Polygala nicaeensis Bray

Polygala nicaeensis Risso ex Bray, Flora 1 (supplement): 14. 1818 ≡ Polygala nicaeensis Risso ex W. D. J. Koch, Syn. Fl. Germ. Helv.: 92. 1836, isonym (Art. 6.3 Note 2 of the ICN) ≡ Polygala nicaeensis (Risso) ex W. D. J. Koch in Rohling, Deutschlands Flora, ed. 3, 5: 68. 1839, isonym (Art. 6.3 Note 2 of the ICN) ≡ Polygala nicaeensis Risso, Fl. Nice: 54. 1844, isonym (Art. 6.3 Note 2 of the ICN) ≡ Polygala amblyptera var. nicaeensis (Risso ex Bray) Steud., Nomencl. Bot., ed. 2, 2: 370 1841, nom. illeg. (Art. 52.1 of the ICN). Type. France. “ Alpes-Maritimes: “ Esterel ”, 15 May 1891, G. Vidal 2660 (first-step neotype, designated by Chodat 1893: 457; second-step neotype, designated here: G 01100099! isoneotypes: BESA 010305!, BR 0000031351249!, CHE 025420!, CLF 17731!, G 01100098!, G 01100100!, P 02998871!, P 02999407!, P 03209034!, P 03209039!, P 03209061!, MA-01-00074129). While the name P. nicaeensis is universally attributed to Joseph Antoine Risso (1777–1845), the first description of this species is usually credited to Wilhelm Daniel Joseph Koch (1771–1849) as P. nicaeensis Risso ex W. D. J. Koch. However, some authors cite Koch (1836), others Koch (1839) and still others directly Risso (1844). Following further research into bibliographic sources that might link Risso and Polygala in publications prior to 1836, we were able to identify the place of valid publication of this species. It is found in a letter written by Franz Gabriel von Bray (1765–1832), published in 1818. In this letter, he reports on a journey he made to Nice in October of that year, during which he took two excursions, one with Augustin Pyramus de Candolle (1778–1841) and one with de Candolle and Risso. In the account of these excursions, he describes specimens of Polygala that Risso had named Polygala nicaeensis (Bray 1818). The correct scientific name for this species is, therefore, P. nicaeensis Risso ex Bray. This discovery re-defines the year and place of publication of this species, for which we have been unable to trace any original material. We searched for herbarium specimens collected by de Candolle or Risso in P, G-DC and NICE (Stafleu and Cowan 1976, 1983), finding a single specimen by Risso in G-DC!, dated 1837, which, therefore, does not belong to the original material. We also searched, without success, for specimens by von Bray in P, G-DC, NICE and REG, as he was, at that time, president of the Botanical Society of Regensburg (“ Regensburgische Botanische Gesellschaft ”). In the absence of original material and given the impossibility of designating a lectotype, the neotype already designated by Chodat (1893: 457) remains valid: the gathering no. 2660, Esterel 1891, Vidal. Since this gathering has been distributed in multiple duplicates across various European herbaria (BESA 010305!, BR 0000031351249!, CHE 025420!, CLF 17731!, G 01100098!, G 01100099!, G 01100100!, P 02998871!, P 02999407!, P 03209034!, P 03209039!, P 03209061!, MA- 01-00074129), we proceeded with a second-step neotypification (Art. 9.17 of ICN), by restricting the neotype to the specimen in the Herbarium Delessert at G (G 01100099!). The neotype matches the protologue and confirms the current application of the name as P. nicaeensis (Pignatti 2019). The question of whether P. nicaeensis s. str. and P. vulgaris subsp. pubescens Rhode ex Loisel. can be treated as heterotypic synonyms after their typification (see also below) requires further studies. This is particularly relevant because the latter name may apply to hairy, decumbent plants that were treated as “ P. nicaeensis ” by Polidori (2023), that may warrant some degree of taxonomic distinction. However, if these names are regarded as synonyms and treated at varietal rank, the priority name for this unit of systematic diversity is Polygala vulgaris subsp. pubescens Rhode ex Loisel., a name also cited by Steudel (1841) when he published the combination Polygala amblyptera var. nicaeensis (Risso ex Bray) Steud. For this reason, the latter epithet is illegitimate at varietal rank.