Veronica beccabunga L. f. minima Engl.

Albach, Dirk C., 2025, From just a few to the most type-rich herbarium for Veronica L. (Plantaginaceae) - The effect of digitization of the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle herbarium in Paris, Adansonia (3) 47 (7), pp. 47-130 : 82

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.5252/adansonia2025v47a7

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15263558

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B534878F-B25F-FF8B-FF52-FF2F0CF3FDDC

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Veronica beccabunga L. f. minima Engl.
status

 

Veronica beccabunga L. f. minima Engl. View in CoL

Über die Hochgebirgsflora des tropischen Afrikas 379 ( Engler 1892).

TYPE CITATION. — Ethiopia, Amhara: “auf den Bergen Dedschen [=Ras Dashen] und Bachit [= Bwahit] von 4300-4500 m (Schi. II 1271)”.

LECTOTYPE (designated here). — “Schimperi iter Abyssinicum.Sectio secunda. 1271. Veronica beccabunga L. var. minima . In montibus simensibus Deggen et Bachit 1300-14000 pedes U. i. 1842 supra mare Mart. 1840”, P[ P03558737* ].

ISOLECTOTYPES (designated here). — OXF!, TUB!

Nomenclatural note. Engler described a smaller form of the widespread Northern Hemisphere species V. beccabunga from the Simen Mountains, collected by Schimper at the same time as the species above. The label calls it a variety, but we follow here the ranking by Engler (1892). Engler likely saw material in Berlin (B) but since there are no Veronica specimens of Schimper in Berlin today, they likely got burned in the second World War. Engler (1892) did not provide a description of the taxon. However, Engler explicitly referred to the description of V. beccabunga by Richard (1851: 125). Therefore, I consider the taxon validly published. In the description by Richard, the obovate-lanceolate leaves are mentioned, which distinguishes this taxon from typical V. beccabunga , and which can be studied well in the Paris specimens. None of the two specimens bear designation to a special herbarium and one even does not bear the typical Schimper labels but a handwritten label and differing slightly in the description of the locality by Richard (1851). Therefore, the specimen with the original printed label of the Schimper collection is considered the lectotype and the other specimens just original collections.

GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF