The correct authorship and nomenclature of Artemisia umbrosa ( Asteraceae), with comments on some misapplied names and distribution of the species in Eastern Europe

Artemisia umbrosa, initially described as A. vulgaris var. umbrosa, is an East Asian species that has been introduced and is now locally naturalized in some European countries. It has a complicated nomenclatural and taxonomic history. The name Artemisia umbrosa has been misapplied to related taxa of Artemisia sect. Artemisia, including A. verlotiorum, and several other names were erroneously applied to that taxon. The authorship of the species was variously cited in earlier literature (as "Turcz. ex DC.", "Turcz. ex Besser", "(Besser) Turcz. ex DC.", "(Turcz. ex DC.) Pamp.", "(Turcz. ex Besser) Pamp.", etc.). We demonstrate here that the basionym A. vulgaris var. umbrosa was first validated in 1832 (not 1834) by Besser. The species-rank combination A. umbrosa was validated not by Pampanini in 1930 but by Verlot in 1875, and thus the proper authorship citation of the name is A. umbrosa (Turcz. ex Besser) Turcz. ex Verlot. Despite the fact that Verlot misapplied the name A. umbrosa to the species later described as A. verlotiorum, his combination is valid and legitimate. Some other names misapplied to A. umbrosa are briefly considered (such as A. codonocephala auct. non Diels, A. dubia auct. non Wall. ex Besser, A. lavandulifolia auct. non DC., nom. illeg., etc.). The lectotype and other available original specimens of A. umbrosa (especially those from the Turczaninow and Besser historical herbaria at KW) are discussed. A brief overview of records of A. umbrosa (reported under several names) in Eastern Europe is provided.

In Europe A. umbrosa was for the first time reported from Ukraine, where several colonies of that species were found by Mosyakin (1990) in Kyiv along railroads (Fig. 1). Mosyakin (1990Mosyakin ( , 1991) also reported several other morphologically similar alien species (such as A. argyi H. Lév. & Vaniot, etc.) known and/or newly discovered by that time in Ukraine and adjacent countries, and provided a key for identification of these species related to A. vulgaris L. and belonging to Artemisia sect. Artemisia. Before 1990, almost all long-rhizomatous and stoloniferous alien species of that species aggregate found in Eastern Europe (except the correctly identified earlier records of https://doi.org/10. 15407/ukrbotj75.03.213 The correct authorship and nomenclature of Artemisia umbrosa (Asteraceae), with comments on some misapplied names and distribution of the species in Eastern Europe Tzvelev as "A. verlotiorum" and the record was published under that misapplied name (Gusev, 1980: 250;later recognized as A. umbrosa by Tzvelev, 2000: 614). New finds of A. umbrosa in Russia were reported later, also as "A. verlotiorum", from Moscow Region (Ignatov et al., 1983(Ignatov et al., , 1990, Kaluga Region (Volosnova, 1986), and Udmurtia (Puzyrev, 1985(Puzyrev, , 1989; later recognized as A. umbrosa: see Baranova et al., 1992;. Taxonomic conclusions of Mosyakin (1990) on alien plants of the A. vulgaris aggregate found in Ukraine (and his revision of selected specimens from Belarus, Leningrad, and Udmurtia, which proved to be A. umbrosa: see Mosyakin 1990: 12) resulted in subsequent new East European records and new identifications of earlier collections. In particular, it has been demonstrated that true A. verlotiorum was reliably known at that time in the eastern part of Europe only in Crimea (Mosyakin, 1990), but later it was also reported from the Caucasus (Dubovik, Mosyakin, 1991;Gabrielian, Vallès Xirau, 1996;Kikodze et al., 2010), the adjacent parts of Turkey (Jäger, 1988;Byfield, Baytop, 1998;Uludag et al., 2017, etc.), and Turkmenistan (Nikitin, Geldikhanov, 1988; now reported as a "common weed": Kurbanov, Vlasenko, 2006). Mayorov et al. (1993) provided data on a new locality of A. argyi near Kozelsk, revised the collections of Volosnova from Maloyaroslavets (both in Kaluga Region), and identified the plants as belonging to A. umbrosa. They also commented that the latter species was earlier erroneously reported from the region by Volosnova (1986) as A. verlotiorum and that new records and revisions of older identifications of taxa from the affinity of A. vulgaris should be expected after the publication by Mosyakin (1990) [in Russian: "Ранее ошибочно указана для области под названием А. verlotiorum Lamotte (Волоснова, 1986). После публикации С.Л. Moсякина (1990) следует ожидать новые находки и уточнение старых определений для полыней из родства А. vulgaris L." : Mayorov et al., 1993: 121]. Now A. umbrosa is known from several regions of the European part of Russia, where it is considered a "railway" plant found mainly along railway beds and slopes and sometimes forming dense thickets (see an overview and map in: Morozova, 2014: 27). In recent Russian literature the species is often accepted as "A. dubia" (Mavrodiev et al., 1999;Vasyukov, 2004;Mayorov, , 2014Mayorov et al., 2012;Borisova, 2012;Notov, Notov, 2012;Tretyakova, 2012;Tremasova A. selengensis Turcz. ex Besser: see Vynaev, Tretyakov, 1978;Puzyrev, 1985, andGudžinskas, 1990) and in Europe in general were identified as A. verlotiorum Lamotte (see Brenan, 1950;Verloove, 2013-onward, etc.). Artemisia umbrosa is now also known in some other European countries, where it was sometimes reported under several other names.

Artemisia umbrosa in Eastern Europe: early records and current distribution
In Eastern Europe A. umbrosa was probably found for the first time in Latvia (first collected in 1955 by A. Rasiņš, see Fatare, Gavrilova, 1985;Tabaka et al., 1988) and then in Belarus (Vynaev, Tretyakov, 1978); in both cases it was identified as "A. verlotiorum" (see Leonova, 1987). Probably the first collection of A. umbrosa in the European part of Russia has been made by Gusev in October 1978 in St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad) at the Sortirovochnaya-Moskovskaya railway station. The plants were initially identified by Figure 1. Artemisia umbrosa along the railway in Darnytsa District, Kyiv, 19 October 2017; this still existing colony was first found by S. Mosyakin in 1989. cultivation (Kryževičienė et al., 2010). That, in our opinion, may result in further uncontrolled spread of A. umbrosa.
It seems that in the eastern part of Europe A. umbrosa is currently the most successful invader among alien species of Artemisia sect. Artemisia known from that territory, followed by A. argyi; other taxa are less widespread and are known from a few localities each. These taxa are reported in dozens of East European publications, and at least some of those records are in need of re-assessment (as well as at least some records of A. verlotiorum from Central Europe; see Verloove, 2012-onward). A critical overview and detailed analysis of the available records and specimens of Artemisia sect. Artemisia from Eastern Europe is in progress and will be published separately.
It is also worth noting that A. umbrosa (reported as "A. dubia") and A. vulgaris were studied at the Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture as potential biomass producers for biofuel (Kryževičienė et al., 2010;Kadžiulienė et al., 2017, etc.). It was concluded that both species are well suited for biofuel production (however, A. umbrosa proved to be a much better biomass producer than A. vulgaris) and they have been recommended for "A. selengensis Turcz.,Cat. Baical,no 630;A. Verlotorum Lamotte;"], which in fact refers to the currently recognized and morphologically well outlined East Asian species that is also locally known as alien in Belarus (Vynaev, Tretyakov, 1978;Tretyakov, 1999), Lithuania (Gudžinskas, 1990(Gudžinskas, , 1997, Ukraine (Mosyakin, 1990;Bortnyak, Voytyuk, 1991), and some regions of the European part of Russia (Puzyrev, 1985;Mayorov, , 2014Mayorov et al., 2012, Seregin, 2012. It was also discovered in 2012 in the Netherlands (Verloove, 2013-onward) and may be expected in some other European countries.
The Grenoble Catalogue… of 1875 seems to be a very rare publication. Brenan in his article listed that reference but reported that he has not seen it (Brenan, 1950: 223). Our efforts to locate at least one still existing copy of the Catalogue… proved to be unsuccessful, despite our thorough search in several major libraries of Ukraine and Belgium and numerous requests sent to libraries of several botanical institutions and libraries of Paris, Geneva, Grenoble, London, etc. However, we found that the Catalogue… was cited and/or directly referenced in several botanical periodicals of the 1870s.  (Verlot, 1875, cited The pagination and content of the preprint are in fact identical to those of the final version of the article (only some minor typographic errors were corrected in the journal version). The preprint was undated (except the date of the Preface, signed by Besser as "Scripsi Cremeneci d. 30 Aprilis 1832" -"Written in Kremenets on 30 April 1832": Besser, 1832: 8; and the date at the end of the treatment "Cremeneci d. 16 Julii 1832" -"Kremenets, 16 July 1832": Besser 1832: 89) but it was already delivered from Moscow to Paris in January 1833 (de Candolle, 1833; see details in Mosyakin et al., 2017), so its actual publication in 1832 can be accepted with certainty. Pritzel (1851: 22) in his bibliography also reported the date of publication of that preprint as 1832. Thus, the epithet "umbrosa" was first validated in Artemisia by Besser in 1832 for a variety of A. vulgaris.
[β] umbrosa (Turcz. ex Besser) Ledeb. and reported it as "Hab. in Sibiria transbaikalensis in insulis fl. Selenga! et alibi inque Davuria ad Charatzai! (Turcz.)" (Ledebour, 1844: 585). Most probably the latter specimen provided to Ledebour by Turczaninow was designated by Korobkov (2014) as the lectotype of A. umbrosa. The toponym "Charatzai" evidently refers to the village (ulus) of Kharatsay (Харацай in Russian, Харасаа in Buryat) on the left bank of the Dzhida River (also Dschida, Джида in Russian; a tributary of the Selenga) in Zakamensky District (Закаменский район in Russian; Захааминай аймаг in Buryat) of the Republic of Buryatia, Russia. That village is located ca. 8 km above the confluence of the Dzhida and the Selenga. However, the species was probably also collected by Turczaninow in some other localities, in particular, near the town of Selenginsk (Селенгинск in Russian) in Kabansk District (Кабанский район in according to Verlot, 1876: 73) [translation: "We name here (not being sure that this is the proper name) a plant that we have been observing for two years in several localities near Grenoble, and which is close [closely related] to Artemisia vulgaris L."]. He then discussed some morphological differences of that species from A. vulgaris sensu stricto and reported that he observed and collected the plants in numerous localities in and around Grenoble.
Verlot's reference to the authorship of Turczaninow is an indirect reference (Art. 38.14 and 41.3 of the ICN) to the existing basionym A. vulgaris var. umbrosa [Turcz. ex] Besser (1832: 50; 1834: 50; see also de Candolle, 1838: 113). According to Art. 7.3 of the ICN (McNeill et al., 2012), a nomenclatural combination is typified by the type of its basionym even though it may have been applied erroneously to a taxon now considered not to include that type. Consequently, Verlot validated the new combination A. umbrosa (Besser) Turcz. ex Verlot (homotypic with A. vulgaris var. umbrosa), despite the fact that he misapplied that name to another species (A. verlotiorum).
Judging from the available bibliographic references mentioned above, there is no reason to doubt that the Catalogue… of 1875 by Verlot actually existed, despite our failure to find its extant copies. Even if we assume that that publication never existed (which is not the case) or has not been published effectively (in the sense of Art. 29-30 of the ICN), the text reproduced in Bulletin de la Société Dauphinoise pour l'Échange des Plantes in 1876 and directly attributed to Verlot constitutes effective and valid publication of the nomenclatural combination A. umbrosa. Thus, the species-rank name was published in 1875 (or 1876?) and thus it is of priority over A. codonocephala Diels and some other names, if these taxa are considered conspecific. Korobkov (2014: 15)  Herbariorum (Thiers, 2018-onward Fig. 3). This specimen was collected on the Selenga by Adams, as indicated in the protologue (Besser, 1832: 52;1854: 52 Thus, the lectotype designation by Korobkov (2014) was not the best available choice (see comments and the list of other original specimens below). However, the current wording of Art. 9.19 of the ICN (McNeill et al., 2012) gives no solid reason for rejection of his lectotypification because the lectotype specimen belongs to original material in the extended sense of Art. 9.3 of the ICN (McNeill et al., 2012).  Korobkov, 2014: 15).

Notes on typification and original specimens of Artemisia umbrosa
The names that were misapplied to A. umbrosa in some earlier publications are discussed below, in the next section of the article. We decided not to cite here yet any heterotypic synonyms of A. umbrosa. An annotated list of heterotypic synonyms (extended synonymy) will be provided later, following the results of the ongoing research of East Asian species of Artemisia found in Europe.

Selected original specimens of Artemisia umbrosa and/or their digital images studied
In the course of preparation of the present article, Mosyakin and Boiko studied original specimens of A. umbrosa from the historical herbarium collections of Besser and Turczaninow (now in the type collection at KW). Available digital images from G, H, K, and P were consulted as well. The list of these specimens is provided below, with brief comments.
KW001000449: label 1, with an original handwritten description by Turczaninow: "Artemisia umbrosa mihi. foliis inferioribus pinnatipartitis, trifurcatis  with it. Artemisia codonocephala and A. verlotiorum share the following characters: leaves very similar in shape, sparsely pubescent above (becoming glabrous at senescence?), with slightly convolute margins; synflorescences not much branched, with branches often reflexed and curved down ("nodded spikes" in Diels, 1912); rather large and almost sessile erect capitula arranged in rows on synflorescence branches. It seems that A. codonocephala has somewhat more pubescent upper surfaces of leaves as compared to A. verlotiorum; however, this character is rather variable and also partly depends on the age of leaves.
In any case, even if A. umbrosa and A. codonocephala are considered conspecific (which is not the case, in our opinion), the first name is of priority. The name A. codonocephala was used for A. umbrosa in several East European publications (Mosyakin, 1992: 36, "with some doubt"; Yena, 2005, etc.).

Artemisia lavandulifolia DC.
Artemisia lavandulifolia Salisb. (Salisbury, 1796: 191) is illegitimate because it has been published as a superfluous substitute name for A. caerulescens L. (Linnaeus, 1753: 848 Ling et al. (2011) are also in need of correction: in our opinion, true A. umbrosa most probably occurs only in the northern part of the vast range reported for "A. lavandulifolia" by Ling et al. (l.c.). plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen. h1437728).

Some names misapplied to Artemisia umbrosa
Artemisia codonocephala Diels Probably the first author who synonymized A. umbrosa and several other names with A. codonocephala (but excluded A. dubia sensu stricto!) was Hara (1980), who listed the accepted name (A. codonocephala) and its synonyms, with nomenclatural references, and briefly commented: "After having examined the type material, I came to the conclusion mentioned above. Artemisia dubia Wall. ex Besser (1834) of India is a caespitose suffrutex without creeping rhizome or stolon, and I have cultivated it in Japan for more than 10 years" (Hara, 1980: 326).
Judging from the original description (Diels, 1912: 186-187) Besser (1832: 39;1834: 39) was (and still is: see below) misapplied to the species accepted here as A. umbrosa. That misapplication was probably initiated by Kitamura in his several publications and supported by Ohwi (1965) in his well-known revised English edition of the Flora of Japan (see a nomenclatural summary in Hara, 1980: 326). In fact, A. dubia does not belong to the A. vulgaris aggregate and Artemisia sect. Artemisia, as it has been convincingly demonstrated by Hara (1980), and especially by Ling (1987;see also Ling, 1995;Ling et al., 2011), who placed the species in Artemisia subg. Dracunculus (Besser) Peterm.
Despite the taxonomic and nomenclatural explanation published by Ling (1987) and later cited in Mosyakin (1990), Ling (1995), Ling et al. (2011), Boiko (2012, and in some other sources, cases of that misapplication can be found even in recent literature, in particular, in the standard checklist by Czerepanov (1995). For example, the name "A. dubia" is still accepted for A. umbrosa in recent editions of the Flora of the middle zone of the European part of Russia (Mayorov, , 2014 and in many other Russian publications on alien plants (Sukhorukov, 2010;Mayorov et al., 2012;Notov, Notov, 2012;Seregin, 2012Seregin, , 2014Tremasova et al., 2013, Vinogradova et al., 2017. Besser himself was rather uncertain about the taxonomic position and affinities of his A. dubia, which is evident from the protologue. In particular, Besser (1832: 39;1834: 39) commented that his specimen was too young for its certain taxonomic placement; he compared his new species with A. vulgaris and its relatives (such as A. tilesii Ledeb.) but also mentioned its possible placement in the Dracunculus group ("…ut eam ad Dracunculos possim referre"). Ling (1987: 443) cited a specimen from K (K-W, referring to the Wallich collection) as an isotype of A. umbrosa but did not mention the holotype or lectotype. The digital image of the Kew specimen of A. dubia (K001119019) is available from JSTOR Global  Korobkov, 1992: 134;Zuev, 2012: 315). That species was also reported as a rare alien from Eastern Europe (Baranova et al., 1992;Tzvelev, 1994, etc., as "A. feddei") and Romania (Sîrbu, Oprea, 2011, as A. lancea).
In any case, the name proposed by de Candolle is illegitimate and thus it does not affect the nomenclature of currently accepted taxa. Consequently, the true identity of de Candolle's "A. lavandulifolia" is nomenclaturally irrelevant. The name A. lavandulifolia was misapplied to European plants of A. umbrosa in several publications (Boiko, 2009;Ostapko et al., 2010), the latest one probably being Sîrbu and Oprea (2011).
Artemisia selengensis Turcz. ex Besser As commented above, this name definitely refers to a morphologically very distinct southeastern Siberian and East Asian species with narrow serrate-dentate leaf lobes. It was for the first time misapplied to European plants of A. verlotiorum by Bonnet (1883; see also Brenan, 1950). Ledebour (1844) treated A. umbrosa as a variety of A. selengensis, and that was most probably the reason why Bonnet, who may have used Ledebour's Flora Rossica as a standard taxonomic reference, misapplied that name for plants from France.
Plants (https://plants.jstor.org). As it is evident from the protologue, when preparing the description of the species, Besser had at his disposal only one specimen of A. dubia, which originated from Wallich's herbarium collection ["Kamaon in Nepalia Dr. Wallich (v. sp. s. communic. ab. hon. coetu merc. angl. Ind. orient.)": Besser,l.c.: 39]. Here the abbreviated text of Besser's note means that he has seen/studied some herbarium specimen provided by/through the Honourable British East India Company; the same provenance is reported for a specimen G00460453 from de Candolle's herbarium in Geneva (see de Candolle, Radcliffe-Smith, 1981). It is also reported that "Wilibald Swibert Joseph Gottlieb Besser (1784Besser ( -1842 of Krzemieniec [Kremenets, Ternopil Region, Ukraine -S.M.] <…> volunteered to work on Wallich's material of the genus Artemisia. This was sent to him, and was incorporated into his Tentamen de Abrotanis in 1832" (de Candolle, Radcliffe-Smith, 1981: 339).
The protologue description of the only specimen studied by Besser (1832: 39-40;1834: 39-40) perfectly matches the Besser's specimen in the National Herbarium of Ukraine (KW). Consequently, the specimen KW000093841 should be considered the holotype. It was originally in the Besser historical herbarium (KW-BESS) and is deposited now in the type collection at KW. The nomenclatural citation of A. dubia and its type specimens (holotype and two known isotypes) are provided below.