David J. MABBERLEY and Valéry MALECOT

Hippolyte Arnaud’s account of Limonium (Plumbaginaceae) in cultivation and the further nomenclatural importance of both Seringe’s and Jacques’ Flore des jardins

Abstract

Justice is done to Hippolyte Arnaud’s 1849 account of Limonium (Plumbaginaceae) in Seringe’s Flore des Jardins - in the context of the neglect of that work and Jacques’ book (the parts of which are dated here for the first time) of the same name. Limonium platyphyllum Lincz. is an illegitimate (superfluous) name for L. coronarium H. Arnaud (lectotypified here); Limonium subg. Platyclados (Boiss.) Pignatti is correctly subg. Platycladus (Spach) H. Arnaud (lectotypified here). New species names and new combinations currently accepted, but first proposed by Arnaud and Seringe, besides Jacques and colleagues, rather than the hitherto attributed authors, are listed and are thereby made more secure (by up to more than 160 years). Acacia trapezoidea (DC.) Jacques is an older name for A. littorea Maslin (Leguminosae); Albizia lucida (Jacques) Benth. is restored as the correct name for A. lucidior (Steud.) H. Hara (Leguminosae); Alstroemeria venusta Ravenna, non Hort. ex Poit., will need a new name if it is distinct (Alstroemeriaceae), Clematis × pouzatii Ser. (Ranunculaceae), typified here, is confirmed as the correct name for what is often grown as C. × aromatica Lenné & Koch; Cupressus majestica Jacques is an earlier name for C. gigantea W.C. Cheng & L.L. Fu (Cupressaceae); Magnolia odoratissima Y.W. Law & R.Z. Zhou, non Reinw. ex Jacques (Magnoliaceae) is correctly M. lawiana Sima & Hong Yu once more; Pavetta australis Hügel ex Neumann (typified here) is apparently an older name for P. australiensis Bremek. (Rubiaceae); Physostegia pulchella Lundell (1959), non Jacques (1845), becomes P.lundelliorum P. Cantino & Mabb., nom. novum (Labiatae); Populus × ontariensis Loisel. (typified here) is an earlier name for P. × jackii Sarg. (Salicaceae), which familiar name should probably be conserved; Symphyotrichum × amethystinum (Nutt.) G.L. Nesom is correctly S. × parisinum (Poit.) Malécot & Mabb., comb. nova (Compositae). Dombeya ameliae Guill., Gladiolus × gandavensis Van Houtte, Lonicera × brownii Hort. Angl. ex P.N. Jacq., Manettia splendens Hort. Angl. ex Rousselon and Sedum sieboldii Poit. are newly typified; the basionym of Oreocereus celsianus (Cactaceae) is Pilocereus celsianus Hort. Paris. ex Jacques & Hérincq, which needs to be neotypified by an authority on the germane group, as does Cupressus majestica Duch. Names in Malvaviscus and Salvia so far elude elucidation, while other disregarded nomenclatural novelties by French and Belgian authors are being passed to IPNI/POWO.

Table des matières

INTRODUCTION

1In keeping files of Mabberley’s Plant-book (Mabberley 2017) up to date, the first author, whilst revisiting the entries for Anemone Tourn. ex L. (Ranunculaceae) and Limonium Tourn. ex Mill. (Plumbaginaceae) found that, coincidentally, these were affected by consideration of two contemporary French books of almost the same name, Flore des Jardins: Anemone by that of Jacques (in Paris), and, more profoundly, Limonium by that of Seringe (in Lyon).

SERINGE, Flore des Jardins

2Nicolas-Charles Seringe (1776-1858) was a French military surgeon, later a botanist, who settled in Switzerland, teaching at both Bern and Geneva (Burdet 1978: 383-384); he published monographs on Swiss roses, willows and cereals. In 1830 he was appointed director of what is now the Jardin Botanique de Lyon, and taught botany at the university, expanding his cereal work as Descriptions et figures des céréales européennes (1841). His output was prodigious: Stafleu and Cowan (1985: 513) list 34 publications, while the Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers (vol. 5: 647, 1871) records at least 15 papers, François & Ramousse (2008-2019) listing 68 works. Seringe published on various groups, in particular cultivated plants, and summarised his wide knowledge in his Flore des Jardins (1845-49). This three-volume publication was solely his work, except for accounts on Plumbaginaceae and Caryophyllaceae by (Marius) Hippolyte Arnaud (1832-1908).

Hippolyte Arnaud

3Many of the nomenclatural novelties in Seringe’s book are to be found in IPNI/POWO, the first being listed almost 100 years ago in supplement 7 of Index Kewensis (1929; see Epilogue), so it is extraordinary that the original work by Hippolyte Arnaud in Seringe’s Flore has been completely disregarded, leading to the suspicion that it may have been deliberately ignored long ago, as in the egregious case of the work of Friedrich Dietrich (1768-1850) in Germany, twenty years beforehand (Mabberley 2020). If this is so, it could have been due to his unorthodox background. According to the Lyon records1, Arnaud was base-born, the son of Joseph Arnaud (“artiste danseur”, professional dancer) and Virginie-Zoé Barraud ("tailleuse", seamstress)2.

4Despite this inauspicious start in life, Arnaud’s talent and potential were early recognised and highly praised by Seringe (1852: 373), whose only son, a promising entomologist, had died, aged 22, in 1833 (Levrat 1833), just after Arnaud’s birth. Arnaud, with his humble, bastard, origins, seems to have been taken under Seringe’s wing and was to be described by Magnin (1917: 36) as "ancien préparateur et admirateur fervent de Seringe". In 1847, the gifted fifteen-year-old Arnaud was elected archivist of the Société d’Horticulture Pratique du département du Rhône, of which Seringe was a founding member in 1844 (Anonymous 1845a3).

5At sixteen or seventeen years of age, Arnaud prepared the account of what are now Plumbaginaceae and part of Caryophyllaceae in the third volume of Seringe’s book. He also wrote the account of Compositae for Seringe’s Flore du Pharmacien (1851: 373-426). Magnin (1917: 36) continued: "[Arnaud] espérait obtenir au Jardin botanique de la Tête-d’Or [Lyon, founded 1857] la place donnée à Cusin: c’est l’explication de son abstention lors de la fondation de la Société Botanique de Lyon, en 1872, à laquelle Cusin prit une grande part". Louis Cusin (1824-1901), who became Chef de bureau à la Préfecture du Rhône, was "Aide naturaliste au jardin botanique de Lyon (secondant le prof. Seringe)" from 1857 until 1884, having already been appointed "Secrétaire général de la Société pomologique de France créée à Lyon 1856" (Magnin 1911: 47; Vivian-Morel 1901). His botanical legacy seems to have been negligible.

6According to a letter written by Seringe in 1850 (Burdet 1978: 383-384), Arnaud intended moving away, far from his troubles in Lyon, to Livorno (Italy), but, on Seringe’s death some eight years later, he, with others (notably, not Cusin!) in Lyon, organised fund-raising (garnering 2019 fr. 35 c.) for a monument to his master (Gérard 1896: 61; Magnin 1911: 36) the resulting (and surviving), remarkable, structure being raised over Seringe’s grave at the Cimetière de Loyasse in Lyon. Arnaud, however, apparently discouraged from working any further on botany in Lyon, utilised his archival talents and experience professionally, as he came to be "employé principal et archiviste à la Compagnie P.-L.-M. [Paris-Lyon-Méditerranée railway company]", though left, after his death, "16 cartons d’herbiers (plantes des env. de Lyon et des Alpes)" (Magnin 1911: 36). Today, there are some herbarium specimens in Seringe’s herbarium (LYJB) labelled in Seringe’s hand with names proposed by Arnaud, but the whereabouts of Arnaud’s own herbarium folders is unknown – or his specimens are now unrecognisable. None of Lyon’s herbaria, which have been carefully surveyed by Faure (2006), appears to hold Arnaud specimens, nor do any other documented French herbaria.

Arnaud on Limonium

7In the third volume of Seringe’s (incomplete) Flore des Jardins, then, Arnaud, separating out on androecial details Staticaceae (pp. 291- 309, t. 5; and Limoniastraceae) from Plumbaginaceae, dealt with species in cultivation in France at that time and, following Philip Miller (who, as so often, took up a Tournefort pre-Linnaean generic name), used Limonium Tourn. ex Mill. in the modern sense, thereby preceding the work of Kuntze and other later authors in that regard, for 15 (1 purportedly new) species, while making Armeria Willd. (nom. cons.) a synonym of Statice Tournef. ex L. (nom. rej.) for three species. Giving (somewhat belated) recognition to the work of this innovatory and precocious, yet stymied, botanist (cf. Mabberley 2020), leads to the following adjustments in authorities and, in one case, restoration of one of his binomials (his other new names with no current nomenclatural consequences are being forwarded to IPNI/POWO):

81. *4Limonium arboreum (Willd.) H. Arnaud in Ser., Fl. Jard. 3: 304 (1849); Erben & al., Fl. Medit. 22: 65 (2012), isonym – Plumbaginaceae.

9Basionym: Statice arborea Willd., Enum. Hort. Berol. 337 (1809).

10Type: SPAIN, Canary Is., Tenerife, Broussonet s.n. in Herb. Willd. 6179 (B-W, holo; M, iso).

11Note. Canary Is., but widely cultivated and long known as L. arborescens Kuntze, Rev. Gen. 391 (1891), nom. illeg.

122. *Limonium coriarium H. Arnaud in Ser., Fl. Jard. 3: 303 (1849) – Plumbaginaceae.

13Replaced synonym: Statice latifolia Sm. in Trans. Linn. Soc. 1:250 (1791).

14≡ S. coriaria Pall. ex M. Bieb., Fl. Taur. Cauc. 1: 249 (1808), nom superfl. pro S. latifolia Sm.

15≡ L. latifolium (Sm.) Kuntze, Rev. Gen. 2: 395 (1891), nom. illeg., non L. latifolium Moench (1794, nom. superfl. pro S. tatarica L. ≡ Goniolimon tataricum (L.) Boiss.).

16≡ L. platyphyllum Lincz. in Novosti Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 1964: 266 (1964), nom. illeg. superfl. pro L. coriarium, syn. nov.

17≡ L. gerberi Soldano in Atti Soc. Ital. Sci. Nat. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Milano 131: 254 (1991), nom. illeg. superfl. pro L. coriarium, syn. nov.

18Type: RUSSIA ["ad Tanain inter Azov et Axey fluv.", Gerber 199] in Herb. Linn. 395.25 (LINN), lectotype, here designated.

19Notes. Eastern Europe, widely cultivated, often under the name L. latifolium. Smith cites a Traugott Gerber MS in Herb. Linn describing a plant from Russian "Tartary", on the Don at "Asoph", and material cultivated by Thomas Hoy at Syon House, England, in 1788; evidently the description was drawn up from both, but there is no Hoy specimen in LINN-SM. A sheet of flowering material described in the Gerber MS (Flora Tanaensis: 16 no. 1499, LINN) is here designated lectotype; it has a pencil annotation, in Smith’s hand, "latifolia Tr. of Linn. Soc. V. 1. 250". Specimen 395.26 has a single leaf with (on verso) Gerber’s locality and is apparently part of the same gathering, though there is no explicit linkage between the two sheets, so 395.26 is perhaps best considered a syntype.

203. *Limonium imbricatum (Girard) H. Arnaud in Ser., Fl. Jard. 3: 309 (1849); F.T. Hubb. ex L.H. Bailey in Rhodora 18: 158 (1916), isonym – Plumbaginaceae.

21Basionym: Statice imbricata Webb ex Girard in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 3, 2: 330 (1844).

22Type: SPAIN, Canary Is., Tenerife, Broussonet s.n. (MPU022960), Webb s.n. (MPU021612) – syntypes.

23Note. Canary Is.

244. *Limonium incertum H. Arnaud in Ser., Fl. Jard. 3: 306 (1849) = L. puberulum (Lindl.) H. Arnaud – Plumbaginaceae.

25= S. puberulum sensu Utinet in Ann. Fl. Pom. 1840-41: 91, t. [11] (1840), non Webb ex Lindl. (1831 = L. puberulum (Lindl.) H. Arnaud).

26Type: FRANCE [cult.]; no specimen found (see above), so Utinet’s plate must serve as lectotype here designated.

27Notes: Canary Is. Arnaud considered the illustrated plant perhaps to be distinct from L. puberulum. David Bramwell kindly confirmed the identity of the plate, which depicts the facies of a plant grown under greenhouse conditions in northern Europe, so differing from wild-collected specimens – hence Arnaud’s uncertainty (as manifest in his specific epithet) as to whether they were conspecific or not.

285. *Limonium macrophyllum (Spreng.) H. Arnaud in Ser., Fl. Jard. 3: 305 (1849); Kuntze, Rev. Gen. 2: 395 (1891), isonym – Plumbaginaceae.

29Basionym: Statice macrophylla Willd. ex Spreng., Syst. Veg. 1: 959 (1824).

30Type: SPAIN, Canary Is., (B-WILLD06178), Desfontaines [?] s.n. (B holo).

31Note. Canary Is.

326. *Limonium puberulum (Lindl.) H. Arnaud in Ser., Fl. Jard. 3: 306 (1849); Kuntze, Rev. Gen. 2: 395 (1891), isonym – Plumbaginaceae.

33Basionym: Statice puberula Webb ex Lindl., Bot. Reg. 17: t. 1450 (1831).

34Type [icon]: Bot. Reg. 17: t. 1450 (1831). This plate was drawn from a specimen grown from seeds collected by P. B. Webb on La Graciosa, Canary Islands, Spain. Cultivation was in Milford Botanical and Horticultural Nursery, UNITED KINGDOM, Surrey, Godalming. The specimen provided to Lindley by W. Young has not been found and may not have been preserved. The plate 1450 is thus designated here as lectotype. To supplement the type an epitype is here designated by V. Malécot: Hort. Webb s. n. (CGE 00047862 upper left specimen).

35Notes. Canary Is. V.M. selected the epitype from material possibly available to Lindley at the date of publication but not mentioned, though additional Webb material is known to be conserved at FI-W and CGE (in herb. Lehmann).

367. *Limonium subg. Pterocladus (Spach) H. Arnaud in Ser., Fl. Jard. 3: 294 (1849).

37Basionym: Statice subg. Pterocladus Spach, Hist. Nat. Vég. 10:348 (1841).

38Type: L. sinuatum (lectotype selected here by V. Malécot).

39- Statice sect. Pterocladus (Spach) Boiss. in DC., Prodr. 12:635 (1848) ["Pteroclados"], nom. inval., missplaced rank denoting term (Series subdivided in Sections) (cf. ICN Art. 37.7).

40- Limonium subg. Pteroclados (Boiss.) Pignatti in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 64: 361 (1971), nom inval., basionym not validly published.

41Type: L. sinuatum (lectotype designated here by V. Malécot).

42Notes. Spach (1848) listed Statice sinuata L., S. tripteris Poir. and S. mucronata L.f. as members of subg. Pterocladus. As Statice tripteris is an invalidly published name of dubious interpretation (it was found on some plant labels in Hortus Parisiensis [Jardin des Plantes] at that time [cf. Boissier 1845 and Poiret 1817] for plants assigned to Statice aegyptiaca Pers. and now to Limonium lobatum (L.f.) Chaz.) it cannot be selected as lectotype, while S. mucronata was placed in sect. Ctenostachys by Boissier (thus excluded from sect Pterocladus). Therefore, VM selects the remaining species, i.e. S. sinuata as lectotype, in conformity with current usage. Regarding the name Statice sect. Pteroclados Boiss., Boissier (1848) listed S. sinuata and S. thouinii both in subsect. Odontolepideae while Statice arborescens, S. fruticans, S. macrophylla, S. brassicifolia, S. macroptera, S. imbricata, S. puberula, S. bourgaei and S. preauxii were in subsect. Nobiles. To prevent any additional ambiguity between these two names differing by a single letter, VM choses to select the same lectotype for subg. Pterocladus Spach, i.e. Limonium sinuatum. Recent workers (see Lledò et al. Amer. J. Bot. 92: 1189, 2005) recognise this and subg. Limonium as the only supraspecific, infrageneric taxa in the genus.

Poizat’s Clematis

43Seringe’s book has a handful of other disregarded (see Mabberley [2020] and Reveal [2012] and Epilogue for possible reasons) nomenclatural novelties being passed to IPNI/POWO, including the name of a hybrid Clematis still in cultivation.

44In 1838 Seringe had been one of the members of the Commission d’Horticulture, which reported on nurseries and other gardens in the Lyon area (Hénon 1838). In the English synopsis (Loudon 1839) of the published report discussing Jean-Antoine Poizat’s much praised establishment at Villeurbanne, it was noted that Poizat (1780-1856), sometime mayor, grew "A very beautiful Clematis, with composite leaves having two leaflets, obtained from seed of C. integrifolia: the flowers are of a deep violet, and sweet-scented". This may be the "Clématite très suave et toujours fleurie" reported from the 1845 Exposition de fleurs, de fruits et d’autres produits de l’horticulture de la Société d’Horticulture Pratique du Rhône (Anonymous 1845b: 192).

45In his Flore, Seringe reported that the plant was by then growing not only at Poizat’s but in many gardens around Lyon, including the Lyon botanic garden, where a drawing had been preserved in the institute (but not yet found). He gave a full description, based on living plants and the drawing, and named it after its raiser. Although listed in databases, this, the oldest available ‘Hort.’ name, has been misattributed to later authors:

46*Clematis × poizatii Hort. ex Ser., Fl. Jard. 3: 79 (1849) – Ranunculaceae.

47FRANCE [cult.], Lyon, Hortus Lugdunensis, July 1843, Seringe s.n. (LYBG069942, lectotype designated here by V. Malécot); s.loc., s.d., Seringe s.n. (LYBG069941, epitype designated here by V. Malécot).

48Notes. This hybrid, believed to be C. integrifolia L. (central Europe to central Asia) × C. flammula L. (Mediterranean), is usually grown under the name C. × aromatica Lenné & Koch (1855). However, Lavallée (1884: 40) had C. × poizatii Hort. as a synonym of C. eriostemon Decne., this disposition leading to the synonymisation of C. × poizatii with C. × diversifolia DC. in some recent works (e.g. POWO 2021). However, as early as 1877, Poizat’s Clematis was definitively linked to "Clematis caerulea odorata" a name given to Poizat's plant by Pierre Bertin (1800-91), nurseryman at Versailles (Carrière 1877). Later, Le Bèle (1896: 42) and Ebel (1937: 42) linked the plant usually know as C. × aromatica and C. × poizatii, despite their supposed distinct origins, and in the fourth supplement to the International Clematis Register and Checklist (Donald 2012), C. × poizatii is cited as the correct name for C. × aromatica, a conclusion with which we concur. A herbarium specimen collected in August 1845 in Bertin's greenhouses and bearing the name Clematis caerulea odorata (ANY herbier Philippar- de Boucheman 001-071-01)5 matches Seringe material. The lectotype here is the only specimen in Seringe’s herbarium explicitly predating the description. However, as this sample is sterile, a second collection, bearing both the name and the Flore des jardins label is here selected as epitype.

49As a result of molecular work (Mosyakin 2016), it now seems that to maintain Clematis Dill. ex L. distinct from Anemone, the latter has to be split up (once more) and segregate genera, including Anemonoides Boerh. ex Mill., Hepatica Mill. and Pulsatilla Mill., recognised. Another such segregate is Knowltonia Salisb. of which the type species, long grown in Europe, was first correctly named in the second Flore des Jardins to be considered here (see next), the Flore des jardins de l’Europe; manuel général des plantes…. (1845-1857) of Henri Antoine Jacques (1782-1866):

50*Knowltonia capensis (L.) Jacques, Man. Gén. Pl. 1: 11 (1845); Huth, Abh. Monat. Mitt. Gesammtgeb. Naturwiss. 8: 69 (?1890), isonym – Ranunculaceae.

51Basionym: Adonis capensis L., Sp. Pl. 1: 548 (1753).

52Type: SOUTH AFRICA, Cape Province [‘CBS’], Anon. s.n. in Herb. Linn. 714.6 (LINN, lecto selected by H. Rasmussen in Opera Bot. 53: 16 (1979).

JACQUES, Flore des Jardins

53Almost contemporary with Seringe’s Flore des jardins, and also incompletely recorded in modern databases, Jacques’ & Hérincq’s Manuel général des plantes - Flore des Jardins comprises four volumes, issued as 30 fascicles, between 1845 and 1857. It was planned to be in three volumes, issued as 20 fascicles, each fascicle comprising 108 pages. The publisher was initially Audot, then Librairie Agricole Dusacq / Librairie Générale Agricole, which name appears on all title pages. From fascicle 8 to 20, Jacques was helped by François Hérincq(1820-91), whose name appears on the title pages of volumes 1 to 3, while that of volume 4 does not include Jacques at all. This last volume was the work of Pierre Duchartre (1811-94) with the help of Elie Abel Carrière (1818-96) and Charles Naudin (1815-99). The book was known either as Manuel général des plantes, or its surtitle, Flore des jardins … which appears on the titlepages. By the 1860s, part of volume 1 and the complete volume 2 had been reprinted by the Librairie agricole de la Maison rustique.

54In addition to the few mentions in Bibliographie de la France, it is possible to pinpoint the publication dates of the text with some precision through records of the dates of presentation of individual fascicles to the Société Centrale d’Horticulture de France and to the Cercle pratique d’Horticulture et de Botanique du département de la Seine-Inférieure. The fascicles were all donated by Jacques himself, being one of the founders of these societies. Moreover, some fascicles were mentioned in reports of other societies (particularly Société nationale/impériale et centrale d’Agriculture, where fascicules were presented by Pierre Pépin – see below). The table 1 below sets out the results so far of our survey of the publication date for each fascicle.

Table 1 : Publication dates of Jacques’ & Hérincq’s Manuel général des plantes - Flore des Jardins fascicles.

Fascicle	Pagination	Date of presentation (p), announcement (a) or of report (r)	Source6
1	t. 1, pp. 1-108	21 May 1845 (p) 24 May 1845 18 June1845 (r)	ASRHP 36: 388 BF 34(21): 271 ASRHP 36: 420
2	t. 1, pp. 109-216	6 Aug. 1845 (p) 10 Aug 1845 (p)	ASRHP 36: 599 BCPHB 1: 90
3	t. 1, pp. 217-324	17 Sept. 1845 (p) 5 Oct. 1845 (p)	ASRHP 36: 664 BCPHB 1: 131
4	t. 1, pp. 325-432	30 Nov. 1845 (p) 3 Dec. 1845 (p)	BCPHB 1: 162 ASRHP 37: 56
5	t. 1, pp. 433-540	28 June 1846 (p) 1 July 1846 (p)	BCPHB 2: 101 ASRHP 37: 617
6	t. 1 pp. 541-648	19 Aug. 1846 (p) 23 Aug. 1846 (p)	ASRHP 37: 619 BCPHB 2: 165
7	t. 1 pp. 649-716 + glossaire 1-38	18 Nov. 1846 (p)	ASRHP 37: 762
8	t. 2 pp. 1-108	18 April 1847 (p) 21 April 1847 (p)	BCPHB 3: 49 ASRHP 38: 340
9	t. 2 pp. 109-216	3 July 1847 (a) 7 July 1847 (p) 8 Aug. 1847 (r)	BF 36(F27): 222 ASRHP 38: 539 BCPHB 3: 123
10	t. 2 pp. 217-324	1 Sept. 1847 (p) 11 Sept. 1847 (a)	ASRHP 38: 732 BF 36(F37): 283
11	t. 2 pp. 325-432	5 Jan. 1848 (p) 20 Feb. 1848 (p)	ASCHF 39: 95 BCPHB 4: 29
12	t. 2 pp. 433-540	2 Aug. 1848 (p) 6 Aug 1848 (p)	ASCHF 39: 374 BCPHB 4: 111
13	t. 2 pp. 541-674	15 July 1849 (p) 19 July 1849 (p)	BCPHB 5: 129 ASCHF 40: 386
14	t. 3 pp. 1-108	16 May 1850 (p) 2 June 1850 (p)	ASCHF 41: 288 BCPHB 6: 86
15	t. 3 pp. 109-216	16 May 1850 (p) 2 June 1850 (p)	ASCHF 41: 288 BCPHB 6: 86
16	t. 3 pp. 217-324	1 Aug. 1850 (p) 11 Aug. 1850	ASCHF 41: 384 BCPHB 6: 115
17	t. 3 pp. 325-432	1 Dec. 1850 5 Dec. 1850 (p)	BCPHB 6: 185 ASCHF 41: 571
18	t. 3 pp. 433-540	4 Sept. 1851 (p) 21 Sept. 1851 (p) 19 Nov. 1851 (p) 30 Nov. 1851 (r)	ASCHF 42: 396 BCPHB 7: 161 BSSNCA 7: 37 BCPHB 7: 196-198
19	t. 3 pp. 541-648	4 Apr. 1852 3 June 1852 (p)	BCPHB 8: 55 ASCHF 43: 340
20	t. 3 pp. 649-778	19 Nov. 1853 (a)	BF 42(F47): 550
21	t. 4 pp. 1-108	7 Oct. 1854 (a)	BF 43(F40): 481
22	t. 4 pp. 109-216	28 Oct. 1854 (a) 7 Dec. 1854 (p)	BF 43(F43): 524 JSICH 1: 21
23	t. 4 pp. 217-324	14 Mar. 1855 (p) 15 Mar. 1855 (p)	BSSICA 10: 225 JSICH 1: 106
24	t. 4 pp. 325-432	21 Jun. 1855	JSICH 1: 271
25	t. 4 pp. 433-540	16 Aug. 1855	JSICH 1: 368
26	t. 4 pp. 541-648	24 Apr. 1856 (p) 22 May 1856 (p)	JSICH 2: 225 JSICH 2: 284
27	t. 4 pp. 649-756	26 June 1856 (p) 24 July 1856 (p)	JSICH 2: 325 JSICH 2: 408
28	t. 4 pp. 757-864	13 Nov. 1856 (p)	JSICH 2: 585, 661
29	t. 4 pp. 865-972	9 Apr. 1857 (p)	JSICH 3: 213
30	t. 4 pp. 973-1040	13 Aug. 1857 (p) 19 Aug. 1857 (r) 27 Aug. 1857 (p)	JSICH 3: 461 MAERD 1858: 139 JSICH 3: 465
Reprint "supplement"	t. 1 pp. 397-416 + dictionnaire 1-38	28 July 1860	BF 49(30): 349
Reprint	t. 2 pp. 1-674 +4	17 May 1862	BF 51(20): 217

ASRHP = Annales de la Société Royale d'Horticulture de Paris

ASCHF = Annales de la Société Centrale d'Horticulture de France

BCPHB = Bulletins du Cercle pratique d'Horticulture et de Botanique du département de la Seine-Inférieure

BF = Bibliographie de la France ou Journal général de l'imprimerie et de la librairie (here when the fascicule is preceded by "F" this refers to the Feuilleton du Journal de la Librairie, a set of advertissements).

BSSNCA : Bulletin des Séances de la Société nationale et centrale d'Agriculture

BSSICA : Bulletin de la Société de la Société impériale et centrale d'Agriculture

JSICH : Journal de la Société impériale et centrale d'Horticulture

MAERD : Mémoires d’agriculture, d’économie rurale et domestique publiés par la société impériale et centrale d’agriculture

Henri Antoine Jacques

55 Jacques was head gardener of Neuilly’s "domaine" (one of the royal domains) and later a director of the experimental garden of the Société centrale d’Horticulture de France in the nursery of the Jardin de Luxembourg in Paris. He was also one of the "propriétaires gérants" of the Annales de Flore et de Pomone, a journal the first issue of which was published in October 1831 as Journal et Flore des Jardins (and absorbing the short-lived Journal de la Société d’Agronomie Pratique [1829-30]). It had the aim, among many other things, of reporting on English illustrated horticultural journals of the time, notably Curtis’s Botanical Magazine and Lindley’s Botanical Register.

56Jacques’s collaborators under the editorship of Jean-Louis Rousselon (d. 1857) included Auguste Cels (1809-98; horticulturist, specialising in cacti), Jean François Cels (1810-88;horticulturist, specialising in epiphytic orchids), Pierre-Nicolas Jacquin (1795-1870; founding member of the Société royale d’Horticulture), Joseph Neumann (1800-58; manager of the greenhouses at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle), Pierre Pépin (1802-76; head gardener at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle); and Léon Eugène Utinet (1819-99; horticulturist). The journal included descriptions, often illustrated with full-page, unnumbered coloured plates of new species, many of which illustrations are recorded in Kew’s Index Londinensis, but, very surprisingly, therefore, not other compilations and databases (for discussion of such discrepancies, see Mabberley 2018 and Epilogue).

57Jacques used the journal to publish generic accounts of plants in cultivation in France, in effect "precursors" of the entries in what was to become his Flore. Like Louis Noisette’s Manuel complet du Jardinier maraîcher, pépiniériste, botaniste, fleuriste et paysagiste, Jacques considered his book to be the successor to the authoritative Botaniste cultivateur of Dumont de Courset (ed. 1, 1801-05; ed 2, 1811-14), another important work until lately not fully appreciated by Anglo-Saxon compilers (Mabberley 1999, 2004, 2019: 143, 249). In May 1843, Jacques exhibited his 2600-page manuscript as "Suite au Botaniste cultivateur".

58The history of Jacques’ herbarium is not well understood. At P, there are two sets of specimens that appear to be linked to him. The first set has labels with the printed indication "Herbier de Jacques" and an old stamp "Ex herbario musei parisiensis". Most of these were collected in 1848. This first set may have been prepared to be given to other institutions (hence the "ex herbario" stamps) but such distribution was apparently not effected. The specimens of the second set, apparently less numerous, bear printed labels with the words "Muséum national d’Histoire Naturelle Cultures" "Cultivé en 19… à…" and the manuscript annotation "Herbier de Jacques" following this last line, besides small undated manuscript labels, apparently in Jacques’ hand. These may represent a collection later (i.e. during 20th century) deposited at the "chaire des cultures" of the Muséum. In addition, André (1889: 346) cited "Un herbier formé par Jacques, l’un des auteurs du Manuel général des plantes, et lui ayant appartenu, a été donné à l’École par M. A[uguste]. Hardy [1824-1891], qui le tenait de son père, ami de Jacques". The "École" was the École nationale supérieure d’Horticulture (ENSH) in Versailles. If this is not one of the collections now at P, this Versailles herbarium seems to be lost, as there is now no herbarium collection at what is now called the École nationale supérieure du Paysage (ENSP) in Versailles; the few collections known to be there at the end of twentieth century, mostly from the Société d’Horticulture des Yvelines, were moved from ENSP to INH herbarium (Angers) in 2003.

59After 16 years of almost regular publication of the Annales, the consortium organising it was dissolved and the journal was taken over by one of the former "propriétaires gérants", namely Rousselon. He ran it for some fifteen months, i.e. up to March 1848, the twelfth fascicle of the third series now published by [Nicolas Rémy] Mansut alone appearing in December 1847, when publication abruptly ended. This may be because of one or both of the following: firstly, there was the tumult accompanying the "1848 Revolution" of 22 -27 February 1848, leading to the fall of the monarchy and the declaration of the Second Republic; secondly, on 16 February 1848, Rousselon was admitted to the Société centrale d'Horticulture, and in April was appointed deputy editor of the prestigious Annales de la Société royale [now to be centrale] d’Horticulture de Paris, founded in 1827, to help Pierre-Antoine Poiteau (1766-1854), who had been editor since 1829, as he had of Revue Horticole founded that year.

Nomenclatural consequences

60Disregarded novelties in Jacques’ book or his and his colleagues’ contributions to Annales de Flore et Pomone, Revue Horticole and other serials, relating to currently accepted names, are the following:

611. *Acacia lucida Roxb. ex Jacques in Ann. Fl. Pomone 1837-1838: 72 (1837) = Albizia lucida (Jacques) Benth. – Leguminosae.

62Type: INDIA, Roxburgh s.n. (BR0000005114818, BR lecto cited as holo by I. Nielsen in Adansonia II, 19: 222 (1979), “Mimosa lucida Roxburgh, Fl. Ind. 2: 544 (1832), non Vahl (1807); type: Roxburgh s.n., India”); K, P [P02142904] isolecto).

63Notes. South and south-east Asia. On page 1 of Ann. Fl. Pomone [6], Jacques explained that Mimosa was divided into nine genera, one of which was Acacia, the one with which he was dealing in his article, thereby providing a link to Mimosa lucida Roxb. (1832), non Vahl (1807 = Inga pilosula (Rich.) J.F.Macbr.) We are greatly indebted to John McNeill (E) for confirming our notion that Albizia lucida has thus to be restored for what has lately been called A. lucidior (Steud.) H. Hara, Enum. Fl. Pl. Nepal 2: 104 (1979), which name was illegitimate, as based on the later Inga lucidior (1840), that in turn being based on Roxburgh’s plant.

642. *Acacia trapezoidea (DC.) Jacques in Ann. Fl. Pomone 1837-1838: 3 (1837) – Leguminosae.

65Basionym: Acacia decipiens var. trapezoidea DC., Prodr. 2: 449 (1825).

66Type: [Western Australia, Géographe Bay, ?Leschenault] "Mus. de Paris" (G00652503) (G-DC holo).

67Notes. SW Western Australia. This is an older name for A. littorea Maslin (1978). We are grateful to Bruce Maslin (PERTH) for confirmation of our conclusions. A proposal for conservation may be considered by experts on the genus, but first discussions indicate that supersession may be acceptable.

683. *Alstroemeria venusta Hort. ex Poit., Rev. Hort. 1: 71 (1829) = (e descr.) Alstroemeria ligtu L. – Alstroemeriaceae.

69Type: FRANCE [cult.], Paris, "Chez M. [Jean-Nicolas] Lemon [1817-1895, of Belleville]" (not preserved [nothing found in French collections]?).

70Notes. Poiteau compared it with A. pulchella Sims (1822, non L.f.) which is A. ligtu subsp. simsii (Spreng.) Ehr. Bayer, but A. pulchella Hort. ex E. Vilm. (1866) is A. aurea Graham (1833). This Alstroemeria venusta antedates A. venusta Ravenna in Phytologia 64: 282 (1988) which, if distinct, will need a new name (Type: CHILE, Arauco, Ravenna 1025 [Herb. Ravenna which is likely now lost]).

714. *Aster × parisinus Hort. ex Poit. in Rev. Hort. 2: 123 (1832) ≡ Symphyotrichum × parisinum (Poit.) Malécot & Mabb., comb. nov. – Compositae.

72Type: FRANCE [cult.], Paris, Delile 108, s.d. (MPU1237585) (MPU, neotype designated here; no germane material has been found at P, hence this designation).

73Notes: Evidently an older name for Aster × amethystinus Nutt. (1840, pro sp., i.e. Symphyotrichum × amethystinum(Nutt.) G.L. Nesom) = S. novae-angliae (L.) G.L. Nesom (A. roseus Desf.) × S. ericoides (L.) G.L. Nesom (A. multiflorus Aiton)]. The hybrid was raised by a certain M. Eustache (horticulteur/jardinier-fleuriste, 8 route d’Asnières, Batignolles-Monceau, now part of Paris), though it also occurs naturally where the parental species grow together in NE N America.

745. *Cucumis metulifer Hort. Paris. ex Jacques in Ann. Fl. Pomone sér. 3, 1: 56 (1847, ‘metuliferus’); E. Mey. ex Naudin in Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 4, 11: 10 (1859), isonym – Cucurbitaceae.

75Type: FRANCE [cult.], Paris, Jardin des Plantes, 21 Oct. 1857, Naudin s.n. (P00346242) (P neotype cited as lectotype by Kirkbride, Biosystematic monograph of the genus Cucumis: 70 (1993); G00458154 (over four sheets) isoneo).

76Notes. Tropical Africa (jelly melon, the commercially grown kiwano). Kirkbride’s lectotypfication was predicated on the 1859 publication, but the ‘lectotype’ specimen was collected after the 1847 one, and the two syntypes cited by Kirkbride (i.e. P00346243 for "1859, C. Naudin s.n." and P00346244 for "1858, C. Naudin s.n.") are later collections. The G-DC specimen (G00458154 over four sheets) bears the indication “Ndn 1857” and “Naudin 1861” and may have been collected in 1857 and received in 1861, and can be treated as an isoneotype. Other samples at G-DC, namely G00458156 are duplicates of later “syntype” collections. Jacques reported that it was grown at the Jardin du Roi in 1838 and, indeed, at P, there is 1838 material in Spach’s herbarium (P05590781), while MPU (MPU1120566) has Paris-grown material of 1844, either of which specimens might have been better as type candidates; there also is 1840 material grown in Montpellier (MPU1120561).

776. *Cupressus majestica Duch. in Jacques & Hérincq, Man. Gén. Pl. 4: 326 (1857) – Cupressaceae.

78Type: None cited or found; an authority on the group should choose a neotype.

79Notes. This is an older name for C. gigantea W.C. Cheng & L.K. Fu (1975) of SE Tibet to Yunnan; it is often cited as from Knight, Syn. Conif. Pl.: 20 (1850) but that is a nomen nudum, which is perhaps why it has been disregarded by some authors. Opinion of the status of this taxon is divided, some holding that it is a local variant of C. torulosa D. Don, others that it is a good species. Experts on the genus may consider a proposal for conservation of the name Cupressus gigantea. We are grateful to Yong Yang (College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, China) for advice here.

807. *Daphne × neapolitana (Lindl.) Jacques in Ann. Fl. Pomone 1832-1833: 160 (Feb. 1833); Lodd. ex Loud., Arbor. Frutic. Brit. 1: cv (1835-8), isonym – Thymelaeaceae.

81Basionym: D. collina var. neapolitana Lindl., Bot. Reg. 10: t. 822 (1824).

82Type [icon]: Bot. Reg. 10: t. 822 (1824), drawn from material grown at Colvill’s Nursery, London, selected by I.M. Turner in Taxon 65: 1118 (2016).

83Note. Widely cultivated hybrid of disputed parentage.

848. *Diplacus grandiflorus (Lindl.) Hérincq, Hortic. Franç. 4: 241 + t. 20 (1854); Groenl. in Rev. Hort. ser. 4, 6: 403 (1857) isonym – Phrymaceae.

85Basionym: D. glutinosus var. grandiflorus Lindl., Paxton’s Fl. Gard. 3: 95 + t. 92 (1852).

86Type: USA. California, Butte County, "Between Chico and Forest Ranch, elev. 2000 ft" (UC 196052), A.A. Heller 11407 (UC neotype designated by D.M. Thompson in Monogr. Syst. Bot. 75: 158 (2005); A, CAS, CU, DS, E, F, GH, MO, ND-G (NDG01709), NY, OSC, PENN, PH-2, isoneotypes).

879. *Dombeya ameliae Guill. in Ann. Inst. Fromont 3: 348 (1832) & Arch. Bot. 1: 367 (1833) – Malvaceae.

88Type [icon]: Ann. Inst. Fromont 3: 350 [t.] (1832), drawn from material grown at Jardin de Neuilly, Paris, France (lectotype designated here by V. Malécot).

89Notes. Madagascar. Guillemin also mentioned the "existence de cette plante dans l’herbier de feu Du Petit-Thouars" but we have been unable to find any specimen, hence the lectotype. Planchon (1850), while providing a fresh description of the species, studied "un exemplaire desséché provenant du Jardin des Plantes de Paris". This is most probably MPU697881 which might be an appropriate epitype for an authority on the genus to designate.

9010. *Gladiolus × gandavensis Van Houtte, Prix-Courant 6:1 (Aug. 1841); Poit. in Rev. Hort. 5: 69 (Sept. 1841) – Iridaceae.

91Type [icon]: Fl. Serres 2 (3): t. 1 (1846) drawn from material cultivated by Van Houtte (neotype here designated by V. Malécot). An epitype specimen should be selected by an authority on hybrids in this genus.

92Note. One of the early artificial hybrids in the genus: Gladiolus dalenii Geel × G. oppositiflorus Herb., made c. 1837 at Enghien, Hainaut, Belgium by Hermann Bedinghaus, gardener to the Duke of Arenberg.

9311. *Lonicera × brownii Hort. Angl. ex P.N. Jacq. in Ann. Fl. Pomone ser 2, 2: 314 + t. 38 (July 1844); Carrière in J. Gén. Hort. 11: 123 (1856), isonym – Caprifoliaceae.Type: FRANCE [cult.]; no material found at P, so the plate must be the obligate lectotype, and is here so designated; FRANCE [cult.], Alpes Maritimes, Antibes, 19 May 1865, Thuret s.n. (VTA060445) (VTA epitype designated here by V. Malécot).

94Note. This is the well-known hybrid between L. sempervirens L. and L. hirsuta Eaton (E North America).

9512. *Magnolia odoratissima Reinw. ex Poit. in Rev. Hort. 3: 76 (July 1835); Jacques in Ann. Fl. Pomone 1837-1838: 156 (1837), nom. nov. pro Talauma candollei Blume = Magnolia liliifera (L.) Baill. – Magnoliaceae.

96Type: INDONESIA, Java, Mt. Salak, Blume s.n. (L0038322) (L lecto selected by H.P. Nooteboom in Blumea 32: 369 (1987).

97Notes. South-east Asia. This is the earlier homonym of M. odoratissima Y.W. Law & R.Z. Zhou (1986), which species, native in SW China and Vietnam is, correctly, once more, M. lawiana Sima & Hong Yu (2003).

9813. *Malvaviscus lanceolatus Jacques in Ann. Fl. Pomone sér. 2, 2: 346 + t. [44] (Aug. 1844) & Man. Gén. Pl. 1: 181 (1845); Bosse, Vollst. Handb. Bl.-Gärtn., ed. 2, 4: 525 (1849) = ?Malvaviscus arboreus Cav. – Malvaceae.

99Type: FRANCE [cult.]; no material found at P, so the plate is the obligate lectotype.

100Note. This antedates M. lanceolatus Rose (‘lanceolata’, 1899), a name in current use, though perhaps referable to M. arboreus too.

10114. *Manettia splendens Hort. Angl. ex Rousselon in Ann. Fl. Pomone ser. 2, 4: 248 + t. 29 (May 1846) – Rubiaceae.

102Type: FRANCE [cult.], Paris, nursery of "M. [Jakob Baptiste] Ryfkogel"; no germane material found at P, so the plate is the obligate lectotype, designated here. An authority on the genus should designate an epitype.

10315. *Pavetta australis Hügel [Cat.] ex Neumann in Ann. Fl. Pomone ser. 2, 3: 76 (Dec. 1844) & Rev. Hort. 6: 242 + t. (Jan. 1845) – Rubiaceae.

104Type: FRANCE [cult.], Paris, Jardin du Roi [Jardin des Plantes], based on Australian material from Karl von Hügel (1795-1870), but none found at P, so the plate by Édouard Maubert (1806-79) must serve as lectotype, designated here. There is cultivated material from 1866 labelled Pavetta australis at MPU (MPU1123779) which a specialist might consider as a candidate for an epitype.

105Notes. This is apparently an earlier name for P. australiensis Bremek. (1934), a Queensland species long confused with P. indica L. of southern Asia. Baron von Hügel had gardens including a nursery at Hietzing near Vienna, specialising in Australian (especially Western Australian) plants, but no catalogue later than 1836 has been seen by us.

10616. *Phormium colensoi Hérincq in Rev. Hort. sér. 3, 1: 223(1847, ‘Collensoi’); Le Jol. in Bull. Soc. Hort. Cherb. 1848: 72 (1848) & Lin Nouv. Zél. 24 (1848).

107≡ *P. forsterianum [Colenso in Hook., London J. Bot. 3:8 (1844) nom. nud.;] Hérincq, l.c.; Le Jol., ll.cc.

108Type: FRANCE [cult.], Normandy, Cherbourg, grown from material collected by Alphonse Doucet, a whaler captain, at Chalky ["Chaldy" Inlet [= Taiari, not far from Preservation Inlet (= Rakituma) known well to whalers], South Island, New Zealand, in 1839; the plants flowered and set seed on board on the way to Chile (Le Jolis ll.cc.) and were established in the garden of a M. Drouet near the Chapelle Saint Sauveur in Cherbourg, flowering there May-June 1847 (P: Cherbourg 1847, "donné par Mr Decaisne" [P02053508] (flowers) and Cherbourg [1847?] "donné par Mr. Decaisne, Phormium tenax apporté directement à Cherbourg de la Nlle Zélande par M Doucet capne au long cours" [P02053509] (leaves), likely candidates as lectotype because Herincq specifically cites that living collection and Le Jolis and Decaisne corresponded about this collection; Cherbourg, 1857 "[cult.] M. G. Thuret" [P02053510] (fruits) may also be considered but is a later gathering; an epitype with the characteristic pendent (as opposed to erect in closely allied P. tenax J.R. Forst. & G. Forst.) fruits should be designated by an authority on the genus.

109= *P. colensoi Hook.f. in Rev. Hort. sér. 3, 2: 6 + fig. 1, t. (1 Jan. 1848), nom. illeg., non Hérincq (1847).

110Type: NEW ZEALAND, Colenso s.n. (? K n.v. holo?; P [ex herb. Hook.]] http://mediaphoto.mnhn.fr/media/1441307523701BuzmIfljUPDAaYhA iso?

111= P. cookianum Le Jol. in London J. Bot. 7: 536 (1 Oct. 1848) & in Bull. Soc. Hort. Cherb. 1848 (2): 71 (1848) & Lin Nouv. Zél. 23 (1848).

112Type: FRANCE [cult.], Normandy, Cherbourg grown from material collected by Alphonse Doucet, a whaler captain, at Chalky ["Chaldy"] Inlet [= Taiari, not far from Preservation Inlet (= Rakituma) known well to whalers], South Island, New Zealand, in 1839; the plants flowered and set seed on board on the way to Chile (Le Jolis 1848) and were planted in the garden of a M. Drouet near the chapelle Saint Sauveur in Cherbourg, flowering there May-June 1847, Herb. Le Jolis (CHE holo?, not found; K (K000644298 iso).

113Notes. Phormium colensoi, restricted to New Zealand, is smaller than P. tenax (which is also found on Norfolk Island, though it could be merely naturalised there) with less erect leaves and with drooping as opposed to erect fruits; today both species are represented in cultivation by many ornamental cultivars (including hybrids between the two species);many such selections were made long ago by Maori people, for whom ‘New Zealand flax’ is a culturally very important plant, and were moved in cultivation by them, hybrids between the two species also being recorded in ‘the wild’. Phormium colensoi has subsequently been collected from Chalky Inlet (as P. cookianum), though P. tenax has not (Johnson 1977). Two ecogeographical subspecies are sometimes recognised in Phormium colensoi (as P. cookianum), the northern one being named subsp. hookeri (Hook.f.) Wardle, though intermediate populations have been recorded. We are indebted to Mark Large (Auckland) for help in these matters. Phormium colensoi and P. forsterianum were validly published for the same plant at the same time (Art. 36.3); Raoul, Choix Pls Nouv.-Zel.: (1846: 41; "P. Collensoi, an P. Forsterianum Col. MSS Lond. journ. of bot. 1844, p. 8?") used the name Phormium ‘collensoi’ (nom. nud.) for Colenso’s P. forsterianum (nom. nud.), hence the two names (P. forsterianum was reduced to P. colensoi by Hook.f., Handb. New Zeal. Fl.:287 [1864]). Hérincq provided a diagnosis (flower colour cf. P. tenax as then understood) and a brief description, but did not explicitly cite the earlier authors (Raoul, Colenso) of their nomina nuda, though the spelling ‘Collensoi’ very strongly suggests that his wording came from Raoul’s text in which Colenso’s name is otherwise correctly spelled (Joseph Hooker, Bot. Antarct. Voy. 2, 1: 256 [1853] noted that it was actually he who in 1842 first coined the name P. colensoi). On 31 March in the troubled year of 1848 (see above), Auguste Le Jolis (1823-1904, British Vice-Consul in Cherbourg) sent a "memorandum" on Phormium (Directors Correspondence, RBGKew) with the new name P. cookianum (coined by William Jackson Hooker), to W.J. Hooker, who published the gist of its contents in English before they were issued as part of the Bulletin (a reprint [or preprint?], TL-2 4356 – with its own pagination and different printer – was later sent to Hooker and is at K). We are grateful to John McNeill (E) and Karen Wilson (NSW) for guidance in these matters and to Kiri Ross-Jones and Craig Brough (K) for finding the germane correspondence and reprint/preprint respectively at Kew.

11417. Photinia glabra (Thunb.) Poit. in Rev. Hort. 11: 228 (1849);Maxim. in Bull. Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Pétersbourg, sér. 3, 19: 178 (1873) isonym – Rosaceae.

115Basionym: Crataegus glabra Thunb. in Murray, Syst. Veg. ed. 14: 465 (1784).

116Type: JAPAN, sine loc., Thunberg s.n. in Herb. Thunb. 11860 and 11861 (UPS-THUNB, syn).

117Note. S China to Japan, widely cultivated.

11818. *Physostegia pulchella Jacques in Ann. Fl. Pomone ser. 2, 4: 19 + t. [3] (Oct. 1845) = P. virginiana (L.) Benth. – Labiatae.

119Type: FRANCE [cult.]; no material found at P, so the plate is the obligate lectotype.

120Notes [with Philip D. Cantino, monographer of the genus]. Jacques’ Physostegia pulchella is known only from the description and illustration, as no specimen bearing that epithet has been found in his herbarium at P. The plant that Jacques described was most likely a form of the highly variable and widely cultivated P. virginiana, though the slightly amplexicaul leaves shown in the illustration and mentioned in the description are rarely seen in that species. The stated flowering time, October, distinguishes Jacques’ plant and typical P. virginiana from most other species of Physostegia, which bloom in the spring to early summer. Physostegia correllii (Lundell) Shinners can flower in the Fall, but its leaves are much broader than those in Jacques’ illustration. Physostegia pulchella Jacques is the senior homonym of P. pulchella Lundell (1959), which is therefore illegitimate. As there are no synonyms for the latter, a nomen novum is proposed here in honour of Cyrus and Amelia Lundell: the many botanical and archaeological contributions of Cyrus Longworth Lundell (1903-94) are well known and appropriately commemorated, but “like so many spouses of that era, Amelia [Anderson] Lundell (1908-98; Anderson-May, 1998) doesn’t receive nearly enough credit for helping her husband with his botanical studies. She accompanied him on his field work and helped with the collecting” (George Yatskievych, pers. Comm).

121Physostegia lundelliorum P. D. Cantino & Mabb., nom. nov.

122≡ P. pulchella Lundell, Wrightia 2: 4. 1959, nom. illeg., non P. pulchella Jacques (1845).

123Type: USA, Texas, Kaufman Co., north side of US-175, ca. 1 mi E. of Crandall, in wet bottom land along stream bed, 12 May 1959 (LL00372724), Lundell 16026 (LL holo; F, GH, NY, iso).

12419. *Pilocereus celsianus Hort. Paris. ex Jacques & Hérincq, Man. Gén. Pl. 2: 40 (1847) ≡ Oreocereus celsianus (Jacques & Hérincq) Riccob. – Cactaceae.

125Type: FRANCE [cult.] - a neotype needs to be designated by an authority on the group.

126Notes. Andes of Argentina, Bolivia and Peru; widely cultivated (‘Old Man of the Andes’). Pilocereus celsianus Salm Dyck, Cat. Hort. Dyck. ed. 2: 185 (1850) is likely a heterotypic homonym referring to the same species. Later, Paul-Napoléon Doumet-Adanson presented an illustration of a flower to the Société d’Horticulture de l’Hérault (Doûmet-Adanson P.N., 1879, Notes sur la floraison du Pilocereus celsianus. Annales de la Soc. d’Hort. Hérault 1879 n° 4: 146-149); this was sent to cactologist Frederic Albert Constantin Weber, but it cannot now be found in either his archives or those of the Société.

12720. *Populus × ontariensis Loisel. in Dict. Sci. Nat. 39: 361 (1826); Nois. in J. Soc. Agron. Prat.[1]: 32 (1829); Poit. in Bon Jard. 1833: 929 (1833); Jacques in Ann. Fl. Pomone 1834-1835: 236 (May 1835) & 1835-1836: 196 (1836) – Salicaceae.

128≡ P. candicans var. ontariensis (Loisel.) Lilja in Bot. Not. 1846:134 (1846).

129Type: FRANCE [cult.], no germane Loisel. specimen found (Audibert material [grown at Tonelle near Tarascon?] is at AV, P, MPU, etc.); ITALY [cult.], St Sauveur near Turin, nursery of Auguste Burdin (Burdin ainé), 12 July 1834, Anon. s.n. (MPU1283268), neotype designated here by V. Malécot.

130Notes: This is the ‘Balm of Gilead’ poplar, the well-known female clone of the hybrid between two North American species, P. balsamifera L. (P. candicans Aiton) and P. deltoides Bartram ex Marshall, and was later named P. × jackii Sarg. (1913) and then P. × gileadensis Rouleau (1948). As P. × jackii ‘Gileadensis’ is the name now so widely used (see e.g. Mabberley 2017: 746) for this much cultivated clone, a proposal by poplar specialists should be made to conserve P. × jackii. Both the Martin Burdin nursery in Chambéry and Burdin ainé/Burdin maggiore nursery in Turin listed Populus ontariensis in their catalogues (we have been able to consult Burdin Martin’s for 1828, 1831 and 1836, and Burdin ainé’s ones for 1837 and 1839). In addition, Auguste Burdin (Burdin ainé) and Audibert appear to have belonged to the same network of nurserymen, being retailer of Le Bon Jardinier for example, so that we must conclude that they had the same plant in cultivation at that time which is why VM selects a neotype grown at the Burdin nursery. We are grateful to Jason Smith (Florida) for his thoughts on this matter.

13121. *Salvia fragrans Hort. ex Jacques in Ann. Fl. Pomone ser. 2,1: 370 (Sept. 1843) = ? - Labiatae.

132Type: FRANCE [cult.], Paris, Belleville, "Guerin-Modeste ets." from Mexico, flowered Nov. 1842- Jan. 1843 (no type material found at P).

133Note. Mexico; grown by Modeste Guérin (1806-76) of Belleville, near Paris.

13422. *Sedum sieboldii Poit. in Rev. Hort. 4: 127 (Oct. 1838) ≡ Hylotelephium sieboldii (Poit.) H. Ohba – Crassulaceae.

135Type: FRANCE [cult., no germane material (Loth or Audot [see Notes], October 1838) found at P or in other French herbaria], Paris, 1848, (P03715746), neotype designated here by V. Malécot.

136Notes. Japan, from English nurseries, grown by Georges Loth (1773-1850, fleuriste 33 rue Fontaine au roi - Paris 11e) and Louis Joseph Désiré Audot (1810-70, editor of Le Bon Jardinier). The conspecific later homonym Sedum sieboldii Regel (Index Sem. (Petrop.) 1856: 31) was lectotypified by V. Byalt (Bot. Zhurn. 81:61 (1996) with LE01014757.

13723. *Tigridia exaltata Jacques in Ann. Fl. Pomone 1841-1842: 16 + t. [2] (Oct. 1841) = ?Phalocallis coelestis (Lehm.) Ravenna [Cypella coelestis (Lehm.) Diels] - Iridaceae.

138Type: FRANCE [cult.], Paris, Jardin du Roi [Jardin des Plantes] from unknown source; no material found at P, so the plate must serve as lectotype designated here.

139Note. Most likely Phalocallis coelestis, which South American plant was in cultivation in Europe as early as 1838, but Cypella geniculata (Klatt) Ravenna and C. oreophila Speg. are also possible dispositions; we are grateful to Olivier Chauveau (Univ. Paris-Saclay) and Peter Goldblatt (MO) for advice here.

Epilogue

140Other unlisted names in Jacques’s and his colleagues’ work in both France and Belgium, apparently none of which names affect current nomenclature, are being sent to IPNI/POWO.

141The reason that this and similar papers have to set the record straight is because modern data-bases of vascular plant names all ultimately derive from the monumental Darwin-funded Index Kewensis, which was intended to be a revision of Steudel’s Nomenclator botanicus (ed. 2, 1840-1841). It was largely based on that and other secondary sources (Meikle 1971) including the great colonial floras being prepared at Kew as part of the Hookers’ successful effort to ensure ‘relevance’ for the organisation during the era of the British imperial project (Mabberley 2022). This inevitably somewhat chauvinistic endeavour, resulting in two fat volumes (1893-1895), was to be followed by some balancing, due to the great Swiss-Belgian botanist, Théophile Durand (1855-1912), in the first supplement (1902-1906). However, this work was not followed up thoroughly at Kew and so names from earlier and neglected Continental work (although paradoxically often correctly cited in another Kew publication, namely Index Londinensis, besides in other ‘Kew’ publications [cf. Mabberley 1990]) have dribbled into Index Kewensis for over a century. In recent years the IPNI team at Kew has made great strides in accelerating the taking into account of all this disregarded Continental work, but there is likely more to be done because of the initial Kew shortcomings of the nineteenth century. For example, of French and Belgian work, such neglected first coinings of currently accepted new combinations include French examples as early as 1790 (cf. Mabberley 1991):

142*Pulsatilla alpina (L.) Chaz., Suppl. Dict. Jard. 2: 377 (1790; isonym: Delarbre [1800]) and *P. cernua (Thunb.) Chaz., l.c. (1790; isonym: Bercht. & J. Presl [1823]) – Ranunculaceae.

143and Belgian cases such as:

144*Clavija macrophylla (Roem. & Schult.) Janti, Soc. Roy. Hort. Belgique Cat. Gén. 1842: 8 (1842; isonym: Miq. [1856]) – Primulaceae; *Cnidoscolus urens (L.) Janti, l.c. (1842; isonym: Arthur [1921]) – Euphorbiaceae (we are greatly indebted to Vincent Demoulin [in litt. Oct. 2022] and Denis Diagre [in litt. Oct. 2022] for suggestions on the possibility that Janti, namely Auguste Charles Joseph de Janti (also written Dejanti) [1784-1861], is the appropriate authority for these two combinations).

145What is even more surprising is the fact that, although the original basis for Index Kewensis was Steudel’s work, even some currently accepted names first proposed by him have yet to make their way into modern databases:

146*Lonicera pilosa (Kunth) Steud., Nom. Bot. 1: 493 (1821; isonym: Spreng. [1824]) – Caprifoliaceae; *Tmesipteris truncata (R. Br.) Steud., Nom. Bot. 2: 413 (1824; isonym: Desv. [1827]) – Psilotaceae.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

147The authors are indebted to Frédéric Danet, curator of the herbarium at the Jardin Botanique de Lyon (LYJB) for information on Seringe’s specimens in his care, to Lauren Gardiner, curator of Cambridge University Herbarium (CGE) for information on specimens of Limonium puberulum, to Arie Dwarswaard, librarian of Koninklijke Algemeene Vereeniging voor Bloembollencultuur (KAVB, Netherlands) at Hillegom for copies of van Houtte’s catalogue, to David Bramwell (Centro UNESCO Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) for advice on Canary Islands Limonium; Vyacheslav Byalt (LE) on Sedum; Phil Cantino (USA) on Physostegia, Olivier Chauveau (Université Paris-Saclay, France) and Peter Goldblatt (MO) on Iridaceae; Vincent Demoulin (LG) and Denis Diagre (BE) on Janti; Mark Large (Auckland, New-Zealand) on Phormium; Bruce Maslin (PERTH) on Acacia; John McNeill (E) on Albizia and Phormium; Jason Smith (Florida, USA) on Populus. Yong Yang (Nanjing Forestry University, China) kindly provided information on Chinese conifers, Margaret Hanes (EMC) on Malvaceae, Nigel Taylor (Brazil) on Cactaceae; John Clarkson (CNS) and Karen Wilson (NSW) commented on a number of points while Craig Brough and Kiri Ross-Jones (K) searched out Le Jolis materials (Phormium) for us.

Bibliographie

Notes

Pour citer cet article