(3100) Proposal to conserve the name <i>Vitis rotundifolia</i> (<i>Muscadinia rotundifolia</i>) against <i>V. campestris</i> (<i>Vitaceae</i>)

(3100) Vitis rotundifolia Michx., Fl. Bor.-Amer. 2: 231. 19 Mar 1803 [Angiosp.: Vit.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: [U.S.A.] Michaux (P 2D-barcode P00667326). (=) Vitis campestris W. Bartram, Travels Carolina: 400. 1791, nom rej. prop. Neotypus (hic designatus): U.S.A., Alabama, Butler Co., Butler Co. Hwy. 45 intersection with Butler Co. Hwy. 32, Pigeon Creek, 31°44′11″N, 86°35′25″W, thin soil of marl outcrop, full sun, 26 Jul 2007, Diamond 17828 (USF No. 273175; isoneotypi: SAMF barcode SAMF0001646, TROY barcode TROY000009821, UTEP No. 75104). The name Vitis rotundifolia Michx. (Fl. Bor.-Amer. 2: 231. 1803) or its synonym Muscadinia rotundifolia (Michx.) Small (Fl. S.E. U.S.: 757, 1335. 1903) have long been used for a grape species known by the vernacular names muscadine or scuppernong. It is widespread in the southeastern United States (Moore & Wen in Fl. N. Amer. 12: 7. 2016) and has been cultivated commercially since the middle of the 18th century (Conner in Acta Hort. 827: 481–484. 2009; Hickey & al. in Agriculture (Basel) 9: 131. 2019). It is distinguished by having unbranched tendrils, adherent bark, prominent lenticels, and pith that is continuous through the nodes; furthermore, it can be climbing, but often is sprawling, or sometimes shrubby, is found in both forests and open areas, and has relatively large fruits that vary in color from black to purplish or bronze. Other North American grapes have 2–3 branched tendrils (rarely absent), exfoliating bark, inconspicuous or no lenticels, and pith that is interrupted by nodal diaphragms; these species usually are high-climbing vines found in forests, and they usually have smaller black to dark purple (sometimes also glaucous, never bronze) fruits in large clusters (Moore & Wen, l.c.). Uttal (in Rhodora 86: 62. 1984) designated the lectotype of Vitis rotundifolia to be the specimen at P shown on card 122, photo 21, in the IDC microfiche set of the Michaux Herbarium at P (Inter Documentation Company. 6211: Microfiche set of the Herbarium of A. Michaux, Flora boreali-americana. 1967). There are two specimens of V. rotundifolia in the Michaux Herbarium; the specimen designated by Uttal has “no. 5” (P 2D-barcode P00667326) on the label. Although Uttal used the term “type”, as pointed out by Fisk & Krings (in J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 3: 739–740. 2009), this is correctable to “lectotype” under Art. 9.10 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). In his account of his travels in what became the southeastern United States, Bartram (Travels Carolina: 400. 1791) described finding a grape he called Vitis campestris growing on “extensive open plains […] producing a few trees and shrubs or undergrowth” that do “not climb into high trees, but creep along from one low shrub to another, extending their branches to a great distance horizontally round about; and it is very pleasing to behold the clusters pendant from the vines, almost touching the earth, indeed some of them lie upon the ground.” He also noted that the ripe grapes were large, of various colors, and had sweet, rich juice. Although Rickett (in Rhodora 46: 389–391. 1944) argued that Bartram's names were not validly published because he did not consistently use binomials, thereby violating what is now Art. 23.6, Merrill (in Bartonia 23: 10–35. 1945) pointed out that 358 of Bartram's names were binomials and only two were polynomials. As Art. 23.6 is now worded, binomials are to be treated as invalid if they appear in works in which polynomials predominate, which obviously is not the case here. Therefore, the question becomes whether Bartram's narrative constitutes a description. We believe that because he noted the unusual growth habit and the relatively large fruits that vary in color, Bartram provided a description; this opinion is shared by several experts in botanical nomenclature (K. Gandhi, pers. comm.). We have been unable to find any Vitis specimens collected by William Bartram, including at BM, which houses the only plants known to have been collected by Bartram (Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 94 [TL-2, 1]: 132. 1976), and no Vitis species is among the drawings from Bartram's travels (Ewan, Bot. Zool. Draw. 1968; A. Stevens, pers. comm.). This absence of original material, together with Bartram's scanty description, could be an argument for rejecting the name V. campestris. However, Fernald (in Rhodora 46: 48. 1944), who accepted Bartram's V. campestris as valid, strongly believed that it and Michaux's V. rotundifolia are synonyms. Harper (Travels of William Bartram. Naturalist's ed.: 521. 1958), following input from Bayard Long, suggested that Bartram may have been referring instead to V. labrusca L. (Sp. Pl.: 203. 1753). However, Harper (l.c.) reconstructed that Bartram encountered V. campestris in or near what is now Butler County, Alabama, and specimen records show that V. labrusca is not found in that part of Alabama; furthermore, V. labrusca is high climbing, has black fruits, and is often found in relatively wet forest areas. The trailing or scrambling growth form Bartram described is unique to V. rotundifolia among Vitis from the southeastern United States, and no grape species other than V. rotundifolia found in the region also has the same combination of habitat and fruit morphology, colors, and flavor. We believe there can be little doubt that V. campestris and V. rotundifolia are synonyms. Still, typification is necessary to fix the application of Vitis campestris. Because we have been unable to locate any original material, we have chosen to neotypify this name, designating A.R. Diamond 17828, which was collected in Butler County, Alabama, and shows the distinctive unbranched tendrils and large fruits characteristic of V. rotundifolia. Because the name Vitis campestris W. Bartram (1791) is validly published, it has priority over V. rotundifolia Michx. (1803). However, the name V. campestris is virtually unknown in the taxonomic and floristic literature. The only publications we could find, even using a Google Scholar search, where that name appears are those discussing the validity of Bartram's binomials (Fernald, l.c.; Merrill, l.c.; Harper, l.c.; Wilbur in J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 87: 65–66. 1971) and an unpublished doctoral dissertation that merely notes Bartram's comments about Native Americans having eaten the fruits (Lee, Settlement Pattern Analysis Late Mississippian Period Piedmont Georgia [Univ. Georgia Lab. Archaeol. Ser. Rep. 65]. 1977). In contrast, V. rotundifolia and its synonym Muscadinia rotundifolia have a long, stable, and well-established history of use, and they are the only names that appear in floristic works. A Google Scholar search on 21 May 2025 found over 9600 publications using these names, including almost 8000 in the last 20 years, the vast majority of which apply to the species’ agricultural use or nutritional qualities. Conserving the name Vitis rotundifolia over V. campestris would preserve a well-established name that has been in use for more than two centuries, thus contributing to nomenclatural stability. It would also prevent undesirable changes that could impact taxonomic, floristic, and agronomic studies. Adopting the older name, which has seen almost no use, would be disruptive. We thank Kanchi Gandhi for calling our attention to this problem and for consulting with others regarding the validity of Bartram's name. We also thank Jacek Wajer at BM for searching for any Bartram Vitis specimens there, Antony Stevens for confirming that there is no Bartram drawing of Vitis at the Natural History Museum (London), and Cécile Aupic at P for providing images of the V. rotundifolia specimens in the Michaux Herbarium.

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.