A taxonomic revision of the Lophocoleaceae Vanden Berghen (Marchantiophyta) of New Caledonia Author Thouvenot, Louis Saint Léon, 66000 Perpignan (France) thouvenot. louis @ orange. fr louis@orange.fr text Cryptogamie, Bryologie 2023 2023-01-16 20 1 1 60 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4878.3.2 journal article 10.5252/cryptogamie-bryologie2023v44a1 1776-0992 7822577 Heteroscyphus coalitus (Hook.) Schiffn. ( Fig. 8 ) Oesterreichische Botanische Zeitschrift 60: 172 ( Schiffner 1910 ) . — Chiloscyphus coalitus (Hook.) Dumort., Recueil d’Observations sur les Jungermanniacées 1: 19 ( Dumortier 1835 ) . — Jungermannia coalita Hook., Musci Exotici 2: tab. 123 ( Hooker 1820 ) . — Type : New Zealand . Dusky Bay , A. Menzies s.n. ( G [ G00283086 ]!). Chiloscyphus confertifolius Steph. , Species Hepaticarum 6: 304 ( Stephani 1922 ) . — Type: New Caledonia . Lerat s.n. ( lecto- , here designated, G [“Nov. Caledon. Inter Farino et Table Unio. 07/1909”, Le Rat 95 , G00069493 ]!) syn. nov. Lophocolea latistipula Steph. , Species Hepaticarum 6: 281 ( Stephani 1922 ) . — Chiloscyphus latistipulus (Steph.) J.J.Engel & R.M.Schust. , Nova Hedwigia 39: 418 ( Engel & Schuster 1984 [1985]). — Type: New Caledonia . Franc s.n. ( lecto- , here designated, G [“ Lophocolea latistipa (sic) n.sp., Nlle Calédonie, forêt de Tao, 600 à 800 m ”, I.1910 , Franc s.n. , G00121768 ]!) syn. nov. Chiloscyphus latistipus Steph. , Species Hepaticarum 6: 309 ( Stephani 1922 ) . — Type: New Caledonia . Lerat s.n. ( lecto- , here designated, G [“Nova Caledonia, Me Areimbo. s.d., Dna L. Le Rat 171 , mit Balantiopsis, mit Lepidozia”, G00069461 ]!; isolecto-, REN [herb. E. G. Paris , s.n.]!) syn. nov. Chiloscyphus similis Steph., Revue bryologique 35: 28 ( Paris 1908 ) , non Chiloscyphus similis Steph., Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps Academiens Handlingar , Ny Följd 46: 56 ( Stephani 1911 ) . — Chiloscyphus subsimilis Steph. , Species Hepaticarum 6: 314 ( Stephani 1922 ) , nom. illeg. — Type: New Caledonia . Lerat s.n. ( lecto- , here designated, G [“ Chiloscyphus subsimilis . Nov. Caledon. Sine schedule”, 1907, Le Rat 195 , G00069431 ]!) syn. nov. Chiloscyphus francanus Steph. , Species Hepaticarum 6: 306 ( Stephani 1922 ) . — Type: New Caledonia . Franc s.n. ( lecto- , here designated, G [“ Mt. Dzumac , 900 m , tronc d’arbre”, 1.XI.1907 , Franc s.n. , G00283066 ]!; syn- , G[“ Nlle Calédonie, Mts. Koghis , versant ouest, 300 m , bords d’un torrent”, 20.X.1907 , Franc s.n. , G00069483 , G0069484 ! s.l., s.d., Franc s.n. , G00283067 ]!; isolecto- , PC [ PC0101950 ]!; isosyn- , PC [ PC101948 , PC0101949 ]!) syn. nov. FURTHER SPECIMENS EXAMINED. — New Caledonia . South Province , Sarraméa , Dogny plateau , on ground in rain forest , 650 m , 24.X.2019 , Thouvenot NC2602 ( PC [ PC0779853 ]); Yaté , Dzumac massif , on ground in rain forest , 900 m , 26.X.2012 , Thouvenot NC2392 ; North Province , Poindimié , Amoa valley , Tipwadabwé , on damp rock in a creek , 163 m , 13.X.2019 , Thouvenot NC2726 ; South Province , Mé Amméri , 700 m , 30.IX.1950 , Guillaumin & Baum. Bod . 9150 , det. Hürlimann , as Chiloscyphus francanus ( G [ G045946 ]); “ Mts. Koghis , forêt”, Franc s.n. as Chiloscyphus similis ( sensu 1908) ( PC [ PC0167662 ], G s.n.); “ in jugo Dogny 1040 m ”, VII.1909 , L. Le Rat s.n. as Chiloscyphus latistipus ( G s.n.); “ in jugo Dogny ”, X.1909 , L. Le Rat s.n. as Chiloscyphus latistipus ( PC [ PC0101941 , PC0150605 ]); “ Mts. Koghis ”, 1.X.1909 , Franc s.n. as Chiloscyphus latistipus ( G s.n.). FIG. 7. — Heteroscyphus caledonicus (Steph.) Schiffn. : A , shoot portion, ventral view; B , two adjacent leaves, dorsal view; C , leaf; D , E , underleaves; F , cells from upper third of leaf; G , cells from median part; H , cells from lower part. A , D -G , drawn from Thouvenot NC2426 ; B , C , H , from the lectotype of Chiloscyphus caledonicus Steph. (G00069500). Scale bars: A-C, 500 µm; D, E, 100 µm; F-H, 50 µm. Chiloscyphus similis ( sensu Stephani 1911 ) : Chili . Fuegia, Scottsberg s.n. (G[G00069415]). DISTRIBUTION IN NEW CALEDONIA . — Frequent in rain forest and creek banks in both provinces of Grande Terre, collected from 150 to 1150 m , on soils or rocks, occasionally at the base of trees. TOTAL RANGE. — South-East Asia, Indonesia , Melanesia, Australasia, ( Argentina ?). DESCRIPTION Dioecious. Habit Plants large with shoots 2.50-4.00 mm wide. Leaves Spreading at nearly right angle, longitudinally convex, ovaloblong to subrectangular, 1.30-1.60 mm long, 1.00- 1.60 mm wide at bases, 0.50-0.80 mm at apices, usually as wide as long at base, not dorsally confluent, margins entire, truncate apices straight to slightly convex, with a single tooth at both angles, teeth acuminate to linear, acute, 3-6 uniseriate cells long above and 0-2 biseriate ranks at base. Cells Median leaf cells hexagonal, somewhat elongate, 30-60 µm long, 30-75 µm wide, trigones acute, small to inconspicuous. Underleaves Reniform, 2-3 times the stem width, 0.20-0.50 mm long, 0.70-1.20 mm wide, inserted on the stem in a deep sinus and connate to both adjacent leaves by a very wide band of cells, the apical margin widely convex with 4-6 straight teeth, sublinear acute, the innermost erect, the lateral spreading, like the leaf ones. Gametangia Gynoecia at the end of short leafless ventral lateral branches, bracts small, rounded, 2-toothed, perianths 1 mm long, cupulate with trilobate mouth, lobes rounded, toothed, surface mammillose; androecia not seen. COMMENTS Heteroscyphis coalitus is morphologically highly variable and a large number of forms and varieties have been described in this species ( Tropicos 2021 ). According to Piippo (1985) , the species especially varies in the shape of the underleaves and their connation to the leaves. As it is a species widely distributed, it is not surprising that there are so many names for this taxon. The original materiel of Chiloscyphus confertifolius at G is limited to a single packet handwritten by Stephani which is therefore selected as the lectotype . Regarding Lophocolea latistipula , two specimens are kept as types at G, both collected by Franc in the same locality.The specimen with the mark “ n.sp. ” is selected despite the orthographic error “ latistipa ” which may not lead to confusion, since the epithet latistipus is in fact assigned to Chiloscyphus latistipus with a type collected by Mrs L. Le Rat. In addition, the drawing by Stephani matches with this specimen. In contrast, a second specimen labelled Lophocolea latistipula in G (G00112472, duplicate PC0102424) turned to be Chiloscyphus longifissus Steph. (see below). Among the specimens marked as types of Chiloscyphus latistipus at G, the specimen G00069461 is selected as lectotype since it contains the collecting number (171) and the annotation “ n.sp. ” in a letter from Stephani to E. G. Paris dated 31 March 1910 (Rennes1 University Library). Furthermore, “ original ” is written on the label in the author’s handwriting. In contrast, the specimens kept at PC (PC0101941 and PC0150605) are in packets with the handwriting of E. G. Paris without any annotation by Stephani, so that they cannot be considered with certainty as parts of the original material. The name Chiloscyphus similis was given to two different type specimens a few years apart by Stephani. In 1908, a New Caledonian specimen collected by Le Rat was validly published under this name in Revue bryologique and the original materiel can be identified with the number 195 according to a letter to E. G. Paris dated 2 January 1908 (Rennes 1 University Library). But, in 1911, Stephani described another C. similis based on a voucher collected by Scottsberg from Tierra del Fuego . The drawing and protologue show a very different plant, confirmed by the examination of the corresponding specimen from Tierra del Fuego kept at G. No New Caledonian specimen labelled C. similis and matching the diagnosis published in 1908 has been found at G, REN or PC. On another hand, in 1922, Stephani published Chiloscyphus subsimilis based on a type specimen kept at G and marked with the same number (195) than C. similis (1908) , according to the correspondence from Stephani to E. G. Paris. Consequently, C. subsimilis is an illegitimate name, superfluous against C. similis (1908) ( International Code of Nomenclature , art. 52.1, Turland et al . 2018 ; Loiseau et al . 2019 ), which was validly published with an identified type , while C. similis (1911) is invalid as a later homonym. Fortunately, C. similis (1911) from Tierra de Fuego is furthermore synonym of Heteroscyphus valdiviensis (Mont.) Schiffner ( Fulford 1976 ) . A lot of duplicates of the original material used by Stephani for Chiloscyphus francanus were examined, raising the opportunity to recognise a set of syntypes . But a further specimen kept at PC as an isosyntype (PC0101947), cannot be a type since it was collected one year later than the specimens kept at G and lacks annotation by Stephani.