identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
3C2F87FBFFC39E51A88EF92E51B8FEA5.text	3C2F87FBFFC39E51A88EF92E51B8FEA5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Astereae Cassini 1819	<div><p>Tribe Astereae subtribe Conyzinae: circumscription of Erigeron, Hysterionica, and Neja</p><p>In a subtribal classification of the tribe Astereae Cassini (1819a: 195), Nesom (1994c) has included in subtribe Conyzinae Horaninov (1847: 93) species of Apopyros Nesom (1994b: 177), Conyza Lessing (1832: 203), Erigeron, Hysterionica Willdenow (1807: 140), Leptostelma Don (1831: 38), and Neja D.Don in Sweet (1831: 78, tab. 78). Later, Nesom (2008) circumscribed Conyzinae including Erigeron, New World Conyza, the North American genus Aphanostephus Candolle (1836: 310), and a small group of South American species segregated as the genera Apopyros, Darwiniothamnus Harling (1962: 108), Hysterionica, Leptostelma, and Neja . As currently defined, the Conyzinae comprises about 500 species, about 400 of these generally identified as Erigeron (Nesom &amp; Robinson 2007, Nesom 2008), whose composition was essentially confirmed by a molecular-phylogenetic study of Erigeron and relatives (Noyes 2000).</p><p>The genus Erigeron is one of the largest and taxonomically most difficult genera of the tribe Astereae (Solbrig 1962), being distributed in North to South America, West Indies, Galapagos, and Eurasia (Nesom &amp; Robinson 2007). Erigeron is usually characterized by its triangular-tipped stigmas with their surfaces covered by short and stubby collecting-hairs; by the possession of stout imbricated involucral bracts, arranged in approximately two series; and by its heterochromous heads, that is with the ligulate flowers of a different color from the tubular ones (Solbrig 1962). However, according to Solbrig (1962), if these criteria were applied rigorously, many species hitherto referred to Erigeron would have to be excluded.</p><p>Among the segregates of Erigeron that are directly related to the species names treated in the present study, Hysterionica and Neja are of interest. Hysterionica was described by Willdenow (1807), based on H. jasionoides . It is a small genus endemic to south Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina. It is composed of annual or perennial herbs or sub-shrubs, taprooted; caudex simple; stems sometimes branched at base; leaves alternate, linear or lanceolate, glandular-pubescent; heads hemispheric, solitary; involucre formed by two or three series of linear bracts; receptacle flat or slightly convex, glabrous; flowers dimorphic: ray florets 1–3-seriate, pistillate, ligulate, yellow or white, usually with a very narrow ligule, limbs broad to filiform; disc florets hermaphrodite, yellow, with tubular corolla, lobes deltoid, erect; cypselae somewhat compressed, usually hairy; pappus 2-seriate: the outer series of very short linear scales and often somewhat flattened and chaffy; the inner series of long bristles, capillary; the inner capillary series is rarely missing; anthers rounded at base (adapted from Cabrera 1946 and Nesom &amp; Robinson 2007).</p><p>Neja was described by D. Don in Sweet (1831), based on N. gracilis . It is a small genus of six species occurring in south-eastern South America and Cuba, according to the circumscription proposed by Nesom (1994a). It is characterized by perennial herbs, usually from taproot or branched caudex, with leaves mostly basal, filiform to linear-oblanceolate; heads solitary, long-pedunculate or on sparsely bracteolate stems; involucre broadly turbinate to hemispheric; bracts 2–4-seriate, gradate, narrowly triangular; rays pistillate, uniseriate, yellow or white; disc florets yellow, tubular, lobes deltate, erect; cypselae fusiform-cylindrical, with 7–10 prominulous orange-resinuous nerves, strigose between nerves; pappus bristles 1–3-seriate, outer series scarcely differing or of short setaceous bristles or scales (Nesom &amp; Robinson 2007).</p><p>The distinction between Hysterionica and Neja is tenuous, since they share characteristics such as the habit herbaceous, heads discoid, receptacles epaleate, white or yellow pistillate ray florets, yellow tubular disc florets, and pappus 2-seriate. As for the distinction, Hysterionica presents cypselae slightly compressed with 2–4-nerves and Neja has fusiform-cylindrical cypselae, with 7–10-nerves (Nesom &amp; Robinson 2007). Due to these morphological similarities, Neja has been considered as a synonym of Hysterionica by several authors (e.g., Bentham &amp; Hooker 1873, Baker 1882, Cabrera 1946, Espinar 1980, Freire 2008). However, Nesom (1993) has recognized two groups of species within Hysterionica, the “ jasionoides group” (the typical element), and the “ pinifolia group”, based on differences in habit and leaf morphology, and in cypsela morphology (mainly the number of veins). From those differences, Nesom (1994a) segregated six species of Neja from Hysterionica, i.e. those belonging to the “ pinifolia group”: N. dianthifolia (Grisebach 1879: 174) Nesom (1994a: 171), N. filiformis (Sprengel 1826: 520) Nees von Esenbeck (1839: unpaged; 1840: 168), N. marginata (Grisebach 1866: 149) Nesom (1994a: 171), N. nidorelloides Candolle (1836: 325), N. pinifolia (Poiret 1808: 490) Nesom (1994a: 171), and N. pulvinata (Cabrera 1946: 353) Nesom (1994a: 172) . Nesom’s reinstatement of Neja has been accepted, for instance, by Nesom (2000, 2008), Nesom &amp; Robinson (2007), Hind (2011), and Schneider et al. (2013), but not by Deble &amp; Deble (2011) and Sancho &amp; Vitali (2014), the latter treating Hysterionica in a broad sense, thus including Neja .</p><p>In the phylogenetic study of Erigeron and allies, based on the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region by Noyes (2000), accessions of 63 Erigeron species were included along with samples of nine species belonging to Aphanostephus, Apopyros and Conyza, further Hysterionica jasionoides and Neja filiformis . Noyes’s phylogeny and also the one reconstructed by Brouillet et al. (2009) have shown that Conyza, Neja, Hysterionica, Apopyros and Aphanostephus are deeply embedded within Erigeron, rendering Erigeron paraphyletic by these segregations, which are not supported by molecular data (Brouillet et al. 2009). In other words, the subtribe Conyzinae essentially is equivalent to a monophyletic Erigeron . All other genera are derived from within the latter and could be considered synonyms (Brouillet et al. 2009). These phylogenies have also indicated that Neja is probably the sister group to Hysterionica, notwithstanding the inclusion of only a single representative of each genus and the inference being based on only one molecular marker. Similar results from molecular markers have been found by Heiden (2014) through Bayesian inference trees. Trees based on nuclear subset analyses (ETS + ITS), on plastidial subset analyses (trn H- psb A + trn L-F), and on the combined analyses of both subsets, have shown that H. nidorelloides and N. filiformis formed a sister subclade to another subclade including samples of Apopyros warmingii (Baker 1882: 23) Nesom (1994b: 179), Conyza chilensis Sprengel (1818: 14), and Leptostelma catharinense (Cabrera 1957: 75) A.M.Teles &amp; Sobral in Teles et al. (2008: 3). Until the achievement of a consensus on the circumscription of these genera, from phylogenies with representative sampling and a higher number of molecular markers, the currently accepted circumscriptions for Hysterionica and Neja are adopted here, proposing new synonymies related to the correct names.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/3C2F87FBFFC39E51A88EF92E51B8FEA5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Moraes, Pedro Luís Rodrigues De	Moraes, Pedro Luís Rodrigues De (2020): Nomenclatural notes on the taxonomic identity of Sprengel’s Erigeron dubius, E. montevidensis, E. resinosus and E. filiformis (Asteraceae). Phytotaxa 438 (2): 95-106, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.438.2.3, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.438.2.3
3C2F87FBFFC79E56A88EFDDE57CCFB98.text	3C2F87FBFFC79E56A88EFDDE57CCFB98.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hysterionica resinosa (P. L. R. Moraes 2020) P. L. R. Moraes 2020	<div><p>Hysterionica resinosa (Spreng.) P.L.R.Moraes, comb. nov.</p><p>Basionym:— Erigeron resinosus Sprengel (1826: 519) ≡ Polyactis sprengelii Schlechtendal (1835: 475), nom. illeg. superfl. ≡ Polyactidium sprengelii Candolle (1838: 275), nom. illeg. superfl. Protolog:—“ Ad fl. magnum Amer. austr. (Rio grande.) Sello”. Type:— BRAZIL. “Rio Grande”, s.d., F. Sellow s.n. (lectotype designated here: P barcode P02484186, ex Herb. Sprengel 1102).</p><p>Synonyms:— Erigeron dubius Sprengel (1826: 519) . Protolog:—“ Ad fl. magnum Amer. austr. (Rio grande.) Sello”. Type:— BRAZIL. “Rio Grande”, s.d., F. Sellow s.n. (lectotype designated here: P barcode P02484185, ex Herb. Sprengel 1100).</p><p>Diplopappus villosus Hooker &amp; Arnott (1836: 48), nom. illegit. [non Diplopappus villosus Cassini (1819b: 309), nec Diplopappus villosus (Pursh 1814: 564) Hooker (1834: 22)], syn. nov. ≡ Hysterionica villosa Cabrera (1946: 350) . Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, loco haud indicato, 1835, M. Isabelle s.n. (holotype: K barcode K000250520, ex Herb. Hookerianum).</p><p>Neja nidorelloides Candolle (1836: 325), syn. nov. ≡ Hysterionica nidorelloides (DC.) Baker (1882: 12) . Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, loco haud indicato, s.d., F. Sellow s.n. = Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1048 (holotype: P barcode P00742833 [F neg. 37686]; isotype: G-DC barcode G00312711).</p><p>The herbarium sheet P02484186 has a single specimen mounted on it, which bears an original label annotated by Sprengel with “ Erigeron resinosus * Sello. Rio Grande”, and by Schultz-Bipontinus with “ Neja resinosa Sz Bip. ”. This specimen must be taken as original material of Erigeron resinosus, thus eligible for lectotypification of the name, since it perfectly matches the protolog. It also has another two labels annotated by Schultz-Bipontinus with “ Neja sprengelii Sz Bip in Seemann (Mex ...) = Polyactidium sprengelii Schldl ”, and “ Polyactidium sprengelii Schldl ! DC. vii. 272. (v 282) / Neja resinosa Sz Bip 7/5 52”. Therefore, Schultz-Bipontinus’s annotation clearly indicates the homotypic synonymy between E. resinosus and Polyactidium sprengelii, which is in agreement with Schlechtendal (1835) and Schultz (1856). Baker (1882: 13) and Nesom (1994a: 171) evidently did not check Sprengel’s material in Paris, resulting that the former treated P. sprengelii as synonym of Hysterionica montevidensis (Spreng.) Baker, and the latter placed P. sprengelii as a homotypic synonym of Neja filiformis (Spreng.) Nees, which are misinterpretations. Candolle (1838) clearly and correctly referred to Schlechtendal’s (1835) statement that specimens of Erigeron dubius and E. resinosus would belong to the same species, which he named “ Polyactis sprengelii ”: “Huc ex specim. authent. Sprengeliano species duas refert cl. Schlectendal”.</p><p>The herbarium sheet P02484185 has two specimens mounted on it, which belong to the same taxon and closely match the protolog of Erigeron dubius . It bears an original label annotated by Sprengel with “ Erigeron dubius * Sello. Rio Grande”, and a label annotated by Schultz-Bipontinus with “ Neja dubia Sz Bip. 7/5 52”, which denote it is original material of Sprengel’s name. Its taxonomic identity as the same taxon named by Sprengel as Erigeron resinosus, like indicated by Schlechtendal (1835) and Candolle (1838), is accepted here. When compared, the type specimen of E. resinosus is more vigorous than the type of E. dubius, more leafy, but not taller; it also bears more heads, is more viscous, with more glandular trichomes, intermixed trichomes longer, more frequent in the stems; the leaves are longer and slightly wider, but with the same shape and teeth as found in the latter; and with no important differences in the morphology of heads and fruits. These morphological differences fall within the circumscription of the taxon, being the expression of intra and interpopulational variability found in specimens collected within its geographical range.</p><p>The herbarium sheet K000250520 has two specimens mounted on it, which belong to the same taxon and closely match the protolog of Diplopappus villosus Hook. &amp; Arn. Once it is a collection by Isabelle, from Rio Grande do Sul, from Herbarium Hookerianum, and annotated with “ Diplopappus villosus H.&amp;A.”, it is taken as the holotype of this name. This Isabelle collection is clearly the same quoted by Baker (1882: 13), in the material examined under Hysterionica montevidensis (Spreng.) sensu Baker, since the sheet was annotated by Baker with “= Erigeron montevidensis Spreng / compared with type 8/80. ...”. Isabelle’s specimen closely matches the type specimens of E. resinosus and E. dubius at Paris, therefore is taken here as a synonym of them.</p><p>The herbarium sheet P00742833 has two specimens and a fragment mounted on it, all belonging to the same taxon, and it was annotated by Candolle with “ Neja nidorelloides DC. ”. The specimens and the original label of the Herbier Impérial du Brésil, i.e. “Province de Rio-Grande ... N. o 1048” perfectly match the protolog: “in Brasiliae prov. Rio-Grande (h. Mus. imp. Bras. n. 1048!)” and “(v. s. in h. Mus. reg. Par.)”, thus representing the holotype of this name. A fragment from P00742833, housed at G-DC (G00312711), which was annotated by Candolle with “n. 1048 h. Mus. Bras. / Neja nidorelloides DC. ”, is an isotype. Therefore, Schneider’s et al.(2013) indication of the fragment at G-DC as the holotype of N. nidorelloides is mistaken. Nevertheless, those authors have correctly recognized the collections of Sellow s.n. (K000250519; annotated with “ Neja sprengelii Schtz Bip ”) and of Isabelle s.n. (K000250520, i.e. the holotype of D. villosus), as belonging to the same taxon as N. nidorelloides . Here, again, the morphological characters of those specimens closely match the circumscription of E. resinosus and E. dubius, which have equal nomenclatural priority over Neja nidorelloides . Another specimen of the Herbier Impérial du Brésil, N. o 862 (P02484188), was annotated by Candolle with doubt as “ Neja nidorelloides DC. ”. Its general morphological aspect closely resembles that of the type specimen of E. resinosus .</p><p>Malme (1931) cited four numbered specimens of Sellow under Hysterionica montevidensis sensu Baker, of which only Sellow d 1696 (“inter Rio Pardo et Bagé) (US 01684160) has been located, whereas Sellow 3350, 3470, 3579 (“S. Gabriel, forte etiam in parte boreali reipublicae Uruguay ”) have not been located up to the present. Since Sellow d 1696 and Malme I 792 (S16-21760, S16-21763) belong to Hysterionica resinosa, the other collections of Sellow cited by Malme might belong to it also. However, another specimen, Sellow 3579, is known to belong to Heliotropium ocellatum Cham. (B † [F neg. 17335; mounted together with Sellow 3649], BR0000006967314, E00394546, G-DC [G00147693], GH00097724, HAL0071612, K000096805, K000096806, L0004006, LE, M0185296, M0188051, P00610211, US 00110868 [Sellow 3401], W0049646; see Förther 1998), indicating a rare example of a duplicate number by Sellow, or that Malme made a mistake.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/3C2F87FBFFC79E56A88EFDDE57CCFB98	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Moraes, Pedro Luís Rodrigues De	Moraes, Pedro Luís Rodrigues De (2020): Nomenclatural notes on the taxonomic identity of Sprengel’s Erigeron dubius, E. montevidensis, E. resinosus and E. filiformis (Asteraceae). Phytotaxa 438 (2): 95-106, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.438.2.3, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.438.2.3
3C2F87FBFFC69E54A88EFBC0505DF9B4.text	3C2F87FBFFC69E54A88EFBC0505DF9B4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neja filiformis (Sprengel 1826) Nees von Esenbeck 1839	<div><p>Neja filiformis (Spreng.) Nees von Esenbeck (1839: unpaged; 1840: 168).</p><p>Basionym:— Erigeron filiformis Sprengel (1826: 520) ≡ Hysterionica filiformis (Spreng.) Cabrera (1946: 355) . Protolog:—“ Ad fl. magnum Amer. austr. (Rio grande.) Sello”. Type:— BRAZIL. “Rio Grande”, s.d., F. Sellow s.n. (lectotype designated here: P barcode P02484331, ex Herb. Sprengel 1107, i.e. the right-hand specimens on top).</p><p>Synonyms:— Erigeron montevidensis Sprengel (1826: 519), syn. nov., non Baker (1882: 30) ≡ Hysterionica montevidensis (Spreng.) Baker (1882: 13) . Protolog:—“ Monte Video. Sello”. Type:—Loco haud indicato, s.d., F. Sellow s.n. (lectotype designated here: P barcode P02484327, ex Herb. Sprengel 1104 [F neg. 37684]).</p><p>Neja gracilis [D.Don ex Sweet (1830: 299), nom. nud.;] D.Don in Sweet (1831: 78, tab. 78). Protolog:—“It is a native of Mexico, from whence it was introduced in 1828, by the late Robert Barclay, Esq., from whose collection the specimens were sent, from which our figure and description were taken”. Type:—COUNTRY NOT INDICATED. Loco haud indicato, 1831, R. Sweet s.n. (lectotype designated here: G-DC barcode G00455734). Possible original material:—“ MEXICO ”. “Hort. Barclay” (K barcode K000221414, right-hand specimen), “Jardin de Mr Barclay – juill. 1830” (G-DC barcode G00455768).</p><p>Diplopappus stenophyllus Hooker &amp; Arnott (1836: 48) . Type:— URUGUAY. Loco haud indicato, s.d., J. Tweedie s.n. (holotype: K barcode K000221411, ex Herb. Hookerianum; isotype: E barcode E00593915). Variety β:— BRAZIL. “Rio Grande”, loco haud indicato, s.d., J. Tweedie s.n. (E barcode E00593914, K barcode K000221412, left-hand specimen, ex Herb. Hookerianum).</p><p>Neja subvillosa Candolle (1836: 325), syn. nov. Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, loco haud indicato, s.d., Sellow s.n. = Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1015 (holotype: P barcode P02484329; isotype: G-DC barcode G00455794).</p><p>Neja linearifolia Candolle (1836: 325) ≡ Hysterionica linearifolia (DC.) Baker (1882: 13) . Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, loco haud indicato, s.d., Sellow s.n. = Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1045 (lectotype designated here: P barcode P02484343, left-hand specimen; isolectotype: G-DC barcode G00455750). Other syntype:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, loco haud indicato, s.d., Sellow s.n. = Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1034 (P02484346 [F neg. 37687]).</p><p>Neja tenuifolia Candolle (1836: 326) . Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, loco haud indicato, s.d., Sellow s.n. = Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1009 (holotype: P barcode P02484347; isotype: G-DC barcode G00455795).</p><p>Neja ciliaris Candolle (1836: 326) . Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, loco haud indicato, s.d., Sellow s.n. = Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1004 (holotype: P barcode P02484345; isotype: G-DC barcode G00455727).</p><p>Hysterionica setuligera Gandoger (1873: 23) . Protolog:—“Brasilia (Sello, n. 1964)”. Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul, “inter Serra dos Tapes et S. Francisco de Paula” fide Malme (1931), September 1824, Sellow [d] 1964 (holotype: LY (?); isotypes: B †, MO barcode MO-2422055 – communicavit M. Gandoger).</p><p>The herbarium sheet P02484331 has four specimens mounted together. Of them, only the two specimens on the top right-hand can be taken as original material of Erigeron filiformis, since they are associated with an original label handwritten by Sprengel with “ Erigeron filiformis * Sello. Rio Grande”, and they perfectly match the protolog. Although this sheet has been annotated by G. Sancho in 2006 as Hysterionica filiformis (Spreng.) Cabrera, in Sancho &amp; Vitali (2014) the authors referred to the “ type ” of Erigeron filiformis Spreng. as “probablemente en P, no localizado”.</p><p>The herbarium sheet P02484327 has a single specimen on it, with an original label annotated by Sprengel with “ Erigeron montevidensis * Sello”, and two labels annotated by Schultz-Bipontinus, respectively, with “ Neja montevidensis Sz Bip in Seemann (Sierra Madr[e]) bot. [...] Herald p. 302”, and “ Neja montevidensis Sz Bip 7/5 52 / = (ciliaris) DC. V. 326.”. This sheet was also annotated by G. Sancho in 2006 as Hysterionica filiformis (Spreng.) Cabrera, but in Sancho &amp; Vitali (2014) E. montevidensis Spreng. was not even mentioned.</p><p>Specimen G00455734 is mounted together with specimen G00455768 on the same sheet. The former bears a label annotated with “ Neja gracilis / Sw. br. fl. gard. ser. 2. t. 78 / Mr. Sweet 1831 ”, while the latter bears a label annotated with “ Neja gracilis / Mexique / Jardin de Mr Barclay – juill. 1830”. Both specimens may be taken as original material of Neja gracilis D.Don, since they are in agreement with the protolog. However, the former specimen is chosen as the lectotype because it is more leafy than the latter, thus resembling best the illustration presented in Sweet’s (1831) plate 78, and because its label clearly denotes association to the place of publication of the protolog, and to Robert Sweet’s herbarium, or his communication. Regarding the provenance of the material introduced by Robert Barclay, Lessing (1832: 165) was the first to indicate that Neja gracilis D.Don is not a Mexican species. According to Bentham &amp; Hooker (1873), it must have been collected in the Uruguayan region, since its placement as a synonym of N. filiformis is unquestionable, the latter being registered for southern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.</p><p>Specimen K000221411 is mounted together with other three collections on the same sheet. It is annotated with “ Uruguay. Tweedie” and “ Diplopappus stenophyllus H&amp;A”, and perfectly matches the protolog of Diplopappus stenophyllus Hook. &amp; Arn., which allow to take it as the holotype of that name. Its identity as Hysterionica filiformis has been acknowledged by Cabrera (1946) and Sancho &amp; Vitali (2014), opinion that I agree with.</p><p>Specimen P02484329 is the holotype of Neja subvillosa DC., since it bears an original label annotated by Candolle with “ Neja subvillosa DC. ”, and also the original label of Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1015, altogether perfect matching the protolog. Its fragment at G-DC (G00455794) is an isotype. Its identity as Neja filiformis is proposed here, since its morphological characters are in agreement with the circumscription of this taxon. Hooker &amp; Arnott (1836: 253–254) had already acknowledged the possible identity of D. villosus as N. subvillosa DC.</p><p>The herbarium sheet P02484343 has two specimens mounted on it, which belong to the same taxon. The left-hand specimen is chosen here as lectotype of Neja linearifolia DC. because it is the best preserved among the syntypes that have been indicated in the protolog, and it has a fragment deposited in G-DC (G00455750). It still bears three heads, whereas specimen P02484346 has only one. The identity of N. linearifolia as Hysterionica filiformis (≡ Neja filiformis), acknowledged by Sancho &amp; Vitali (2014), is shared here.</p><p>Specimen P02484347 is the holotype of Neja tenuifolia DC., since it is annotated by Candolle with “ Neja tenuifolia DC. ”, bears the original label Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1009, and perfectly matches the protolog. Its fragment deposited in G-DC (G00455795) is an isotype. The indication of N. tenuifolia as synonym of Hysterionica filiformis (≡ Neja filiformis) by Sancho &amp; Vitali (2014) is accepted here, since it matches the circumscription of the latter.</p><p>Specimen P02484345, the holotype of Neja ciliaris DC., is annotated by Candolle with “Chrysopsis Neja ciliaris DC. ”, has the original label Herbier Impérial du BRÉSIL N. o 1004, perfectly matches the protolog, and has a fragment at G-DC (G00455727), therefore an isotype. Its identity as Erigeron montevidensis Spreng. has been pointed out by Schultz (1856), and as Hysterionica filiformis (≡ Neja filiformis) by Sancho &amp; Vitali (2014).</p><p>Although Gandoger (1873) has not informed the herbarium where he had seen Sellow’s collection of Hysterionica setuligera, his private herbarium is currently deposited at LY (Stafleu &amp; Cowan 1976: 909), where the specimen in question would likely be found. However, Sellow d 1964 could not be retrieved from searches in the database “Les Herbiers” (https://herbier2014.univ-lyon1.fr/search) of the Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, nor in the portal of the e-ReColNat project (see Le Bras et al. 2017), which indicates that it has not been databased yet. Sellow d 1964 was quoted by Malme (1931) among the specimens he had examined in Berlin as Hysterionica pinifolia (Poir.) Baker. Since then, no duplicate of Sellow d 1964 seems to have been located, from what could be checked in herbarium databases and the available literature. In spite of that, the sheet at MO-2422055 is a duplicate of Sellow which matches the protolog. It has four branches mounted on it, and an original label handwritten by Gandoger with “ Hysterionica pinifolia Bak. / Brasilia. / Sello n. 1964 / c. M. Gandoger”. In Tropicos database, the information inserted for this sheet reads: “Current Determination – Hysterionica pinifolia (Poir.) Baker ”, “Collection Information: Collectors – Michel Gandoger”, “Collection Number – s.n.”, “Collection Date – 1964”, and “Location – Brazil ”, which makes impossible the retrieval for “ Sello(w) 1964 ” from any logical search. The identity of Sellow 1964 is ascertained as N. filiformis, since it falls within the circumscription adopted here. Both Cabrera (1946) and Sancho &amp; Vitali (2014) have placed H. setuligera Gand. in the synonymy of H. filiformis, despite they never saw Sellow’s material.</p><p>As already mentioned, Baker (1882) treated Erigeron filiformis Spreng. as synonym of Hysterionica pinifolia, but he cited no Sellow collection in the examined material. Furthermore, Baker also quoted “ Diplopappus pinifolius Hook. et Arn. loc. cit.; Lessing in Linnaea VI. 119 ” in that synonymy. This could explain why Lessing named the specimens of Erigeron filiformis Spreng. in Berlin as “ Diplopappus pinifolius Less. ” (nomen), as pointed out by Schlechtendal (1835) and Candolle (1836, 1838), based on his understanding of Erigeron pinifolius Poir. (as mentioned in observation by Lessing 1831: 119). Later, those specimens in Berlin, after Baker’s treatment in the Flora brasiliensis, have been renamed as Hysterionica pinifolia Baker, and distributed to other herbaria. Evidence of that can be found from several Sellow’s collections already located: Sellow d 189, “prope Montevideo” (NY00801319, US 01684188), Sellow d 411, “prope Montevideo” (NY00801317, NY00801318, W19070018198), and Sellow d 1794, “inter Rio Pardo et Bagé” (US 01684189), all of them annotated as Hysterionica pinifolia Baker.</p><p>Regarding other species names directly or indirectly related to Neja filiformis, Nesom (1994a) quoted “ Diplopappus graminifolius Less., Syn. Gen. Comp. 165. 1832” in its synonymy. In fact, Lessing (1832), in observation, quoted “ D. graminifolius * = Neja gracilis Don in Sweet. br. flow. gard. 1831 Jan. t. 78 (patria falsa) = Erigeron graminifolius Poir. ”. However, Lessing (1830: 144) has described Diplopappus graminifolius, based on Inula graminifolia Michaux (1803: 122) [≡ Pityopsis graminifolia (Michx.) Nuttall 1840: 318], also quoting Sprengel (1826: 524) (specimen P02666229 ex Herb. Sprengel 1139), and “In graminosis ad lateram montium prope Hacienda de la Laguna. Octbr.”, which refers to a collection by C. J. W. Schiede &amp; F. Deppe in Mexico (not located). Recently, Nesom (2019) has correctly quoted Diplopappus graminifolius under Pityopsis graminifolia .</p><p>In the protolog of Erigeron montevidensis Baker, three specimens were cited: “Habitat prope Montevideo, in arenosis maritimis: Sello! Gibert n. 1238! Arechavaleta n. 4057!”. Cabrera (1941: 90–92) recognized that two taxa were involved: i) the one represented by the specimen of Arechavaleta 4057, “ Montevideo, Marzo 1876, al borde de los caminos” (K000221865, MVM), which should be taken as the type of Baker’s species ; and ii) the other represented by Sellow’s specimen, Sellow d 643 (B † [F neg. 14852]), which Cabrera described and named as Erigeron blakei Cabrera. According to Cabrera, Arechavaleta’s specimen has wide, pinnatifid leaves, with obtuse segments 3–4 mm wide, and capitula in broad, corymbiform panicles. Sellow’s material, on the other hand, has pinnatisect leaves of very narrow segments and a capitulum arranged in a narrow panicle. Another specimen of Arechavaleta 4057 at MVM is annotated with “ Montevideo, al borde de los caminos, en el campo, en terrenos removidos. Febrero 1878 ”, therefore with a different date of collection than indicated in the specimen at K, but belonging to the same taxon and showing leaves slightly narrower. Regarding the collection of Gibert 1238, which was not seen, nor mentioned by Cabrera (1941), in MVM there are three specimens collected by Gibert which match Arechavaleta’s collection and are annotated by Gibert as: i) “ Pl. Gibert. 951. 1238. Montevideo, in arenis maritimis. Martio 1881” ; ii) “ Pl. Gibert. 951. Montevideo, in arenis marit. Martio 1881” ; and iii) “ Pl. Gibert. 200. Montevideo, in arenis. Martio 1880” .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/3C2F87FBFFC69E54A88EFBC0505DF9B4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Moraes, Pedro Luís Rodrigues De	Moraes, Pedro Luís Rodrigues De (2020): Nomenclatural notes on the taxonomic identity of Sprengel’s Erigeron dubius, E. montevidensis, E. resinosus and E. filiformis (Asteraceae). Phytotaxa 438 (2): 95-106, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.438.2.3, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.438.2.3
3C2F87FBFFC49E5BA88EF9945438FE34.text	3C2F87FBFFC49E5BA88EF9945438FE34.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neja pinifolia (Poiret 1808) G. L. Nesom. In 1994	<div><p>Neja pinifolia (Poir.) Nesom (1994a: 171) .</p><p>Basionym:— Erigeron pinifolius Poiret (1808: 490), as “ pinifolium ” ≡ Hysterionica pinifolia (Poir.) Baker (1882: 12) . Protolog:—“Cette plante a été recueillie, par Commerson, à Buenos-Ayres. (V. s. in herb. Desfont.)”. Type:— ARGENTINA. Buenos Aires, s.d., P. Commerson s.n. (holotype: FI-W barcode FI006113, ex Herb. Desfontaines; isotype: P barcode P02484196, ex Herb. Poiret).</p><p>Synonym:— Diplopappus pinifolius Hooker &amp; Arnott (1836: 48) . Type:— BRAZIL. “Rio Grande”, s.d., J. Tweedie s.n. (holotype: K barcode K000250518, ex Herb. Hookerianum).</p><p>In the protolog of E. pinifolius, Poiret (1808) informed that he had seen Commerson’s material from the Herbarium Desfontaines. The general herbarium of Desfontaines was acquired by Philip Barker Webb and is now at FI-W (Stafleu &amp; Cowan 1976). In Herbarium Webbianum ex Herb. Desfontaines, the herbarium sheet FI006113 has two specimens mounted on it, which belong to the same taxon and closely match the protolog of Erigeron pinifolius . It bears an original label annotated by Poiret with “ Erigeron pinifolium . Poir. [...] aff. Er. graminei. Lin. / Buenos Aires ”, and a label annotated by Desfontaines with “Buenos-Aires Commerson”, therefore allowing it to be taken as the holotype. In Paris, specimen P02484196, ex Herb. Poiret ex Herb. Moquin-Tandon in Herbarium E. Cosson, can be taken as an isotype, since it was annotated by Poiret with “ Erigeron pinifolium n. / Buenos-Aires. Commers.”.</p><p>Specimen K000250518, the holotype of Diplopappus pinifolius Hook. &amp; Arn., is annotated with “Rio Grande. Tweedie.”, and bears a label handwritten by Arnott with “ Diplopappus pinifolius H&amp;A / an Erigeron pinifolius Poir. (I am not certain if the outer pappus is paleaceous, although I suspect so, as your specim. is in a frail state, and I have none whatever)”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/3C2F87FBFFC49E5BA88EF9945438FE34	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Moraes, Pedro Luís Rodrigues De	Moraes, Pedro Luís Rodrigues De (2020): Nomenclatural notes on the taxonomic identity of Sprengel’s Erigeron dubius, E. montevidensis, E. resinosus and E. filiformis (Asteraceae). Phytotaxa 438 (2): 95-106, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.438.2.3, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.438.2.3
