Any research would go down the drain if the basic nomenclature of a species is unclear. Taxonomists often work like detectives in getting the basic naming and classification right. This may require visiting different herbaria, deciphering ancient literature in various languages, and matching dates of protologues (original description of species) to dates of expeditions. This exposed a shocking error in the naming of M. citrifolia.
In the early days of botany, type specimens are often paintings by botanical artists (Fig. 12, left) as dried plants were difficult to preserve and transport back then. It turns out that Linnaeus's protologue of M. citrifolia refers to two illustrations, one of them is the less well-known M. coreia (Fig. 12, middle), and the other is the species known as M. citrifolia today [38]. A holotype was not designated. A holotype is the single specimen or illustration selected by the author at the time of publication and is the specimen that taxonomists should refer to for the verification of identity and nomenclature [37]. When a holotype is not designated, taxonomists have to select another specimen or illustration listed in the protologue as the lectotype. Unfortunately, a taxonomist erroneously selected the illustration of the species presently known as M. coreia as the lectotype [39]. If the botanical code is followed strictly,“the name M. citrifolia would have to apply to the species presently known as M. coreia and the species currently known as M. citrifolia would have to be called M. nodosa Buch. Ham.” [38]. This would lead to great confusion as Noni is widely cultivated for commercial uses [40].
Fig. 12. From left to right, Botanical illustration of M. citrifolia (Image: Natural history museum, London), specimen of M. coreia (Image: Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh), and conserved type of M. citrifolia (Image: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew). Note that the left and middle images are not the actual illustrations stated in Linnaeus's protologue.
Although nomenclature should not be regarded as science, it is still vital as species names are information retrieval and filing units. If the scientific name of Noni is changed, the older literature on Noni would be filed under M. citrifolia but the recent literature would be filed under the new name, M. nodosa. If a biomedical scientist discover that Noni juice could cause herb-drug interaction when taken with Paracetamol, and this information is filed under the new name, then this information is inaccessible to people who are unaware of the name change. Fortunately, taxonomists have proposed the conservation of the name Morinda citrifolia and designated Tirvengadum 624 (Fig. 12, right) from Sri Lanka as the conserved type [38]. This proposal has recently been approved by the nomenclatural committee [41].
References
[37] Simpson M.G., 2010. Plant Systematics. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
[38] Razafimandimbison S.G., D.A. Halford, T.D. McDowell & B. Bremer, 2011. Proposal to conserve the name Morinda citrifolia (Rubiaceae) with a conserved type. Taxon60(2), 607. Online PDF.
[39] Dwyer J.D., 1980. Rubiaceae – Part II. In: Woodson R.E. & R.W. Schery. Flora of Panama. Part IX. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 67(2), 257–522.
[40] McClatchey W.C., 2002. From Polynesian healers to health food stores: changing perspectives of Morinda citrifolia. Integrative Cancer Therapies 1, 110–210.
[41] Applequist W. L., 2012. Report of the nomenclature committee for vascular plants: 64. Taxon, 61(5), 1108–1117.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário