. Audubon Soc., Wildfl. N. Amer.: 553. 2023; Biota of North America Program [bonap.org]; Database of Vascular Plants of Canada [data.canadensys.net/vascan]; USDA PLANTS Database [plants.usda.gov]). This is a geographically widespread species, found in 41 U.S. states plus Washington D.C., three Canadian provinces, and is introduced in Argentina. Retaining usage of Lycopsis virginica L. is disadvantageous in two ways. First, accepting the current neotype of L. virginica requires abandoning the widely used name Myosotis verna Nutt. in favor of M. virginica (L.) Britton & al., a name which last had widespread use in the early 1950s. Second, the use of the Clayton specimen at BM, if identified to species and then designated as lectotype to supersede the neotype, potentially is destabilizing to Myosotis (or perhaps other Boraginaceae) nomenclature in either Europe or North America, or potentially beyond if it is a widespread, introduced species. Therefore, due to the confusion in usage surrounding the name Lycopsis virginica, and to avoid a disadvantageous nomenclatural change (Art. 14.1), it is proposed here to reject this name outright (Art. 56.1). I thank Mark Carine, Natural History Museum (BM), for providing an image of an herbarium specimen (BM000051658), Mark Garland and Gerry Moore (USDA NRCS NPDT) for reviewing an early draft of this manuscript, and John McNeill (Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh) and John Wiersema (Dept. of Botany, Smithsonian Institution) for carefully editing this manuscript.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.