(3086–3087) Proposals to conserve the name <i>Phormium colensoi</i> Hook. f. against <i>P. colensoi</i> Hérincq and <i>P. forsterianum</i> and the name <i>P. cookianum</i> against <i>P. colensoi</i> Hérincq and <i>P. forsterianum</i> (<i>Asphodelacea

(3086) Phormium colensoi Hook. f. in Rev. Hort. (Paris), ser. 3, 2: 6. 1 Jan 1848 [Angiosp.: Lil. / Asphodel.], nom. cons. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): New Zealand, “Clamidia tenacissima Mscr. β.1 pallens”, 1769–1770, Banks & Solander (WELT No. SP063874A [image!]). (H) Phormium colensoi Hérincq in Rev. Hort. (Paris), ser. 3, 1: 223. 15 Jun 1847 (‘Collensoi’), nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): cult. Cherbourg, 1847, “Donné par M. Decaisne” (P barcode P02053508 [image!]). (=) Phormium forsterianum Hérincq in Rev. Hort. (Paris), ser. 3, 1: 223. 15 Jun 1847, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): cult. Cherbourg, 1847, “Donné par M. Decaisne” (P barcode P02053508 [image!]). (3087) Phormium cookianum Le Jol. in Not. Natur- Heilk., ser. 3, 9: 86. Mar 1849 [Angiosp.: Lil. / Asphodel.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: cult. Cherbourg [orig. New Zealand], 1847, ex Herb. A. Le Jolis (K barcode 000644298 [capsule only]). (=) Phormium colensoi Hérincq in Rev. Hort. (Paris), ser. 3, 1: 223. 15 Jun 1847 (‘Collensoi’), nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus: supra designatus. (=) Phormium forsterianum Hérincq in Rev. Hort. (Paris), ser. 3, 1: 223. 15 Jun 1847, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus: supra designatus. The reason for these proposals is to prevent destabilisation of the nomenclature and taxonomy of the genus Phormium J.R. Forst. & G. Forst. (Char. Gen. Pl.: 47. 1776) [Asparagales: Asphodelaceae]. The two proposals are presented together here because they share almost all the same background information, but they are otherwise independent and require separate decisions. The first proposal is put forward to resolve homonymy. The second proposal is to resolve identical genotypes. Both proposals list two names to be rejected. This is because the two names were published by the same author at the same time in the same publication and are based on the same original material (although no type was specified at that time), therefore they can be considered as “alternative names” in the sense of ICN Art. 36.3 (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). The genus Phormium is currently considered to contain only two taxa at specific rank, one being the type P. tenax J.R. Forst. & G. Forst. (l.c.: 48), endemic to New Zealand and Norfolk Island. This species has red to orange or yellowish flowers, leaves that may be glaucous adaxially, and is generally larger than the second species. However, flower colour and plant size overlap between the two and the species hybridise, so capsule features are now used to distinguish taxa. There is controversy about the nomenclature and taxonomy of the second species (Earp in New Zealand J. Bot. 61: 89–117. 2023), which is endemic to New Zealand. European botanists refer it to Phormium colensoi Hook. f. (in Rev. Hort. (Paris), ser. 3, 2: 6. 1848), with no infraspecific taxa currently recognised. New Zealand botanists prefer P. cookianum Le Jol. (in London J. Bot. 7: 536. 1848a, but see discussion below), with two currently recognised infraspecific taxa: P. cookianum subsp. cookianum, and P. cookianum subsp. hookeri (Gunn ex Hook. f.) Wardle (in New Zealand J. Bot. 17: 196. 1979; based on P. hookeri Gunn ex Hook. f. in Bot. Mag. 114: t. 6973. 1888). The taxonomy is actually more complex and awaits further resolution, with many different morphological forms and interspecific and infraspecific hybrids (Wardle, l.c.; Smissen & Heenan in New Zealand J. Bot. 45: 419–432. 2007; Smissen & al. in New Zealand J. Bot. 46: 287–297. 2007; Earp, l.c. 2023). As a further complication, there exists another species name, Phormium forsterianum Colenso, nom. illeg. (in Hooker's J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 3: 221. 1851, ‘fosterianum’). The designation “P. forsterianum” had been mentioned earlier by Colenso (in London J. Bot. 3: 8. 1844) as a nomen nudum. Although not noted at the time, P. colensoi Hook. f. (l.c. 1848) was proposed to be used instead of “P. forsterianum nom. nud.” because J.D. Hooker thought the name unsuitable, as he later explained: “the name Forsterianum cannot be applied, as Forster's plant is undoubtedly the P. tenax” (J.D. Hooker, Handb. N. Zeal. Fl.: 287. 1864). When P. forsterianum Colenso (l.c. 1851; non Hérincq, 1847) was validly published it explicitly included (“P. Fosterianum, alias Colensoi, alias Cookianum”) both P. colensoi Hook. f. and P. cookianum, therefore P. colensoi Hook. f. and P. forsterianum Colenso are homotypic synonyms (Art. 7.5). Before either was validly published, the two designations had appeared together as nomina nuda in a list of New Zealand plants by Raoul (Choix Pl. Nouv.-Zél.: 41. 1846), as “P. Collensoi, an P. Forsterianum, Col[enso] Mss. in Lond. journ. of bot. 1844, p. 8?” Raoul and J.D. Hooker had met in person at the Muséum [national] d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN) in Paris in 1845, so it is likely that Hooker had informed Raoul that these designations applied to the same taxon, and it is even possible that Hooker was responsible for the misspelling of Colenso's name (Earp, l.c. 2023: 95). Earp (l.c. 2023: 97–101) discussed potential original material for Phormium colensoi Hook. f. and, given Hooker's (l.c. 1848) mention of Banks in the protologue, concluded that the Banks & Solander collections and accompanying illustrations from the Cook expedition which visited New Zealand in 1769–1770 constitute the only qualifying material. He (l.c. 2023: 100) identified five sheets in three herbaria (AK, BM, WELT) as extant original material, one (WELT No. SP063874A) of which is designated here as lectotype. François Hérincq was in 1847 a junior member of the botanical staff at the MNHN in Paris (Earp in New Zealand J. Bot. [online: DOI:10.1080/0028825X.2024.2445279]. 2025). In that year he wrote articles in the gardeners’ magazine Revue Horticole describing horticultural novelties. The article in which the names proposed for rejection appear was published on 15 June 1847. The article contained a note on the flowering of Phormium in that month, both of P. tenax at the MNHN, and of a new species, which “doit se rapporter au P. Collensoi ou au Forsterianum [must be referred to P. Collensoi or to Forsterianum]” (Hérincq in Rev. Hort. (Paris), ser. 3, 1: 223. 1847). From the spellings, it is obvious that these names are taken (without citation) from Raoul (l.c.). The event which prompted the publication of these new Phormium names was the arrival at the MNHN of specimens sent to Joseph Decaisne by Auguste Le Jolis from Cherbourg, taken from a plant transplanted from a very remote part of New Zealand, which had just flowered for the first time (Le Jolis in Rev. Hort. (Paris), ser. 3, 2: 5–8. 1848b). However, Hérincq did not mention Le Jolis at all, but added some descriptive and diagnostic text that was sufficient for valid publication. Because Hérincq did not cite any other author for these names, according to Art. 46 Note 1 the names are to be ascribed to him. Phormium colensoi Hérincq was accepted by Mabberley & Malécot (in Lejeunia 209: 22. 2023) with P. forsterianum Hérincq as a synonym, establishing the priority of the former name over the latter (Art. 11.5), and this has also now appeared in IPNI. Hérincq (l.c.) assumed that the specimens before him were the same taxa to which the designations he adopted had been applied. When Hooker and Colenso eventually published their valid descriptions (Phormium colensoi Hook. f., l.c. 1848; P. forsterianum Colenso, l.c. 1851) from New Zealand material, the flower colour noted by Hooker (l.c. 1848) differed from the description of the Cherbourg specimens. It was because of morphological differences, mentioned in Decaisne's response to Le Jolis, that Le Jolis (l.c. 1848a) decided the Cherbourg plant was not P. colensoi Hook. f., and instead published the name P. cookianum (see Earp, l.c. 2023: 96). This is not surprising given the taxonomic complexity of Phormium in New Zealand. Senior botanical staff at the MNHN evidently had more knowledge of J.D. Hooker's concept of Phormium colensoi than did Raoul or Hérincq. Hooker had communicated with MNHN staff describing at least the flower colours of P. tenax and his P. colensoi based on his observations when visiting New Zealand in 1841. No letter seems to be extant (F. Tessier at MNHN, pers. comm. 2017), but some text was evidently sent by Decaisne to Le Jolis, and portions were quoted by Le Jolis (l.c. 1848b) and Charles Naudin (in J. Agric. Prat., ser. 2, 5: 97. 1848). The colours were given by J.D. Hooker as red for P. tenax and differently coloured (“en jaune” added in Naudin, l.c.) for P. colensoi, which generally accords with modern understanding, whereas according to Hérincq they are “jaune-orange (abricot)” (yellow-orange or apricot) for P. tenax and “rouge-noir” (dark red) exteriorly for what he took to be P. colensoi. Hérincq's flower colours were therefore the opposite of what was reported by Hooker from New Zealand and were based on plants grown completely out of their natural context. For example, like many other writers at that period, Hérincq's knowledge of P. tenax was based only on plants growing in Europe, which were a particular morphotype originating from Norfolk Island rather than New Zealand (Earp, l.c. 2023: 93). There is also the problem of typification, which here will affect both nomenclature and taxonomy. Le Jolis's specimens originated from a single flowering in 1847 of a single plant (Earp, l.c. 2023: 111). The specimens Le Jolis sent to the MNHN, which are the original material for Phormium colensoi Hérincq and P. forsterianum Hérincq, and a part of the original material for P. cookianum Le Jol., are now at P (barcodes P02053508 [flowers] and P02053509 [leaves]), with P02053508 designated here as lectotype for both Hérincq names. Because of better, more relevant material at Kew, Earp (l.c. 2023: 111) designated as lectotype of the name P. cookianum Le Jol. a specimen of a capsule, an important diagnostic feature in the genus, from a collection originally in Le Jolis's own herbarium but which eventually wound up at K (barcode K000644298). Mabberley & Malécot (l.c.) did not lectotypify Hérincq's names, but it is obvious that the only candidate type material available to Hérincq for his P. colensoi was, because of its origin, genetically identical to the lectotype of the name P. cookianum Le Jol. If the first of these proposals is unsuccessful, current understanding of the morphology of Phormium colensoi would thereby be reversed, destabilising the taxonomy. The morphotype of the specimens sent by Le Jolis is one which was never seen by either Hooker or Colenso. Phormium colensoi Hook. f. corresponds to the “northern lowland” taxon of Wardle (l.c.) whereas P. colensoi Hérincq corresponds to Wardle's “southern mountain” taxon. There is a complication in the second proposal, a matter of validity that was discussed by Earp (l.c. 2023: 105–107). Le Jolis's (l.c. 1848a) initial English publication of Phormium cookianum included the word “provisionally”, and his subsequent publications in French at about the same time contain equivalent words. Such wording for P. cookianum Le Jol. has generally been disregarded by systematic treatments, but it can be argued that it should invalidate the publication under Art. 36.1 (cf. Ex. 5). There is a subsequent republication of the name and Latin diagnosis in what is otherwise a close German translation of Le Jolis's (l.c. 1848a) text, which omits any hint of provisionality, thereby avoiding this issue, but the name can still be ascribed to Le Jolis (in Not. Natur- Heilk., ser. 3, 9: 85–86. 1849). If the second of these proposals is unsuccessful, the fate of Phormium cookianum Le Jol. will hinge on the outcome of the first proposal. If P. colensoi Hook. f. was conserved over P. colensoi Hérincq, the latter would be unavailable in Phormium and its rejection in the second proposal would be unnecessary, leaving only P. forsterianum to threaten P. cookianum. So one way or the other P. cookianum could effectively become a heterotypic synonym of P. colensoi Hérincq or P. forsterianum Hérincq, despite the types all arising from the single flowering in 1847 of the single plant from which Le Jolis collected (although possibly different gatherings). Conversely, if either or both these proposals are successful, nomenclature in Phormium would continue to refer to P. colensoi Hook. f. or P. cookianum Le Jol., which names are both very widely used in New Zealand (Hooker, l.c. 1864; Cheeseman, Man. New Zealand Fl.: 716. 1906, ed. 2: 321. 1925; Moore & Edgar, Fl. New Zealand 2: 52. 1970; Breitwieser & al., Fl. New Zealand. 2010–), and wherever the genus may be cultivated or naturalised (e.g. Webb in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur. 5:19. 1980). It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the genus Phormium is one of the most culturally significant in the New Zealand flora (Wehi & Clarkson in New Zealand J. Bot. 45: 521–544. 2007; see also the Landcare New Zealand website). It is also widely cultivated both in New Zealand and overseas and there are a very large number of fibre-producing and ornamental cultivars. Scheele (Harakeke: The Rene Orchiston Collection. 2005) listed 49 traditional Māori fibre and ornamental cultivars; Heenan (Checklist of Phormium Cultivars. 1991) listed 219 valid ornamental cultivar names used in modern commerce. Stability in nomenclature and taxonomy is very much to be desired. In contrast, Phormium colensoi Hérincq and P. forsterianum Hérincq have been added to taxonomic databases only since 2023, and consequently have had almost no use in the literature exclusive of Mabberley & Malécot (l.c.). The rejection of these names would have no impact. I wish to thank John Wiersema and Melanie Schori for their advice and assistance with these proposals.