Cocculus carolinus

Cocculus carolinus View in CoL (L.) DC., Syst. Nat. 1:524. 1817 [1818]; M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 151. 1873 (“ Caroliniana ”).

The name “C[occulus] Caroliniana, DC. ” adopted by Young (1873) is an orthographic variant of C. carolinus . The description of this species in her flora clearly is copied from Chapman (1860, as “ C. Carolinus, DC. ”), while the specific epithet probably was taken from Wood (1861, as “ C. Carolinianus DC. ”). Standard indices ( IPNI 2021; Tropicos 2021) suggest that this orthographic variant first appeared in the horticultural literature as “ Cocculus carolinianus auct., Gartenflora 35:404. 1886 ” even though this source itself attributes the name to “Gard.monthly Philad.” where the same orthographic variant was used ( Thomson 1886) earlier. Nonetheless, as evidenced by Wood (1861) the variant spelling was in the floristic literature well before then.

Desmodium pubens (Torr. & A. Gray) M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 233. 1873. Desmodium paniculatum var. pubens Torr. & A.Gray, Fl. N. Amer.1(3):364. 1840 (“γ. pubens ”). TYPE: U.S.A. Louisiana.“Western Louisiana,” s.d., Dr. Hale s.n. (LECTOTYPE, designated here: GH [GH01961878 as image!]).

Desmodium paniculatum (L.) DC., Prodr. 2:329. 1825.

In Young’s (1873) treatment of Desmodium Desv. , this taxon is reported as “ D. pubens .” She gave no authority for the name. Her description, however, was copied from Torrey and Gray (1838) and she ends her entry with “– Gray and Torrey,” an indirect reference to the latter publication and not to a specimen. This name was recorded by Index Kewensis ( Jackson 1884) as “[ Desmodium ] pubens, Young, Fl. Texas, 233; ex S. Wats. Bibliog.

Ind.N. Am. Bot. 218 = paniculatum ” and sometimes is cited incorrectly as “ Desmodium pubens M.J. Young ex S.Watson. ”

Hibiscus drummondii View in CoL (Torr. & A. Gray) M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 186. 1873 ( “ Drummondii View in CoL ”), non Turcz., Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 31(1):195. 1858. Malvaviscus drummondii Torr. View in CoL & A.Gray,Fl. N. Amer. 1(2):230. 1838. Malvaviscus arboreus var. drummondii View in CoL (Torr. & A. Gray) Schery, Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 29:215. 1942 ( “ Drummondii View in CoL ”). TYPE: U.S.A. Texas.Sine loc., s.d., T. Drummond III 1 [LECTOTYPE, designated by Turner & Mendenhall (1993:447): NY (NY00221867 as image!)].

Although this combination appears without authorship in Young (1873), it is indirectly linked to a name previously published by Torrey and Gray (1838). Young’s description of Hibiscus drummondii View in CoL is copied almost verbatim from the protologue of Malvaviscus drummondii View in CoL . The only differences are that the former is abbreviated in length. Otherwise, every word in the former is exactly the same as in the latter with one insignificant exception, Young (or Buckley) substituted “red” for “scarlet.” Given that the descriptions are identical, the species epithet is the same, the voucher collection is the same, and Young (and Buckley) is known to have used Torrey and Gray’s A flora of North America (1838) while compiling her own flora, it seems clear that H. drummondii View in CoL is a combination and not a new species. The change in generic circumscription is not explained by Young (1873),but Gray (1852) in a footnote attached to his treatment of M.drummondii View in CoL in Plantae Wrightianae transferred M. floridanus Nutt. View in CoL to H. floridanus (Nutt.) Shuttlew. View in CoL ex A. Gray. Perhaps this was the impetus for the analogous transfer of M. drummondii View in CoL .

The protologue of Malvaviscus drummondii states simply “ Texas, Drummond !” The lectotype is a specimen in the Torrey Herbarium (NY) that does not have an original label. Torrey, however, wrote on the sheet “ Malvaviscus Drummondii, T & Gr. ” and “ Texas, Drummond, Coll. III , 1.” The sheet also includes pencil sketches of the stigmas and the anther column, the latter mentioned in the protologue. It is not clear that there are duplicates of “ Drummond, Coll. III , 1.” Several herbaria have Drummond specimens of M. arboreus var. drummondii from Texas that are labelled “ Drummond Coll.II , no.1”and these are found in:BM[BM000645403 as image!], GOET [GOET007742 as image!], K [K000659685 as image!] [“Brazoria Texas ”], and P [P02285843 as image!]. Unnumbered Drummond specimens of this taxon from Texas also can be found in several herbaria, including: GH [GH0005294 as image!] [“no. 1 Hibiscus Malvaviscus | S. Felipe de Austin: Texas | T. Drummond . Hooker misit|Januar. 1835.”], GH [GH00052945 as image!], K [K000659686 as image!], and NY [NY00221866 as image!].

The type locality cannot be identified more precisely than Texas and the exact collecting date cannot be determined. Turner and Mendenhall (1993) inferred that the type locality is “San Felipe de Tejas” in Austin Co. from information on one of the unnumbered specimens. The fact that another Drummond specimen of this taxon is labeled “Brazoria” in Brazoria Co., which is some 135 km distant from San Felipe de Austin, makes this inference untenable and further suggests that Drummond may have assembled his sets of this taxon from different localities.

Malva lineariloba (Torr. & A. Gray) M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 180. 1873. Malva involucrata var. lineariloba Torr. & A.Gray, Fl. N. Amer.1(2):226. 1838 (“β. lineariloba ”). Callirhoe involucrata var. lineariloba (Torr. & A.Gray) A. Gray, Proc.Acad.Sci.Philadelphia1862:161.1862. TYPE: U.S.A. Texas.[San Felipe de Austin],s.d.[Apr.1834], T. Drummond II 40 [LECTOTYPE, designated by Dorr (1990: 48): NY [NY00221809]!; POSSIBLE ISOLECTOTYPES: BM!, E!, G [G00353067]! [“40”], G [00353144]! [“40”],OXF!)].

Although this species is presented simply as “ M [alva] lineariloba ” in Young’s (1873) flora, it is a new combination based on M. involucrata var. lineariloba (see e.g., IPNI 2021; Tropicos 2021). The description published by Young is almost a verbatim copy of the description of the variety published by Torrey and Gray (1838) except that she did not include Torrey and Gray’s parenthetic description of the length of the flowers, and she omitted their note that their description of the carpels was based on immature material. Both floras only cite “ Drummond .” Thus, it appears that Young (1873) provides “a clear (if cryptic) indication, by an author citation or in some other way, that a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis applies” ( Turland et al., 2018; Art. 38.14; emphasis added).

The lectotype is a specimen in the Torrey Herbarium (NY). Apart from “Tex. II” penciled by Torrey on the label, there are no locality data, and there is no collecting date. McKelvey (1955) noted that Drummond visited San Felipe de Austin in August and October 1833 and again in April 1834. Consequently, Dorr (1990) inferred that Drummond collected the type material of this spring-flowering species on the latter trip.

Several herbaria have Drummond specimens of Malva involucrata var. lineariloba from Texas that are no. 40 in Drummond’s “Coll. III.” These include: K [K000659302]! [“No. 40 Third Collection, Texas Drummond , 1835”], K [K000659303]! [“ Texas III n. 40, San Felipe”], K [K000659304]! [“ Texas III, nr. 40” & “San Felipe”], NY [NY00221810]! [“Coll. III. No 40”], and P [P02286260]! [“III–40”]. At least two of these specimens indicate that they were collected in “San Felipe [de Austin].”

Mammillaria texana (Engelm.) M.J.Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 279.1873 (“ Mammilaria Texana ”). Mammillaria pusilla var. texana Engelm., Proc. Amer.Acad.Arts Sci. View in CoL 3:261.1856 (“ Mamillaria pusilla var. Texana ”); Engelmann in Emory, Rept. U.S. Mex. Bound. 2(1):5, t. 5. 1859 (“ Mamillaria pusilla var. Texana ”). Mammillaria prolifera var. texana (Engelm.) Borg, Cacti 316. 1937. TYPE: MEXICO. Santa Rosa, 1853, J.M. Bigelow s.n. (LECTOTYPE (second step), designated here: MO [MO-2035110 as image!]).

Although this species is presented simply as “ M [ammillaria] Texana ” in Young’s (1873) flora, it is a new combination and change in status based on M. pusilla var. texana (see e.g., IPNI 2021; Tropicos 2021). When Engelmann (1856) published the varietal name, he indicated that he was validating it in advance of a more elaborate illustrated treatment of the Cactaceae for the “Reports of the Boundary Commission and those of the Pacific Railroad Surveys.” In the original protologue, Engelmann (1856) states only “On the Rio Grande, near Eagle Pass and southward” and does not provide the name of a collector or collectors yet when he ( Engelmann 1859) treated this taxon again in Cactaceae of the Boundary, he wrote “From Eagle Pass to Santa Rosa, Dr. Bigelow, and, according to Dr.Poselger, common on the Rio Grande below” thereby indicating that collections by Bigelow and Poselger constitute original material. The plate ( Engelmann 1859) accompanying this later description, however, is not original material as it was completed several years after the varietal name was first validly published. Interestingly, Young’s (1873) description is not copied from the protologue ( Engelmann 1856), but rather the description published in the Cactaceae of the Boundary ( Engelmann 1859). This suggests that Young (or Buckley) had a copy of the latter but not the former publication.

When Young (1873) published the combination Mammillaria texana , she cited only a collection made “Along the Rio Grande” by Dr.Poselger and not one made by Dr. Bigelow. This is not in and of itself a lectotype designation because the word type or its equivalent was not used. Coulter (1894) effectively selected a lectotype (first-step) when he wrote “Type, Bigelow specimens in Herb. Mo. Bot. Gard.” Benson (1982), who discussed the typification of most cacti of the U.S.A. and who had access to the Engelmann collection, however stated “original material not found, Mo.” A lectotype (second-step) is designated here because Coulter did not specify a single collection (viz., “specimens”) and no material annotated by him has been located.

Petalostemon phleoides Torr. & A. Gray, Fl. N. Amer. 1(2):310. 1838; M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 221. 1873 (“ aphleoides ”). Dalea phleoides (Torr.& A.Gray) Shinners, Field & Lab. 17:83.1949. TYPE: U.S.A. “ Arkansas ” [Texas?]. Sine loc.,s.d., Dr.M.C. Leavenworth s.n. (LECTOTYPE, designated here: NY [NY00026681 as image!]).

Given that Young (1873) borrowed extensively from Torrey and Gray (1838), it is difficult to interpret “ Petalostemon aphleoides” as anything more than the inadvertent miscopying of the specific epithet of P. phleoides and not as a new species as is done in Tropicos (2021). Watson (1878) very early adopted the former interpretation. Young’s (1873) description clearly is copied from Torrey and Gray (1838) although she altered in her flora the sequence of characters that they listed.

Young (1873) cites “ Drummond ” at the end of her description, which is unfortunate if not understandable as it is the sole collection attributed to Texas in Torrey and Gray (1838) who cited Drummond as the type of Petalostemon phleoides var. microphyllus Torr. & A. Gray. The type of P.phleoides is a Leavenworth collection from Arkansas, but because there are no modern collections from that state there is a suspicion ( Barneby 1977; Turner 2013) that the material may have been collected in eastern Texas, which was visited by Leavenworth in 1834 and 1837 ( McVaugh 1947). Despite citing the type of P. phleoides var. microphyllus with her treatment of “P. aphleoides” (i.e., P. phleoides var. phleoides ), the morphological characters provided by Young (1873) match those of the nominate variety and not those of the small-leaved taxon that Turner (2013) refers to Dalea drummondiana Shinners [≡ D. phleoides var. microphylla (Torr. & A. Gray) Barneby].

Ptelea baldwinii Torr. & A. Gray, Fl. N. Amer. 1(2):215. 1838 ( “ Baldwinii ”); M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 196. 1873 ( “ Baldwinii ”). TYPE: U.S. A. Florida.“St.John’s, East Florida,” s.d., Wm. Baldwin s.n. (HOLOTYPE: PH [ PH 00022669 as image!]).

Ptelea trifoliata View in CoL L, Sp. Pl. 1:118. 1753 View Cited Treatment .

Watson (1878) treated Ptelea baldwinii Torr. View in CoL & A.Gray and “ P. baldwinii Young View in CoL ” as distinct names.The former he accepted and the latter he considered to be a synonym of P.angustifolia Benth. View in CoL [≡ P.trifoliata var. angustifolia (Benth.) M.E. Jones View in CoL ]. Watson’s synonymy was repeated in Index Kewensis ( Jackson, 1884) and adopted by IPNI (2021). Young’s name, however, is not a nomenclatural innovation, but simply a citation of the species described earlier by Torrey and Gray (1838). The description in Young (1873) matches verbatim that in the earlier flora except that the phrase “styles none” in the latter is corrupted to “style none” in the former. Young also suppressed the locality and collector information provided by Torrey and Gray (1838).

Pyrus angustifolia var. melanocarpa (Michx.) M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 259. 1873. Mespilus arbutifolia var. melanocarpa Michx.,Flor.Bor.-Amer. View in CoL 1:292.1803 (“β. melanocarpa ”). Aronia melanocarpa (Michx.) Elliott,Sketch Bot. S.Carolina View in CoL 1(6):557. 1821 ( “ Melanocarpa ”). Pyrus arbutifolia var. melanocarpa (Michx.) Hook., Fl. Bor.-Amer. View in CoL 1(4):204. 1832 (“β. melanocarpa ”). Photinia melanocarpa (Michx.) K.R. Robertson & J.B. Phipps, Syst. Bot. 16:391.1991. TYPE: “ Mespilus a [sic] fruit noir| Mespilus arbutifolia fructo nigro| Tres [sic] Hautes Montagnes de| la Caroline Septentrionale et| Canada; aussi Connecticut, Boston,|etc.” and auxiliary label “ Mespilus arbutifolia | Amelanchier d’Ameri.|fruit noir. Canada |Mistassin et Quebec ” [LECTOTYPE, designated by Uttall (1984:200):P-MICH (as IDC microfiche 6211.65: III.6!)].

Young (1873) clearly associated “Var., melanocarpa ” with Pyrus angustifolia Ait. Her brief description of the variety is taken directly from Chapman (1860) and her equally brief description of the species is almost word for word the same as Chapman’s (1860) description of P. arbutifolia var. melanocarpa , which Chapman associated with “ Aronia melanocarpa Elliott [sic].” The variety published by Young (1873) is interpreted here as a new combination made by indirect reference to the basionym. Why she chose to associate this variety with P. angustifolia rather than P. arbutifolia L. is unknown although it appears to have been done in error. In Chapman (1860), the description of P. arbutifolia is sandwiched between a description of P. angustifolia and a description of P. arbutifolia var. erythrocarpa (Michx.) Torr. It is easy to imagine Young (or Buckley) inadvertently associating the variety with the wrong species as she (he) hastily cut and pasted descriptions.

Quercus san-sabeana Buckley in M.J. Young, Familiar Lessons Bot. 507. 1873 ( “ San-Sabeana ”). TYPE: U.S.A. Texas .

San Saba Co.:“Limestone Hills,” 1875, S.B. Buckley s.n. [NEOTYPE, designated by Dorr & Nixon (1985:219):MO (MO-204129)!] .

Quercus sinuata var. breviloba (Torr.) C.H. Mull., J. Arnold Arbor. View in CoL 25:439. 1944.

This new species is clearly attributed to Buckley in Young’s (1873) flora (viz., “ Q. San-Sabeana, Buckley View in CoL ”). The specific epithet “san-sabeana View in CoL ” is hyphenated in the flora and this punctuation should be maintained.Although “san-” does not appear to stand independently, it is an abbreviated form of Santa (a noun in the nominative) and “sabeana” is an adjective in the nominative. Such epithets, if published with a hyphen, retain the hyphen (see Turland et al. 2018; Art. 60.11).