(127) Request for a binding decision on the descriptive statement associated with <i>Merista</i> and <i>M. laevigata</i> ( <i>Primulaceae</i> )

(127) Merista and Merista laevigata Banks & Sol. ex G. Benn. in London Med. Gaz. 9: 506. 7 Jan 1832 [Angiosp.: Myrsin. / Primul.] This request relates to a single descriptive statement (descriptio generico-specifica: ICN Art. 38.6, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 162. 2025) published for the species named Merista laevigata. The species was first collected by Banks and Solander in 1769 on James Cook's first voyage to the South Pacific. The genus and its single species were named and described in manuscript but were never published by those authors. The binomial currently used for the species is Myrsine australis (A. Rich.) Allen (Fl. New Zealand 1: 540. 1961) [Ebenales/Primulaceae], based on Suttonia australis A. Rich. (in Dumont d'Urville, Voy. Astrolabe 1: 349. 5 May 1832). This request seeks an opinion if the earlier publication as Merista laevigata by Bennett (in London Med. Gaz. 9: 506–507. 1832) includes a validating description. George Bennett (1804–1893) was a surgeon/naturalist who visited New Zealand for a few months in 1829 on a ship loading timber. The ship returned to England in 1831, giving Bennett the opportunity to publish a number of articles before he left again in 1832. A particular series of articles, under a generic title “Botany of New Zealand”, was published in the London Medical Gazette (e.g., Bennett, l.c.), a journal with weekly issues, each with the date clearly stated on the first page. Bennett's publication gave a minimal description, applicable to both the genus and species (Art. 38.6). The descriptive phrases which would be acceptable today (i.e., those not excluded by Art. 38.3) are (1) “This tree […] attaining the height of from 16 to 20 feet [ca. 5–6 m], usually growing straight, but small in circumference; the wood has a reddish grain, is hard and heavy” (Bennett, l.c.: 506–507); (2) “The leaves are of a light green colour above, whitish underneath” (Bennett, l.c.: 507). Bennett also cited Parkinson's sketch drawing from “the collections of Sir Joseph Banks”, made during the Cook voyage. This does impart useful descriptive material, which describes the stature of the species more accurately than that provided later (as Suttonia australis) by Richard (in Dumont d'Urville, l.c): “arbuscula mediocrisa […], 4 pedes alta” [ca. 1.2 m]. Regarding the second descriptive phrase, it was said in a recent Nomenclature Committee report (Applequist in Taxon 72: 921. 2023) that “a character that could not have been believed to serve as diagnostic or meaningfully descriptive (e.g., “leaves green” in a genus that commonly has green leaves) must not be sufficient [for valid publication]”. So, describing the leaves as light green above and “whitish” underneath, which would fit very many vascular plant species, is perhaps insufficient for a validating description of a new genus and species, but, on the other hand, a description need not be diagnostic (Art. 38.4). These articles by Bennett were, presumably because of the journal chosen, subsequently completely ignored by later botanists, although there is some evidence that at least Cunningham, who met Bennett in person in London, was aware of them, writing: “his Information (so to speak of it) relative to the plants of New Zealand” (Cunningham, letter dated 31 July 1833, in Orchard & Orchard, Allan Cunningham: Letters Botanist/Explorer 1791–1839: 302. 2015). The Banks and Solander manuscript from Cook's voyage was then in the British Museum (now Natural History Museum, London). Probably, because at that time there was no published work solely on New Zealand botany which could be used as a reference, Bennett, while in London, consulted the manuscripts and drawings in these Cook voyage archives. [A typed transcript of Solander's manuscript at AK was consulted in the preparation of this MS, but there appears to be no online copy.] “Merista” and “M. laevigata” are described (separately) in Solander's manuscript as a new monotypic genus and new species. Although for some of the species he published, Bennett gave the natural family as well as the Linnaean classification from Solander's manuscript, in this case he gave neither. Bennett's description does not use Solander's (Latin) descriptions, and seems based on personal observation and on Parkinson's sketch. The genus and species described by Bennett were next recognized as Suttonia A. Rich. with the single species S. australis A. Rich. (in Dumont d'Urville, l.c.), based on a specimen collected in New Zealand in 1827 by d'Urville (Richard, l.c.; Harris & Schönberger in Canterbury Bot. Soc. J. 45: 8–24. 2014). Cunningham (in Ann. Nat. Hist. 2: 47. 1838) was the first to propose that this unpublished species of Banks and Solander was the same taxon as Richard's S. australis. Should the descriptive material be considered not to satisfy the requirement of Art. 38.1 for a validating description, no nomenclatural changes are required. If, however, Merista and its type M. laevigata were considered validly published, they would be earlier heterotypic synonyms of Suttonia and its type S. australis. Suttonia does not appear in current literature, because it has long been considered subsumed under Myrsine L. (Hosaka in Occas. Pap. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Mus. 16: 25–76. 1960), and the same arguments would apply to Merista. The only consequence would be to the specific epithet to be used with Myrsine, that is, whether or not a new combination based on Merista laevigata would have to replace Myrsine australis, as would be the case if Merista laevigata, with priority over S. australis, were considered validly published. I wish to thank John McNeill and John Wiersema for their advice and assistance with this request.