Fosterella albicans (Griseb.) L.B.Sm.
Literature references:
*move your mouse pointer over the page numbers to see comment
Comments:
- When Grisebach (1879) described Cottendorfia albicans he did not choose a holotype, but just gave a short explanation of the origin of the described specimen(s). He stated explicitly that it was collected by Lorentz and Hieronymus. Baker (1889) cited two specimens, Lorentz & Hieronymus 288 and 502, which obviously were available to Grisebach. Baker did not choose a lectotype, but listed both as types, which was adopted in following publications dealing with this species (Mez 1896, Smith 1934). Most likely, in spite of the different numbering, the two collections were made at the same date and lo-cality: In GOET, three specimens collected by Lorentz & Hieronymus are preserved: Two specimens were numbered as 288, and both consisted of a simple rosette only whereas the third, no. 502, contains two inflorescences, which-according to the length of peduncles-fit to the others very well. All three sheets bear labels from the same hand, indicating the same origin and date of collection. Anyway, Smith & Downs (1974) designated Lorentz & Hieronymus 502 (GOET) as holotype, obviously because it contains the generative parts of the plant, and in addition contained several original pencil drawings of floral elements. Nevertheless, according to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), art. 9.9 (2005), this specimen should be considered as lectotype because Grisebach himself did not select a holotype, and three original specimens exist in GOET in addition to some more in other herbaria. Since the lectotype is fragmentary because of the missing leaves, the specimens Lorentz & Hieronymus 288 (B!, BA!, GOET!, NY!, US!), some of them containing both basal leaves and inflorescence, represent a most beneficial complement.
The recently described Fosterella fuentesii from an inter-Andean dry valley (Ibisch et al. 2002), which was assumed to be close to F. petiolata, was known from the type locality and dried material only. Meanwhile more specimens have been collected and documented in the field during an expedition to the area of the type locality: BOLIVIA. Dpto. Santa Cruz: Prov. Florida, north of Pampa Grande, Sierra Racete, Manzanillares, east of Valle Hermoso, 18°08'55"S, 63°55'48"W, 1530 m, 1 Oct. 2006, J. Peters, N. Schutz, R. Vasquez, & R. Lara JP 06.0002 (SEL), JP 06.0003 (LPB), JP 06.0004 (FR). Examination of plenty of living material has made it clear that these specimens have to be identified as F. albicans, which appears to be a more variable taxon than previously thought. The subsequent critical recheck of the type material of F. fuentesii led us to the conclusion that it belongs to F. albicans as well. At first glance, the similarity to F. petiolata was striking because of the distinct petioles, the conspicuous primary bracts, and the rather lax inflorescence (as mentioned in the original description). However, with the serrate petioles, the thickly lepidote abaxial leaf surface, the villous-arachnoid peduncle and inflorescence-branches, the size of the floral bracts, sepals and petals, and the habitat, the specimen resembles much more F. albicans. For these reasons, we synonymize F. fuentesii Ibisch, R. Vasquez, & E. Gross under F. albicans (Griseb.) L.B. Sm. —See Smith 1960
- When Grisebach (1879) described Cottendorfia albicans, he did not choose a holotype, but just gave a short explanation of the origin of the described specimen(s). He stated explicitly that it was collected by Lorentz and Hieronymus. Baker (1889) cited two specimens, Lorentz & Hieronymus 288 and 502, which obviously were available to Grisebach. Baker did not choose a lectotype, but listed both as types, which was adopted in following publications dealing with this species (Mez 1896, Smith 1934). Most likely, in spite of the different numbering, the two collections were made at the same date and locality: In GOET, three specimens collected by Lorentz & Hieronymus are preserved: Two specimens were numbered as 288, and both consisted of a simple rosette only whereas the third, no. 502, contains two inflorescences, which—according to the length of peduncles—fit to the others very well. All three sheets bear labels from the same hand, indicating the same origin and date of collection. Anyway, Smith & Downs (1974) designated Lorentz & Hieronymus 502 (GOET) as holotype, obviously because it contains the generative parts of the plant, and in addition contained several original pencil drawings of floral elements. Nevertheless, according to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), art. 9.9 (2005), this specimen should be considered as lectotype because Grisebach himself did not select a holotype, and three original specimens exist in GOET in addition to some more in other herbaria. Since the lectotype is fragmentary because of the missing leaves, the specimens Lorentz & Hieronymus 288 (B!, BA!, GOET!, NY!, US!), some of them containing both basal leaves and inflorescence, represent a most beneficial complement. —See Peters 2009 p. 29(2): 183
