(3064) Proposal to conserve the name Delphinium candelabrum Ostenf. against D. candelabrum (B.K. Bliss & S.B. Bliss) Neubert (Ranunculaceae)

Abstract

(3064) Delphinium candelabrum Ostenf. in Hedin, S. Tibet 6(3): 80. 1922 [Angiosp.: Ranuncul.], nom. cons. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): Eastern or Inner Tibet, near Camp XLIV, 5127 m, 9 Aug 1901, Hedin (S No. S-G-8638 [image!]; isolectotype: C barcode C10017557 [image!]). (H) Delphinium candelabrum (B.K. Bliss & S.B. Bliss) Neubert in Deutsch. Mag. Garten- Blumenk. 1871: 119. 1871 (Delphinium consolida var. candelabrum B.K. Bliss & S.B. Bliss, Descr. Cat. Veg. Agric. Fl. Seeds 16: 120. 1 Jan 1870), nom. rej. prop. Typus: non designatus. The name Delphinium candelabrum Ostenf. (in Hedin, S. Tibet 6(3): 80. 1922) has been widely used in India and China in different Floras and other taxonomic works since its publication. Some notable works accepting D. candelabrum Ostenf. include Mukerjee (in Bull. Bot. Surv. India 2: 293. 1960), Wang (in Acta Bot. Sin. 10: 78. 1962), Munz (in J. Arnold Arbor. 48: 509. 1967), Grierson (in Grierson & Long, Fl. Bhutan 1: 312. 1984), Naithani (Fl. Pl. India, Nepal & Bhutan: 10. 1990), Rau (in Sharma & al., Fl. India 1: 89. 1993), Nayar (Hot Spots Endemic Pl. India, Nepal & Bhutan: 168. 1996), Wang & Warnock (in Wu & al., Fl. China 6: 239. 2001), Agnihotri & al. (in Pleione 8: 346. 2014), Sinha & al. (Pl. Indian Himal. Region 2: 501. 2019), Mastakar & al. (in Mao & Dash, Fl. Pl. India Annot. Checkl. Dicot. 1: 20. 2020), Gogoi & al. (Fl. Sikkim: 321. 2021). Reveal (in Phytoneuron 28: 1–64. 2012) reviewed the content of two horticultural magazines, Gardeners’ chronicle and Revue horticole, from 1874 and 1875, reporting hundreds of vascular plant binomials that were missing from the International Plant Name Index (IPNI; https://www.ipni.org), for which he identified an earlier place of publication for some 400 names, including “Delphinium candelabrum Lebas” (in Rev. Hort. (Paris) 46: 297. 1874). He further noted that the name Delphinium candelabrum Ostenf. would therefore require conservation to maintain its current use. Thereafter, “Delphinium candelabrum Lebas” has been considered by Plants of the World Online (POWO; https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:60458039-2, accessed 21 Nov 2024) to be a heterotypic synonym of D. ajacis L. (Sp. Pl.: 531. 1753) and D. candelabrum Ostenf. considered an illegitimate name, being a later homonym of “D. candelabrum Lebas”, hence Ostenfeld's species would require a new name. However, upon closer inspection, although Lebas's (l.c.) article was titled “Delphinium candelabrum”, with sufficient description in French to achieve valid publication, his title was derived from the common name (“la dénomination commune”) of the plant. He indicated this to be a subtype of D. consolida L. (“le sous-type candelabrum”), comprising a number of dwarf races that he grouped under the name Delphinium consolida [unranked] candelabrum, thus not accepting this subtype at species rank. Nevertheless, Reveal (l.c.) seems to have overlooked an even earlier usage of the name D. candelabrum in an article (H. in Deutsch. Mag. Garten- Blumenk. 1871: 119. 1871) titled similarly (“Delphinium candelabrum”) and signed only by “H.” in a journal edited by Wilhelm Neubert. The article describes the cultivation of some individuals “of the new plant ‘Delphinium candelabrum’ from Haage & Schmidt in Erfurt”, with ample description of the resulting plants using only this name, thus sufficient for valid publication at species rank. As it turns out, the plant was already being advertised in seed catalogues under the name Delphinium consolida var. candelabrum, the earliest of these appearing to be that of B.K. Bliss & Son [= S.B. Bliss] of New York, who described it as “A new dwarf rose of Larkspurs, attaining scarcely one foot in hight [sic], and throwing out its numerous branches close to the ground, gradually diminishing in length as they approach the top. The curved appearance of the branches gives the whole plant the appearance of a candelabra. The flowers are double; must not be sown too thickly” among the novelties of flower seeds for 1870 in the 16th annual edition of their Descriptive catalogue of a choice collection of vegetable, agricultural and flower seeds … (16: 117. 1 Jan 1870). Other seed catalogues advertising this variety quickly followed, such as J.M. Thorburn & Co.'s Annual descriptive catalogue of flower seeds (p. 5. Feb 1870); Richardson & Gould's Seed catalogue (p. 43. 1872); and Briggs & Bro.'s Advance sheet and price list (p. 9. 1875). Given the earlier valid publication of Delphinium consolida var. candelabrum, the name used at species rank in Neubert's journal, which surely refers to the same cultivated plant, can be treated under Art. 41.4 as the new combination D. candelabrum (B.K. Bliss & S.B. Bliss) Neubert. While this candelabra larkspur continued to be discussed in the horticultural literature for some time thereafter, it was mostly referenced under a varietal or common name, very rarely being mentioned as a species, as by Rütter (Pflanzenw. Dienste der Kirche 3: 104. 1886), and the use of that name has all but disappeared. On the contrary, the distinctive and widely recognized Delphinium candelabrum Ostenf. has been well known for a long time and frequently cited in various literature as mentioned above. Because the name is illegitimate, being a later homonym of D. candelabrum (B.K. Bliss & S.B. Bliss) Neubert, it is currently unavailable for use. While creating a replacement name may offer a straightforward solution, such a name would be disconnected from the original description and obscure the nomenclatural history. Approving this proposal would not only align with our preference but, more importantly, uphold a core mission of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants: to provide stability and clarity in the naming of taxonomic groups (Preamble 1). Accordingly, it is proposed here to conserve the name Delphinium candelabrum Ostenf. against D. candelabrum (B.K. Bliss & S.B. Bliss) Neubert to maintain nomenclatural stability for the species concerned. A specimen at S (No. S-G-8638), which bears Hedin's original label and four individual plants, with one a good match for Ostenfeld's illustration, has been designated here as lectotype. Authors are thankful to the Director, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata for facilities and encouragement. Thanks to Dr. John H. Wiersema (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) for his valuable advice on nomenclature and editing that improved this proposal. We also thank the curators of C and S for the images and information of type specimens.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.