Nomenclature and Typification in the Genus Usnea (Lichenized Ascomcyetes). - v.

Usnea
hesperina Motyka
Author(s): James C. Lendemer
Source: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia , Apr., 2006,
Vol. 155 (Apr., 2006), pp. 25-27
Published by: Academy of Natural Sciences

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27667745

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia

This content downloaded from

181.42.29.68 on Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:54:54 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ISSN 0097-3157

Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 155: 25-27 April 2006

Nomenclature and Typification in the Genus Usnea (Lichenized

Ascomcyetes). - V. Usnea hesperina Motyka
James C. Lendemer

Lichen Herbarium, Department of Botany, The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1900 Benjamin Franklin
Pky., Philadelphia, PA, 19103, SUA e-mail: lendemer@acnatsci.org

ABSTRACT. - A lectotype is selected for Usnea hesperina, overturning the previously selected neotype.

INTRODUCTION result of thin layer chromatography (TLC) performed

Two names that have recently been the subject of
much discussion are Usnea hesperina Motyka and Madeira: Nossa Senhora do Monte, ad Pineam, Holl
Usnea madeirensis Motyka. Clerc (1997) proposed a (W)) was annotated by Motyka (5.IV.1930) as U.
number of synonyms for both names with the note that
he intended to conserve U. hesperina Motyka against
U. subgracilis Vainio, and U. madeirensis Motyka tation label by crossing out the identification as U.
against U. silesiaca Motyka. Tavares (1998) concluded
that there seemed to be little reason for conservation
and provided a discussion of the proposals. When the
proposals were formally made (Clerc 1999) the names
proposed for conservation differed in that U.
madeirensis was proposed for conservation over U.
silesiaca, and U. hesperina was proposed for conser
vation over U. schadenbergiana. Recently, both pro
posals were rejected by the committee for fungi (Gams
2004, 2005).
I. Usnea hesperina Motyka
As stated by Clerc (1997), the type specimen of
Usnea hesperina Motyka is missing. Following the re
quirements of the Code (Greuter et al. 2000) a neotype
was selected by Clerc (1997). Tavares (1998) noted
however, that the neotype seemed to differ from the
original description provided by Motyka (1937). She
also noted that the neotype of U. hesperina selected
by Clerc differed from the holotype of U. subgracilis
Motyka, a name that Clerc (1997, 2004) considered a
synonym of U. hesperina. According to the Code (Art.
9.6) a neotype should be selected "to serve as nomen
clatural type as long as all of the material on which the
name of the taxon was based is missing." Motyka cited
five collections in the protologue, in addition to the
type, all of which constitute original material and could
potentially serve as a lectotype. Recently two of these
paratypes were relocated and loaned to the author for
study, both are discussed in detail below. All chemical
data reported for the specimens in the discussion is the
by the author.
The first paratype to resurface (Canary Islands,
hesperina with the name clearly written on the outside
of the packet. Later, Motyka (1939) revised the anno
hesperina and adding "hesperina Mot., sed non typica
et fere non certa.*' Regardless of the fact that Motyka
revised his concept of U. hesperina after the publica
tion of the name (Motyka 1937) to exclude this speci
men (or at least portions of it), it still represents origi
nal material cited in the protologue.
The specimen consists primarily of two thalli, one
of which morphologically resembles U. hesperina in
having a pendulous habit but differs in a number of
respects, especially the presence of abundant papillae
on the main branches. The presence of usnic and
salazinic acids (TLC) coupled with the morphology of
the thallus clearly excludes the material from the cur
rent concept of U. hesperina, which contains usnic and
protocetraric acids. This thallus seems best referred to
U. madeirensis Motyka. The second thallus in the
packet represents a species unrelated to U. hesperina
and will not be dicussed further here.
Also present in the packet are several small thal
lus fragments, some of which morphologically re
semble U. hesperina. Investigation of these fragments
revealed one that seems to represent the terminal por
tion of a branch ofthat species. The fragment morpho
logically and chemically (TLC) agrees with the cur
rent concept of U. hesperina (usnic and protocetraric
acids). Such a small fragment is hardly ideal for
lectotypification however, were another specimen not
to have been located it could have served as the lecto
type.

This content downloaded from

181.42.29.68 on Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:54:54 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 26 James C. Lendemer

After examining the specimen discussed above I sented here does not effect the usage of the name U.
became curious if additional specimens cited by subgracilis, or its status in relation to U.
Motyka in the protologue had also survived. Though schadenbergiana. I have not examined the type mate
the collections cited from Boulay de Lesdain's her rial of U. schadenbergiana and thus cannot confirm
barium are likely no longer extant, Motyka also cited its status as a synonym of U. subgracilis. Since there
collections from Munich (M) and the British Museum is controversy over the status of the synonymy of these
(BM). The material cited by Motyka from Munich two names, and since the type of U. schadenbergiana
could not be located (F. Bungartz pers. comm.). The differs chemically from that of U. subgracilis I prefer
specimen Motyka cited from the British Museum how to error on the side of caution and continue to use the
ever, was found filed as U. hesperina (S. LaGreca pers. name U. subgracilis pending further study.
comm.) and loaned to the author.
Much like the Holl collection from Vienna the
specimen in the British Museum was annotated by ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Motyka in 1931 as U. hesperina. It does not bear any
further annotations by him excluding it from any later I wish to thank the curators of the following her
concept of the species. The specimen itself consists of baria for their help locating and loaning specimens used
a tangle of thalli glued to a paper backing on which the in this study: BM, M, and V. Also R.C. Harris, K.
collection data is written and Motyka's annotation has Knudsen, and G. Moore for reviewing drafts of the
been affixed. Close inspection of the specimen revealed manuscript and I.I. Tavares for her many years of dis
at least two thalli (and species) to be mixed together. cussion, friendship, and constant support.
One thallus contains usnic and norstictic acids (TLC)
and has somewhat inflated branches with a smooth LITERATURE CITED
cortex with slight constrictions. This material does not
represent U. hesperina and does not represent the ma Clerc, P. 2004. Notes on the genus Usnea Adanson. II. In:
jority of the material glued to the backing. Most of the D~bbeler, P/Rambold, G (eds.): Contributions to
collection consists of one or more entangled pendu Lichenology. Festschrift in Honour of Hannes Hertel.
Bibliotheca Lichenologica, J. Cramer in der Geb^der
lous thalli with branches lacking papillae and having
Borntraeger, Berlin, Stuttgart, pp. 79-90.
hardened cortical rings lighter in color than the sur
Clerc, P. 1999. Proposals to conserve the names Usnea
rounding cortex. The perpendicular fibrils that are con hesperina against U. schadenbergiana and U.
sidered characteristic of U. hesperina are also present. madeirensis against U. silesiaca (lichenised
Small punctate cortical openings (not distinct soralia) Ascomycotina, Lecanorales). Taxon, 48(4): 825-826.
are also abundant on some portions of the branches. Clerc, P. 1997. Notes on the genus Usnea Dill, ex Adanson.
The material contains protocetraric acid in addition to Lichenologist, 29: 209-215.
usnic acid (TLC). Because this material clearly agrees Gams, W. 2004. Report of the Committee for Fungi: 8. Taxon,
with the published protologue as well as our current 53(4): 1067-1069.
concept of U. hesperina, it is here selected as the lec Gams, W. 2005. Report of the Committee for Fungi: 12.
Taxon, 54(2): 520.
totype.
Greuter, W., J. McNeill, F.R. Barrie, H.M. B?rdet, V
Demoulin, T.D. Filigueiras, D.H. Nicolson, P.C. Silva,
Usnea hesperina Motyka (Fig. 1) J.E. Skog, P. Trehane, N.J. Turland, and D.L.
Hawksworth (eds.) 2000. International code of botani
Usnea hesperina Motyka, 1937: 383-384. cal nomenclature (St. Louis Code) Adopted by the Six
teenth International Botanical Congress St. Louis, July
Lectotype (designated here).?BM 000763553 August 1999. Koeltz, K?nigstein.
pro parte (thallus with usnic and protocetraric acids), Motyka, J. 1937. Lichenum generis Usnea Studium
Startney s.n., Madera, Riberio Frio, 1853. monographicum. Pars Systematica, 2(1): 305-560.
Tavares, I. 1998. Usnea silesiaca and U. subgracilis in Cali
CONCLUSION fornia. Bulletin of the California Lichen Society, 5(2):
25-27.

As a result of the rulings by the committee for

fungi the correct name for Usnea madeirensis is U.
silesiaca and the correct name for U. hesperina is U.
subgracilis. The retypification of U. hesperina pre

This content downloaded from

181.42.29.68 on Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:54:54 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Typification of Genus Usnea 27

Fig. 1. Lectotype of Usnea hesperina Motyka.

This content downloaded from

181.42.29.68 on Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:54:54 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms