Status clarification and disposal of Carrière ’ s ivy names

Nava, H.S., Cires, E. & Fernández Prieto, J.A. 2016. Status clarification and disposal of Carrière’s ivy names. Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 73(1): e031. Carrière in 1890 published 34 names and 33 descriptions of a collection of live ivy plants. In this article we present the analysis of his work from a nomenclatural perspective. As a result, the legitimacy and even the validity of specific and some of the infraspecific names published in the work are questioned. In addition to this, and considering the benefits on keeping the nomenclatural stability, Hedera azorica Carrière, is proposed as a nomen conservandum.


INTRODUCTION
E.A. Carrière effectively published -arts.29-31 of the International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (McNeill & al., 2012-34 names (Carrière, 1890), 33 of which were accompanied by descriptions, of a collection of live ivies owned by M. Honoré Defresne, a horticulturist from Vitry (Seine), which were exhibited at the Trocadéro Gardens (Paris).Some of these names have recently been used as names of accepted species in the genus Hedera L. (Araliaceae).Such is the case of Hedera azorica Carrière, a name that many authors (McAllister & Rutherford, 1997;López González, 2001;Schäfer, 2002Schäfer, , 2003;;Valcárcel & al., 2003;Green & al., 2011;Schäfer & al., 2011) used for the plant growing on the Atlantic islands indicated by its specific epithet, and indeed attributed the name to E.A. Carrière ("Elie Abel Carrière 1818-1896").Nevertheless, after the analysis of the work published by E.A. Carrière, the legitimacy and even the validity of publication of Hedera azorica and others, should be questioned.

DISCUSSION
In the work of Carrière (1890), no direct or indirect reference to the works of previous authors is presented (arts. 41.3 and 44.1, McNeill & al., 2012), so the proposed names cannot, under any circumstance, be considered as new combinations.Furthermore, the types are obviously those cultivated plants by M.H. Defresne, of which no specimen was preserved.
In such a situation, the establishment of the taxonomic status of the described taxa is a priority, as E.A. Carrière did not explicitly indicate it.The use, in some cases, of binomial nomenclature might lead one to conclude that Carrière intended to describe species.However he also specified that all described plants can be also contained within the "common ivy" (Hedera helix L.), even when an exotic origin might be considered: "Nous la croyons même douteuse, car tous ces lierres nous paraissent sortir du lierre commun".Indeed, he refers to the described plants as forms or varieties, for example: "H.gracilis.(art. 37.3, McNeill & al., 2012).Some additional explanations from the author might help in establishing the category of described plants: "En écrivant cette note sur les Lierres, notre intention n'est pas faire de la science, mais seulement d'appeler l'attention sur des plantes commerciales…".Therefore, in case his aim was about describing commercial plants, rather than formally publishing names with a scientific purpose, the proposed names may be considered as cultivars with binomial formulation given the informative intention of his publication (art.28, note 4, McNeill & al., 2012).In fact some names correspond to known cultivars at that time, for example: Hedera combwoodiana Carrière, Rev. Hort.(Paris) 62: 162 (1890) = H.helix "Caenwoodiana".In this case a spelling mistake leads to an incomprehensible epithet, as seems to be dedicated to Combwood, without any further explanation, being the only case referred to a person and not to a country or specific morphology.Therefore, thirteen of the names published by E.A. Carrière could be used at specific level, and H. submarginata Carrière, Rev. Hort.(Paris) 62: 163 (1890) should be added to the twelve collected by Duran & Jackson (1906).

CONCLUSIONS
After considering the state of the current knowledge, two possible solutions are proposed: either to declare opera opressa the work (Pre.9, McNeill & al., 2012) "Une importante collection de Lierres" published by E.A. Carrière in 1890, which would respect the author's opinion and would avoid the problems of both the vagueness of the category and absence of types, or to propose H. azorica Carrière as nomen conservandum at the specific level (art. 14.1 and 12, McNeill & al., 2012), and choose a neotype to preserve its use in the sense adopted by the botanical community as currently used.As in any of the cases the decision would only affect the authorship of H. azorica, we consider the latter nomenclatural option the less disadvantageous, and therefore, following the criteria of McNeill & al. (2007), we will submit, to the General Committee of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy, the proposal of conservation of the name H. azorica Carrière.
In absence of any indubitable original material linked to the protologue, it seems advisable to select a neotype.A good choice for it, is a specimen, kept in the National Museum Liverpool (LIV), from San Miguel Island where many authors (e.g., Schäfer & al., 2002Schäfer & al., , 2003;;Green & al., 2011)