Guzmania anae Wisnev  (a new name for Guzmania spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley)

Literature references:

Bromelia: 3(1):12* FCBS (Web) Golinski 1997 J. Bromeliad Soc.: 29:209* Oliva-Esteve 2002: 86* Phytologia: 40:57* Smith & Downs 1977: 1175* Wisnev & Wiersema 2021: 140,141*

*move your mouse pointer over the page numbers to see comment

Comments:

• Replacement name for Guzmania spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley. The lovely species currently known by this name was first found in Costa Rica and described as Thecophyllum spectabile in 1904. Smith and Pittendrigh (1953) later transferred it to Vriesea in 1954 when Thecophyllum met its demise. See Fig. 1 and 2. It has since been found in Ecuador as well. Utley (1978) realized its flowers have fused sepals and petals and transferred it to Guzmania. In this Journal, Utley (1979) included perhaps the first published photograph of this species and also noted the differences in the trichome structures in Vriesea and Guzmania.
  
  The previously unknown 1856 publication of Guzmania spectabilis Linden ex Galeotti establishes a basionym for Aechmea spectabilis (see below). Since the former name was published before Guzmania spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley, the latter name is an illegitimate homonym.
  
  As a result, since no other name is available for this species, a replacement name is published here for Guzmania spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley, nom. illeg.:
  
  Guzmania anae Wisnev, nom. nov. Replaced synonym: Thecophyllum spectabile Mez & Wercklé, Bull. Herb. Boissier ser. 2, 4: 873 (1904). Homotypic synonym: Guzmania spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley, Phytologia 40:55 (1978), nom. Illeg., non Guzmania spectabilis Linden ex Galeotti (1856). Lectotype (see below): Costa Rica, without further locality, Wercklé s. n. (B 10 0242821 and B 10 0242822). The specimen is mounted on two cross-referenced sheets. While Smith and Downs (1977: 1875-6) previously listed the type specimen as the holotype, it is more likely that they designated a lectotype under Art. 9.1 and 9.10 of the Shenzhen Code.
  
  Ethymology: The name honors the first author’s lovely wife, Ana, who has graciously borne the brunt of too many nomenclatural discussions. Neotype of Aechmea spectabilis: This article started out as an inquiry into the type of Aechmea spectabilis, aptly named for its incredible inflorescence. See Fig. 3. As Houllet noted in his 1875 publication of that name, its inflorescence can be over 3 feet long, with many branches full of pink flowers lasting for months.
  
  While the plant is spectacular, the name raised a number of difficult nomenclatural questions. The first is whether A. spectabilis is the name of a new taxon or a new combination. Houllet described a plant he knew in cultivation when he published A. spectabilis, and Smith and Downs (1979) recognized this name as that of a new taxon. Houllet first became aware of the plant in 1860; he stated it originally came from Linden. Houllet’s illustration of the inflorescence is shown in Fig. 4. Unbeknownst to either Houllet or Smith and Downs, Koch had already published Pironneava spectabilis K. Koch in 1860. The plant he described had been shown as ‘Guzmannia’ spectabilis at an exhibition, and it came from de Jonghe in Brussels. While Koch said it likely originated in Brazil and Houllet stated it was from Guatemala, it is actually found in Colombia and Venezuela.
  
  Rather curious about the ‘Guzmannia’ spectabilis name, we undertook research that uncovered a previously unknown 1856 publication of Guzmania (‘Guzmannia’) spectabilis Linden ex Galeotti. The plant had been shown by M. J. Linden, director of the Jardin zoologique de Bruxelles, at an exhibition of the La Société royale de Flore de Bruxelles on July 19, 1856. While these reports often list award-winning plants without a description, this publication had a brief description, translated as follows: “The Guzmannia spectabilis, new Bromeliad with large leaves, many of them, from the center of which arises a straight panicle with horizontal branches covered with pinkish flowers of an average impact.” See. Fig. 5.
  
  This rather brief discussion is sufficient, though barely, to achieve valid publication of Guzmania spectabilis Linden ex Galeotti. As a result, the later published Guzmania spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley is an illegitimate name. Because Houllet mentioned Linden in his protologue of A. spectabilis, and Galeotti stated that Linden brought G. spectabilis to the Brussels exhibition, it can be interpreted that Houllet indirectly referenced the earlier name. Thus, A. spectabilis is best treated as a new combination under either Art. 41.3 or 41.4 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland et al. 2018).
  
  Returning to the original inquiry that stimulated this article, i.e., what is the type of A. spectabilis?, Smith and Downs (1979: 1845) stated “Type: Museum National Hortus, Paris (holotype, P n v). Typified by original description and plate if no specimen extant.” Their designation is rather odd, since Paris lists Linden 1463 in its online data bank [(Pamplona, Venezuela, Funck & Schlim 1463 (P barcode P02176133).] and Smith had annotated this specimen in 1966. Why didn’t Smith and Downs list Linden 1463 and state that they hadn’t seen the type specimen if Smith had annotated it?
  
  A closer examination of the Smith and Downs discussion of A. spectabilis reveals the likely answer: they listed “Norte de Santander: Pamplona, Funck & Schlim 1463 (P)” under other A. spectabilis specimens. ([While Linden’s herbarium label indicates Pamplona, Venezuela, Pamplona is in Norte de Santander, Colombia.] It seems likely that they wondered if Houllet (who they thought published the name without a basionym) had made a hortus specimen which could be the holotype.
  
  Article 7.11 of the Shenzhen Code requires that a type designation be “definitely accepted” and “clearly indicated by direct citation…” Here their type reference was to a nonexistent Paris hortus specimen, rather than to Funck & Schlim 1463, which was cited elsewhere. Thus, they did not designate Funck & Schlim 1463 as the type. In addition, they did not appear to definitely accept the plate as the type, since their acceptance was conditioned on the specimen not being extant.
  
  For these reasons, their designation was ineffective. As specimens are preferred over illustrations, and Linden brought the plant into cultivation, Funck & Schlim 1463 (originally held in the Linden herbarium) is a logical choice as neotype. Because there is no evidence to suggest that Galeotti, whose name appears on the title page of the 1856 publication where the unsigned description of the plant exhibited by Linden appeared, or his editor would have had access to Linden’s specimen, it cannot be original material or a lectotype. Aechmea spectabilis (Linden ex Galeotti) Brongn. ex Houllet, Rev. Hort. (Paris) 47: 311 (1875).
  
  Basionym: Guzmania spectabilis Linden ex Galeotti, J. Hort. Prat. Belgique 14: 219 (1856). Synonym: Pironneava spectabilis (Linden ex Galeotti) K.Koch Wochenschr. Vereines Beförd. Gartenbaues Königl. Preuss. Staaten 3: 338 (1860).
  
  Neotype [designated here): (Colombia, Norte de Santander), Pamplona, December [1845 or 1846 (see Nevling 1973: 227)], Funck & Schlim 1463 (P barcode P02176133). See Fig. 6. —See Wisnev & Wiersema 2021 p. 141-145
• Replacement name for Guzmania spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley. The lovely species currently known by this name was first found in Costa Rica and described as Thecophyllum spectabile in 1904. Smith and Pittendrigh (1953) later transferred it to Vriesea in 1954 when Thecophyllum met its demise. See Fig. 1 and 2. It has since been found in Ecuador as well. Utley (1978) realized its flowers have fused sepals and petals and transferred it to Guzmania. In this Journal, Utley (1979) included perhaps the first published photograph of this species and also noted the differences in the trichome structures in Vriesea and Guzmania.
  
  The previously unknown 1856 publication of Guzmania spectabilis Linden ex Galeotti establishes a basionym for Aechmea spectabilis (see below). Since the former name was published before Guzmania spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley, the latter name is an illegitimate homonym.
  
  As a result, since no other name is available for this species, a replacement name is published here for Guzmania spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley, nom. illeg.:
  
  Guzmania anae Wisnev, nom. nov. Replaced synonym: Thecophyllum spectabile Mez & Wercklé, Bull. Herb. Boissier ser. 2, 4: 873 (1904). Homotypic synonym: Guzmania spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley, Phytologia 40:55 (1978), nom. Illeg., non Guzmania spectabilis Linden ex Galeotti (1856). Lectotype (see below): Costa Rica, without further locality, Wercklé s. n. (B 10 0242821 and B 10 0242822). The specimen is mounted on two cross-referenced sheets. While Smith and Downs (1977: 1875-6) previously listed the type specimen as the holotype, it is more likely that they designated a lectotype under Art. 9.1 and 9.10 of the Shenzhen Code.
  
  While the plant is spectacular, the name raised a number of difficult nomenclatural questions. The first is whether A. spectabilis is the name of a new taxon or a new combination. Houllet described a plant he knew in cultivation when he published A. spectabilis, and Smith and Downs (1979) recognized this name as that of a new taxon. Houllet first became aware of the plant in 1860; he stated it originally came from Linden. Houllet’s illustration of the inflorescence is shown in Fig. 4. Unbeknownst to either Houllet or Smith and Downs, Koch had already published Pironneava spectabilis K. Koch in 1860. The plant he described had been shown as ‘Guzmannia’ spectabilis at an exhibition, and it came from de Jonghe in Brussels. While Koch said it likely originated in Brazil and Houllet stated it was from Guatemala, it is actually found in Colombia and Venezuela.
  
  Rather curious about the ‘Guzmannia’ spectabilis name, we undertook research that uncovered a previously unknown 1856 publication of Guzmania (‘Guzmannia’) spectabilis Linden ex Galeotti. The plant had been shown by M. J. Linden, director of the Jardin zoologique de Bruxelles, at an exhibition of the La Société royale de Flore de Bruxelles on July 19, 1856. While these reports often list award-winning plants without a description, this publication had a brief description, translated as follows: “The Guzmannia spectabilis, new Bromeliad with large leaves, many of them, from the center of which arises a straight panicle with horizontal branches covered with pinkish flowers of an average impact.” See. Fig. 5.
  
  This rather brief discussion is sufficient, though barely, to achieve valid publication of Guzmania spectabilis Linden ex Galeotti. As a result, the later published Guzmania spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley is an illegitimate name. Because Houllet mentioned Linden in his protologue of A. spectabilis, and Galeotti stated that Linden brought G. spectabilis to the Brussels exhibition, it can be interpreted that Houllet indirectly referenced the earlier name. Thus, A. spectabilis is best treated as a new combination under either Art. 41.3 or 41.4 of the Shenzhen Code (Turland et al. 2018).
  
  Returning to the original inquiry that stimulated this article, i.e., what is the type of A. spectabilis?, Smith and Downs (1979: 1845) stated “Type: Museum National Hortus, Paris (holotype, P n v). Typified by original description and plate if no specimen extant.” Their designation is rather odd, since Paris lists Linden 1463 in its online data bank [(Pamplona, Venezuela, Funck & Schlim 1463 (P barcode P02176133).] and Smith had annotated this specimen in 1966. Why didn’t Smith and Downs list Linden 1463 and state that they hadn’t seen the type specimen if Smith had annotated it?
  
  A closer examination of the Smith and Downs discussion of A. spectabilis reveals the likely answer: they listed “Norte de Santander: Pamplona, Funck & Schlim 1463 (P)” under other A. spectabilis specimens. ([While Linden’s herbarium label indicates Pamplona, Venezuela, Pamplona is in Norte de Santander, Colombia.] It seems likely that they wondered if Houllet (who they thought published the name without a basionym) had made a hortus specimen which could be the holotype.
  
  Article 7.11 of the Shenzhen Code requires that a type designation be “definitely accepted” and “clearly indicated by direct citation…” Here their type reference was to a nonexistent Paris hortus specimen, rather than to Funck & Schlim 1463, which was cited elsewhere. Thus, they did not designate Funck & Schlim 1463 as the type. In addition, they did not appear to definitely accept the plate as the type, since their acceptance was conditioned on the specimen not being extant.
  
  For these reasons, their designation was ineffective. As specimens are preferred over illustrations, and Linden brought the plant into cultivation, Funck & Schlim 1463 (originally held in the Linden herbarium) is a logical choice as neotype. Because there is no evidence to suggest that Galeotti, whose name appears on the title page of the 1856 publication where the unsigned description of the plant exhibited by Linden appeared, or his editor would have had access to Linden’s specimen, it cannot be original material or a lectotype. Aechmea spectabilis (Linden ex Galeotti) Brongn. ex Houllet, Rev. Hort. (Paris) 47: 311 (1875).
  
  Basionym: Guzmania spectabilis Linden ex Galeotti, J. Hort. Prat. Belgique 14: 219 (1856). Synonym: Pironneava spectabilis (Linden ex Galeotti) K.Koch Wochenschr. Vereines Beförd. Gartenbaues Königl. Preuss. Staaten 3: 338 (1860).
  
  Neotype [designated here): (Colombia, Norte de Santander), Pamplona, December [1845 or 1846 (see Nevling 1973: 227)], Funck & Schlim 1463 (P barcode P02176133). See Fig. 6. —See Wisnev & Wiersema 2021 p. 141-145