Typification and nomenclatural notes on twenty-three names of Buddleja (Schrophulariaceae) Author O’Leary, Nataly text Phytotaxa 2015 2015-11-18 234 3 237 245 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.234.3.4 journal article 10.11646/phytotaxa.234.3.4 1179-3163 13632992 Buddleja elegans Chamisso & Schlechtendal (1827: 594) subsp. angustata (Benth.) Norman (1995: 192) Basionym:— Buddleja angustata Bentham (1846: 443) ≡ Buddleja vetula Chamisso (1833: 18) var. major Schmidt (1862: 284) ≡ Buddleja vetula Cham. var. angustata (Benth.) Chodat (1902: 822) , nom. illeg. superfl . Type ( lectotype , first-step designated by Norman 2000: 77 ):— BRAZIL . Rio Grande do Sul : Rio Grande & Rio Jaquy Mtns. , J . Tweedie 1097 ( K !, two sheets; second-step lectotype , here designated K barcode 573255! [digital image], isolectotype K barcode 573275! [digital image]) . Notes :— Norman (2000) mentions the holotype of B. angustata to be housed at K , which is likely since Bentham worked there ( Stafleu & Cowan 1976 ), and the majority of J . Tweedie’s collections are housed there as well. However, there are two duplicate specimens at K ( K 573255 and K 573575) so that Norman’s mention can be considered as a first-step typification (Art. 9.17, Ex. 12 of the ICN , McNeill et al. 2012 ). This designation is here narrowed by selecting the most complete specimen as a second-step lectotype (Art. 9.17 of the ICN , McNeill et al. 2012 , McNeill 2014 ). Schmidt (1862) considered B. angustata Benth. (1846) as a variety of B. vetula Cham. , and he named it: Buddleja vetula var. major Schmidt. The author was not obliged to name it var. angustata , given that names have no priority outside their rank (Art. 11.2 of the ICN , McNeill et al . 2012 ). Later, Chodat (1902) followed Schmidt’s idea, but he named the variety: Buddleja vetula var. angustata (Benth.) Chodat , rendering this an illegitimate superfluous name (Art. 52 of the ICN , McNeill et al . 2012 ), because the epithet “ major” should have been used as it has priority at varietal rank. Norman (1995) considered this taxon as a subspecies of B. elegans and correctly used the epithet angustata , valid at this rank (Arts. 4.2, 4.3, 11.4, Ex. 16 of the ICN , McNeill et al . 2012 ).