Nomenclatural corrections and comments are provided on several taxa of Chenopodiaceae occurring in the Himalayas and Xizang/Tibet and adjacent areas, following the recent monographic revision of the family in that region and earlier publications. In particular, the original identity of the name Atriplex bengalensis (Chenopodium bengalense) is discussed and it is confirmed, based on additional evidence, that the name was originally (before its epitypification in 2014) applicable to a robust diploid of the Chenopodium ficifolium aggregate, not to the robust hexaploid currently known as C. giganteum. It is thus also concluded that the recent proposal by Mosyakin and Mandák (2018) to conserve the name C. giganteum with a conserved type corresponding to the current understanding and application of that name will best serve nomenclatural stability. A nomenclatural solution alternative to the proposal to reject the name A. bengalensis might be the following: (1) to conserve the name Atriplex bengalensis with a conserved C. ficifolium against C. bengalense. The nomenclaturally paradoxical situation with the names Chenopodium pallidum, C. harae, and Atriplex pallida (all now considered homotypic, as justified by Mosyakin and McNeill in 2018), which emerged from the conflicting lectotypification and epitypification of the name C. pallidum, is revisited and reconsidered. Possible options for dealing with that nomenclatural problem are outlined: (1) keeping the status quo, (2) proposing to conserve the name C. pallidum with a conserved type other than the standing lectotype, and (3) proposing to reject the name C. pallidum. The last option is considered preferable. Additional considerations are presented on a possible taxonomic identity of Chenopodium strictum as originally described by Roth; it is confirmed that that name was misapplied to a widespread Eurasian tetraploid species now properly known as C. betaceum. The identity of the name Bassia fiedleri is discussed; being a replacement name for Echinopsilon divaricatum, it is homotypic with Bassia divaricata (Kar. & Kir.) Kuntze (nom. illeg., non F. Muell.) and is a taxonomic synonym of Grubovia dasiphylla (as correctly stated by Kadereit and Freitag in 2011), but not a synonym of Bassia scoparia. Several comments on type designations of selected taxa of Chenopodiaceae from the Sino-Himalayan region are provided as well; e.g., for Acroglochin persicarioides and associated names, Chenopodium karoi, and Salsola monoptera.

Keywords: Atriplex, Bassia, Chenopodium, Chenopodiaceae, Salsola, China, India, Nepal, nomenclature, taxonomy, typification

Full text: PDF (Eng) 3.69M

1. Aellen P. 1929. Chenopodium strictum Roth (1821), ein älterer Name für Chenopodium striatum (Kraš.) Murr (1896). Magyar Botanikai Lapok, 26: 105–107.
2. Aellen P. 1960–1961. Chenopodiaceae. In: Hegi G. Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa, 2^nd ed., vol. 3, part 2, Lief. 2–4. München: Lehmann Verlag [Reprinted: Berlin & Hamburg: Paul Parey Verlag, 1979], pp. 533–762.
3. Andrzejowski A. 1862. Continuatio Enumerationis Plantarum sponte in Gubernio Podolico et locis adjacentibus crescentium. Universitetskie Izvestiya (Kiev), [volume of 1862], 7: 94–142.
4. Anonymous. 1913. The Wallichian Herbarium. Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), [vol. of 1913], 7: 255–263. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4115049; https://doi.org/10.2307/4115049
5. Arora R.K. 2014. Diversity in underutilized plant species – An Asia Pacific perspective. New Delhi, India: Bioversity International, 203 pp. Available at: https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/user_upload/online_library/publications/pdfs/Diversity_in_Underutilized_Plant_Species_An_Asia-Pacific_Prespective_1938.pdf
6. Bera B. 1991. Cytomorphological and biochemical investigations on three cytotypes of Chenopodium album L.: PhD Thesis. Calcutta [Kolkata]: University of Calcutta (Department of Botany), vii + 192 pp. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10603/161830
7. Bera B., Mukherjee K.K. 1987. Phenotypic variability in Chenopodium album. The Nucleus, 30: 50–53.
8. Bera B., Das S., Mukherjee K.K. 1993. Morphological studies on three cytotypes of Chenopodium album L. of lower Gangetic plains, West Bengal, India. Phytomorphology, 43: 93–103.
9. Bhargava A., Rana T.S., Shukla S., Ohri D. 2005. Seed protein electrophoresis of some cultivated and wild species of Chenopodium. Biologia Plantarum, 49(4): 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10535-005-0042-5
10. Bhargava A., Shukla S., Ohri D. 2006. Karyotypic studies on some cultivated and wild species of Chenopodium (Chenopodiaceae). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 53: 1309–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-005-3879-8
11. Bhargava A., Shukla S., Ohri D. 2007. Genome size variation in some cultivated and wild species of Chenopodium (Chenopodiaceae). Caryologia 60(3): 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00087114.2007.10797943
12. Bor N.L. 1954. Notes on Asiatic grasses: XX. Indian grasses in Roth's Herbarium. Kew Bulletin, 9(4): 545–548. https://doi.org/10.2307/4114547
13. Brown R. 1810. Prodromus florae Novae Hollandiae et Insulae Van-Diemen. Londini [London]: Typis Richardi Taylor et socii, viii + pp. 145–590. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.52309
14. Burkill I.H. 1953. Chapters on the history of botany in India. 1. From the beginning to the middle of Wallich's service. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 51(4): 846–878.
15. Candolle R. de, Radcliffe-Smith A. 1981. Nathaniel Wallich, MD, PhD, FRS, FLS, FRGS, (1786–1854) and the Herbarium of the Honourable East India Company, and their relation to the de Candolles of Geneva and the Great Prodromus. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 83(4): 325–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.1981.tb00355.x
16. Chrshanovski V.G. 1950. Chenopodiaceae. In: Klokov M.V. (Ed.). Identification manual of plants of the Ukr. SSR. Kyiv: State Publisher of Agricultural Literature of the Ukr. SSR, pp. 662–680.
17. Czerepanov S.K. 1995a. Vascular plants of Russia and adjacent states (the former USSR). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, x + 516 pp.
18. Czerepanov S.K. 1995b. Plantae Vasculares Rossicae et civitatum collimitanearum (in limicis URSS olim). St. Petersburg: Mir i Semya–95, 992 pp.
19. Desmond R. 1992. The European discovery of the Indian flora. Oxford: Oxford University Press & Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, viii + 355 pp.
20. Dvořák F. 1989. Study on Chenopodium strictum agg. Feddes Repertorium, 100(5–6): 197–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/fedr.4911000502
21. Dvořák F. 1992. Study of Chenopodium subopulifolium J. Murr emend D. Feddes Repertorium, 103(1–2): 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/fedr.19921030109
22. Dvořák F. 1993. Relationships and diagnostic characters of Chenopodium striatiforme J. Murr, C. striatum (Krašan) J. Murr and C. strictum Roth. Feddes Repertorium, 104(7–8): 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1002/fedr.19931040704
23. Edney M.H. 1997. Mapping an Empire: the geographical construction of British India, 1765–1843. [Vol. 10 of the Mapping an Empire series]. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 458 pp. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226184869.001.0001
24. Emmerling-Skala A. 2005. "Sultan der Gemüsegärten"? – der Weiße Gänsefuß (Chenopodium album L.) als Nahrungspflanze. Schriften des Vereins zur Erhaltung der Nutzpflanzenvielfalt, 3: 1–143.
25. Freitag H., Hedge I.C., Jafri S.M.H., Kothe-Heinrich G., Omer S., Uotila P. 2001. Chenopodiaceae. In: Ali S.I., Qaiser M. (eds.). Flora of Pakistan, No. 204. Karachi: University of Karachi; St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press, 217 pp.
26. Gangopadhyay G., Das S., Mukherjee K.K. 2002. Speciation in Chenopodium in West Bengal, India. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 49: 503–510. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020909128003
27. Grubov V.I. 1966. Plantae Asiae Centralis. Vol. 2: Chenopodiaceae. Leningrad: Nauka, 134 pp.
28. Grubov V.I. (ed.) 2000. Catalogue of the type specimens of Central Asian vascular plants in the herbarium of the V.L. Komarov Botanical Institute (LE). St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press, 236 pp.
29. Heyne B. 1814. Tracts, historical and statistical, on India: with journals of several tours through various parts of the peninsula: also, an account of Sumatra, in a series of letters. London: Printed for Robert Baldwin; and Black, Parry and Co., Booksellers for the Hon. East India Company, xii + 462 pp.
30. Hiepko P. 1987. The collections of the Botanical Museum Berlin Dahlem (B) and their history. In: Scholtz H. (ed.). Botany in Berlin [special issue]. Englera, 7: 219–252.
31. Iamonico D. 2018. Nomenclatural and taxonomic notes on Acroglochin and its position in Chenopodiaceae s. str. Phytotaxa, 383(2): 197–205. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.383.2.6
32. Ikonnikov S.S. 1963. Identification manual of plants of the Pamir. Dushanbe: Academy of Sciences of the Tajik SSR, 282 pp.
33. Ikonnikov S.S. 1979. Identification manual of higher plants of Badakhshan. Leningrad: Nauka, 400 pp.
34. Iljin M.M. 1936a. New species of the family Chenopodiaceae of the flora of the USSR. Acta Instituti Botanici Academiae Scientiarum URSS, Ser. 1: Flora et Systematica Plantae Vasculares, 2: 123–132.
35. Iljin M.M. 1936b. Chenopodiaceae. In: Komarov V.L. (ed.). Flora URSS, vol. 6. Moscow; Leningrad: Editio Academiae Scientiarum URSS, pp. 2–354.
36. Iljin M.M. 1952. Chenopodiaceae. In: Kotov M.I. (ed.). Flora URSR, vol. 4. Kyiv: Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR Publ., pp. 267–313, 650.
37. Iljin M.M., Aellen P. 1936. Chenopodium. In: Komarov V.L. (ed.). Flora URSS, vol. 6. Moscow; Leningrad: Editio Academiae Scientiarum URSS, pp. 41–73, 873.
38. Kadereit G., Freitag H. 2011. Molecular phylogeny of Camphorosmeae (Camphorosmoideae, Chenopodiaceae): Implications for biogeography, evolution of C₄-photosynthesis and taxonomy. Taxon, 60(1): 51–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.601006
39. Kumar V., Subramaniam B. 1987. Chromosome atlas of flowering plants of the Indian Subcontinent, 2 vols (vol. 1: Dicotyledons). Calcutta [Kolkata]: Botanical Survey of India, xxvi + 1095 pp.
40. Kuntze O. 1892. Revisio generum plantarum..., vol. [pars] 2. Leipzig: A. Felix [etc.], pp. 377–1011. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.327
41. Lendemer J.C. 2020. Epitypes are forever: Best practices for an increasingly misused nomenclatural action. Taxon, 69(5): 849–850. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12289
42. Mandák B., Krak K., Vít P., Pavlíková Z., Lomonosova M.N., Habibi F., Lei W., Jellen E.N., Douda J. 2016. How genome size variation is linked with evolution within Chenopodium sensu lato. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 23: 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2016.09.004
43. Mandák B., Krak K., Vít P., Lomonosova M.N., Belyayev A., Habibi F., Wang L., Douda J., Štorchová H. 2018. Hybridization and polyploidization within the Chenopodium album aggregate analysed by means of cytological and molecular markers. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 129: 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.08.016
44. Mazumdar J., Bandyopadhyay S., Bhattacharjee A. 2020. (013) Proposal to amend Article 9.20. Taxon, 69(3): 631. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12253
45. Mehra P.N., Malik C.P. 1963. Cytology of some Indian Chenopodiaceae. Caryologia, 16(1): 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00087114.1963.10796085
46. Merrill E.D. 1943. Destruction of the Berlin Herbarium. Science, 98(2553): 490–491. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.98.2553.490
47. Mosyakin S.L. 1996. Chenopodium. In: Tzvelev N.N. (ed.). Flora Europae Orientalis, vol. 9. St. Petersburg: Mir i Sem'ya-95, pp. 27–44.
48. Mosyakin S.L. 2016. First record of Chenopodium ficifolium subsp. blomianum (Chenopodiaceae) in North America. Phytoneuron, 2016-33: 1–6. Available at: http://www.phytoneuron.net/2016Phytoneuron/33PhytoNChenopodiumblomianum.pdf
49. Mosyakin S.L. 2017. Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature of Chenopodium acerifolium and C. betaceum (C. strictum auct.) (Chenopodiaceae). Phytotaxa, 324(2): 139–154. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.324.2.3
50. Mosyakin S.L., Mandák B. 2018a. (2658) Proposal to reject the name Atriplex bengalensis (Chenopodium bengalense) (Chenopodiaceae / Amaranthaceae sensu APG). Taxon, 67(6): 1218–1219. https://doi.org/10.12705/676.27
51. Mosyakin S.L., Mandák B. 2018b. (2659) Proposal to conserve the name Chenopodium giganteum (Chenopodiaceae / Amaranthaceae sensu APG) with a conserved type. Taxon, 67(6): 1220–1221. https://doi.org/10.12705/676.28
52. Mosyakin S.L., Mandák B. (submitted, expected in 2021). Proposal to reject the name Chenopodium pallidum (Chenopodiaceae / Amaranthaceae sensu APG). Taxon, 70(1).
53. Mosyakin S.L., McNeill J. 2018. On the nomenclature of Chenopodium pallidum and Atriplex schugnanica (Chenopodiaceae / Amaranthaceae sensu APG) and the perils of epitypification. Phytotaxa, 376(3): 133–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.376.3.2
54. Mueller F. von. 1882. Systematic census of Australian plants, with chronologic, literary and geographic annotations. Part I. Vasculares. Melbourne: Printed for the Victorian Government by M'Carron, Bird & Co., 152 pp. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.54034
55. Mukherjee K.K. 1986. A comparative study of two cytotypes of Chenopodium album in West Bengal, India. Canadian Journal of Botany, 64(4): 754–759. https://doi.org/10.1139/b86-097
56. Murr J. 1923. Neue Übersicht über die Farn- und Blütenpflanzen von Vorarlberg und Liechtenstein, vol. 1. Feldkirch: Kommissionsverlag, Buchhandlung F. Unterberger, xxiv + 144 pp.
57. Novoselova M.S. 2000. Chenopodiaceae. In: Grubov V.I. (ed.). Catalogue of the type specimens of Central Asian vascular plants in the herbarium of the V.L. Komarov Botanical Institute (LE). St. Petersburg University Press, St. Petersburg, pp. 83–93.
58. Pandeya C.S., Pandeya A. 2003. Further contribution to biosystematics of Chenopodium, reporting three new species from north Indian plains. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 100(1): 87–92.
59. Pandeya C.S., Singhal G., Bhatnagar A.K. 1998. Biosystematic study of two new species of Chenopodium from the north Indian plains. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 95(3): 477–487.
60. Partap T., Kapoor P. 1985a. The Himalayan grain chenopods. I. Distribution and ethnobotany. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 14: 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(85)90035-0
61. Partap T., Kapoor P. 1985b. The Himalayan grain chenopods. II. Comparative morphology. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 14: 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(85)90036-2
62. Partap T., Kapoor P. 1987. The Himalayan grain chenopods. III. An under-exploited food plant with promising potential. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 19: 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(87)90052-1
63. Partap T., Upadbya M.D. 1987. The Himalayan grain chenopods: floral variations and their role in seed formation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 18: 205–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(87)90084-3
64. Pilger R. 1953. Bericht über den Botanischen Garten und das Botanische Museum Berlin-Dahlem vom 1. März 1943 bis 31. März 1947. Mitteilungen aus dem Botanischen Garten und Museum Berlin-Dahlem, 1(1): 1–21. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3995179
65. POWO. 2020–onward. Plants of the World Online. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Available at: http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org (Accessed 17 June 2020 and 20 August 2020).
66. Prakash R.O. 2016. Wallich and his contribution to the Indian natural history. Rheedea, 26(1): 13–20.
67. Pratov U. 1972. Chenopodiaceae. In: Vvedensky A.I. (series ed.), Bondarenko O.N., Nabiev M.M. (volume eds.). Identification manual of plants of Central Asia. Critical checklist of the flora [Alternative Latin title: Conspectus Florae Asiae Mediae], vol. 3. Tashkent [Toshkent]: Fan [Editio Academiae Scientiarum UzSSR], pp. 29–137.
68. Rana T.S., Narzary D., Ohri D. 2010. Genetic diversity and relationships among some wild and cultivated species of Chenopodium L. (Amaranthaceae) using RAPD and DAMD methods. Current Science, 98(6): 840–846.
69. Rilke S. 1999. Revision der Sektion Salsola s.l. der Gattung Salsola (Chenopodiaceae). Bibliotheca Botanica, 149: 1–190.
70. Roy R.D. 1986. The Great Trigonometrical Survey of India in a historical perspective. Indian Journal of History of Science, 21(1): 22–32.
71. Rubtsova O.L. 2004. Ukrainian Botanical Journal, 61(5): 102–108.
72. Scott A.J. 1978. A revision of Camphorosmioideae (Chenopodiaceae). Feddes Repertorium, 89(2–3): 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/fedr.19780890202
73. Sidorenko G.T. 1968. Atriplex. In: Ovchinnikov P.N. (ed.). Flora of the Tajik SSR, vol. 3. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 330–342.
74. Singh B.K. 2015a. VRCHE-4: a bathua (Chenopodium album) germplasm for high yield and multi-cutting. Vegetable Newsletter. ICAR – Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, 2(1): 8–9.
75. Singh B.K. 2015b. VRCHE-2 (IC0619019): High yielding genotype of bathua. Vegetable Newsletter. ICAR – Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, 2(2): 3.
76. Singh B.K., Pragya, Chaurasia S.N.S., Singh B., Singh P.M. 2018. Kashi Bathua-2: A bathua variety for higher nutrient and yield. Vegetable Science, 45(2): 291–293.
77. Singhal G. 1994. Ecological studies on Chenopodium album complex: PhD Thesis in Botany. Dayalbagh, Agra, India: Dayalbagh Educational Institute (Department of Botany), viii + 95 pp. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10603/205080
78. Sleumer H. 1949. The Botanical Gardens and Museum at Berlin-Dahlem. Kew Bulletin, 4(2): 172–175. https://doi.org/10.2307/4113675
79. Stafleu F.A., Cowan S.R. 1988. Taxonomic literature. A selective guide to botanical publications and collections with dates, commentaries and types, 2^nd ed., vol. 7. W–Z. Utrecht/Antwerpen: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema; The Hague/Boston: Dr. W. Junk b.v., Publishers, lvi + 653 pp.
80. Stewart R.R. 1982. Missionaries and clergymen as botanists in India and Pakistan. Taxon, 31(1): 57–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/1220590
81. Sukhorukov A.P. 2006. Zur Systematik und Chorologie der in Russland und benachbarten Staaten (in den Grenzen der ehemaligen UdSSR) vorkommenden Atriplex-Arten (Chenopodiaceae). Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien. Series B, 108: 307–420.
82. Sukhorukov A.P. 2014. The carpology of the family Chenopodiaceae in relations to problems of phylogeny, systematics and diagnostics of its representatives. Tula: Grif i K, 400 pp.
83. Sukhorukov A.P., Kushunina M. 2014. Taxonomic revision of Chenopodiaceae in Nepal. Phytotaxa, 191(1): 10–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.191.1.2
84. Sukhorukov A.P., Kushunina M. 2015. Corrigenda to "Taxonomic revision of Chenopodiaceae in Nepal" [Phytotaxa 191: 10–44. 2014]. Phytotaxa, 226(3): 288–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.226.3.10
85. Sukhorukov A.P., Liu P.L., Kushunina M. 2019. Taxonomic revision of Chenopodiaceae in Himalaya and Tibet. PhytoKeys, 116(5–6): 1–141. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.116.27301
86. Thiers B. 2008–onward. Index Herbariorum. A global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. New York Botanical Garden's Virtual Herbarium. Available at: http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih (Accessed 04 May 2020 and 20 August 2020).
87. Turland N.J., Wiersema J.H., Barrie F.R., Greuter W., Hawksworth D.L., Herendeen P.S., Knapp S., Kusber W.-H., Li D.-Z., Marhold K., May T.W., McNeill J., Monro A.M., Prado J., Price M.J., Smith G.F. 2018. International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) adopted by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress, Shenzhen, China, July 2017 [Regnum Vegetabile, vol. 159]. Glashütten: Koeltz Botanical Books, xxxviii + 254 pp. https://doi.org/10.12705/Code.2018
88. Turland N.J., Wiersema J.H., McNeill J. 2020. (007–008) Proposals to make clearer the circumstances under which a holotype can exist. Taxon, 69(3): 626–627. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12248
89. Uotila P., Lomonosova M.N. 2016. Taxonomic circumscription and synonymy of Chenopodium karoi and C. acerifolium (Chenopodiaceae). Annales Botanici Fennici, 53: 223–237. https://doi.org/10.5735/085.053.0411
90. Wallich N. 1832. A Numerical List of dried specimens of plants in the East India Company's Museum: collected under the superintendence of Dr. Wallich of the Company's botanic garden at Calcutta, nos. 6225–7683. Lithographed from a manuscript by N. Wallich and G. Bentham, London. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.1917
91. Watson M. 2013a–onward. The Wallich Catalogue Project. Available at: http://stories.rbge.info/archives/865 (Accessed 04 May 2020 and 20 August 2020).
92. Watson M. 2013b–onward. Wallich Catalogue: Herb., Hb. & H. Available at: https://stories.rbge.org.uk/archives/2103 (Accessed 04 May 2020 and 20 August 2020).
93. Watson M.F., Noltie H.J. 2016. Career, collections, reports and publications of Dr Francis Buchanan (later Hamilton), 1762–1829: natural history studies in Nepal, Burma (Myanmar), Bangladesh and India. Part 1. Annals of Science, 73(4): 392–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2016.1195446
94. Wilson P.G. 1984. Chenopodiaceae. In: George A.S. (ed.). Flora of Australia, vol. 4. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, pp. 81–317.
95. Zhu G.L., Sanderson S.C. 2017. Genera and a new evolutionary system of World Chenopodiaceae. Beijing: Science Press, 361 pp.