Cenchrus frutescens

Veldkamp, J. F., 2014, A revision of Cenchrus incl. Pennisetum (Gramineae) in Malesia with some general nomenclatural notes, Blumea 59 (1), pp. 59-75 : 61-63

Cenchrus frutescens

Linnaeus (1753: 1050) based this combination on two references.

The first is Arundo graminea aculeata Alpino (1627) based on an illustration of sterile material from Crete ( Fig. 3 ). As usual this is a crude wood cut, but is illustrative of what one had to work with.

Smith (1806: 76) considered it as a very obscure species. He cited as synonyms Nasos Diosc. (apparently not Nazia Adans., 1763 ) and ΠεΤΡοκαλαμο [Petrokalamo] Messen., a vernacular name from Messenia, SW Greece, and based on Sibthorp’s notes thought it would occur there as well as in the Achaean Archipelago.

Sieber (1822) went to the original locality and observed: “Ich bin daher nach Bereisung der ganzen Nordküste dieser Insel [Crete] vollkommen überzeugt, daſs dieser Cenchrus frutescens L., insofern es Alpins Pflanze betrifft, durchaus nichts anders als die oft 3 Klafter [fathom, c. 1.9 m] langen Ausläufer von Arundo Donax seye, und das Gewächs, da es nicht jährlich abgehauen werte, der gelinden Witterung wegen frutescire, die wahre Pflanz dieses Namens aber im Tournefortischen Herbar aufgesucht werden müſse”. Remarkably, Greuter & Scholz (1996) cited Sieber’s paper, but did not comment on this statement, a kind of lectotypification.

Sieber thus clearly made a distinction between Alpino’s plant and that of Tournefort and said that the “true plant of this name” should be looked for in the latter’s herbarium. In short, this con- stitutes a lectotypification avant le mot, incomplete, perhaps, as he did not cite the sheet number as we would require today (how could he have?), but clear enough. The remark by Brummitt (1998) that you cannot designate a (lecto)type when you have not seen it, is not supported by the Code, which does not require so. Article 9.3(b) defines as “original material” “specimens … even if not seen by the author”. Moreover, in my interpretation of Art. 9.12 on lectotypification a specimen takes precedence over an illustration. I here designate P­TRF 4941, P000680157 ( IDC microfiche 6208) as the lectotype .

A particular problem was caused by the total misinterpretations by Lunell (1915). He adhered to absolute priority and thus accepted Nastus Diosc. (“ΝαΣΤος”; 50–70 AD) with as type Cenchrus frutescens L. (1753).

The reference to Dioscorides (AD 50–70) cited by him (‘I: 114’) I have not found, as there are so many editions over the c. 1500 years of use of this seminal medicinal work, and here have used the one by Ruellius (1552), which was also used by Linnaeus (1753: 480). Dioscorides mentioned species of Harundo called Calamos, Canna, Cypria, Donax, Ita, Nastos , etc., from which arrows, flutes, or pens were made.Apparently these are species of what we now regard as Arundo L. and Phragmites Adans. It is most unlikely that any could pertain to C. ciliaris , the only Cenchrus native to Europe, but then at present only known from Sicilia and nearby Isola Lipari ( Clayton 1980). Certainly the burs would have been noted.

Lunell cited Bubani (1901), who also would have used Nastus , but it was not found there.

It is not Cenchrus Hippokrates , ‘l.c.’, which he seems to think is Panicastrella Micheli (1729) , taken up by Moench (1794), nor Echinaria Heist. ex Fabr. (1759) , non Desf. (1799), a superfluous name for Cenchrus ( Briquet et al. 1905) .

Lunell included as the other species Nastus carolinianus (Walter) Lunell , based on C. carolinianus Walter , nom. utique rej. This is now C. longispinus (Hack.) Fernald. Clearly he had not seen Alpino’s illustration which in no way resembles any Cenchrus . Obviously he tried to place this species, whereby later authors have equated his Nastus with Cenchrus (e.g. Clayton & Renvoize 1986, Soreng & Pennington 2003).

Greuter & Scholz (1996) saw this microfiche. They said that on the label ‘ orientalis ’ is crossed out and replaced by ‘ armeniaca ’. Through the kind offices of Mme Elodie Lerat (P) a scan was obtained. As can be seen from Fig. 4 their remark is incorrect. Chase (1920: 49) remarked “It appears more like a species of Salicornia [L.; Chenopodiaceae ]”.

Turland (1995), also with field experience in Crete, disagreed with Sieber and regarded Alpino’s plant as a curious form of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. He therefore proposed C. frutescens as a nomen utique rejiciendum to avoid a new combination for the Common reed.

Greuter & Scholz (1996) refrained from lectotypifying C. frutescens L., instead they played what is unofficially known as “Mabberley’s Trick” (Geesink ex Mabberley 2004) and described a new species, Phragmites frutescens H.Scholz , thereby effectively blocking any later combination in Phragmites for C. frutescens . As a result Turland’s proposal was not recom- mended by the Nomenclatural Committee ( Brummitt 1998). Scholz’s species would occur also outside Crete in the Aegean, Cyprus, Israel and Syria ( Fielding & Turland 2005: 48, 488).

Linnaeus’s second reference is to Gramen orientale spicatum fruticosum spinosum, spicis echinatis in capitulum congestis Tournefort (1703). In this work the plants are enumerated which Tournefort had collected during his travels to the Levant as far as Armenia (1700–1702), hence the ‘ orientale ’. His material in P (P­TRF 4941, P000680157; Fig. 4a, b ) represents Crypsis aculeatus (L.) Aiton. He regarded Alpino’s species as distinct and he renamed it to Arundo angustifolia , repens, aculeata .

Although this came from the East, Linnaeus (1753) attributed it to America. In 1763 he corrected this to Armenia, but he never mentioned Crete. He apparently based most of the protologue (epithet, inflorescences, and provenance) on Tournefort. However, the application of this combination has long been enigmatic.

I agree with Greuter & Scholz’s (1996) suggestion that this is Crypsis aculeatus (L.) Aiton, based on Schoenus aculeatus L. (1753: 42. Cyperaceae !).

The epithets ‘ aculeatus ’ and ‘ frutescens ’ are equally old, and the first because of long-time use has obvious preference and is selected here, thus maintaining the combination of Crypsis aculeata (L.) Aiton. In this way there is no reason for any renaming and Turland’s proposal was unnecessary as well as Greuter & Scholz’s (1996) juggling act.

Figures

Fig. 3 Arundo graminea aculeata Alpino, De plantis exoticis …: 104. 1627.

Fig. 4 a. Lectotype of Cenchrus frutescens L., Herb. Tournefort P­TRF 4941, P000680157, reproduced with the kind permission of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. IDC microfiche 6208; b. detail. — Scale bars: a = 2 cm; b = 1 cm.