(2687) Proposal to conserve the name Phyllopsora against Triclinum and Crocynia (Ramalinaceae, lichenized Ascomycota)

Tyrrhenian waters (Montresor & al. in Graneli & al., Toxic Mar. Phytoplankt. 1990). The nomenclatural consequences of our study are substantial, as Alexandrium currently is a later taxonomic synonym of Blepharocysta which has priority. Following the guidelines specified by McNeill & al. (in Taxon 64: 163–166. 2015; cf. clause (1) under “Conservation and rejection procedures”) and applying ICN Art. 14.1–14.4, we propose here to conserve the name Alexandrium against Blepharocysta. Acceptance of our proposal will assure nomenclatural stability in Alexandrium (though it requires a nomenclatural transfer from P. splendor-maris to Alexandrium). This has particular importance as many species of Alexandrium are toxic, and the generic name is not only used in the biological scientific community but also by chemists, medical scientists such as toxicologists, veterinarians, administrators, and policy makers (Hallegraeff & al., l.c.). The rejection of Blepharocysta appears acceptable, as the name is rarely used in its original sense (Ehrenberg, l.c. 1873) but rather in the incorrect interpretation of Stein (l.c.). Unless the alternative proposal by Carbonell-Moore (l.c.) were to be accepted (see below), rejection of our proposal would force all species names today accepted under the well-established name Alexandrium (approximately 33 species, many of which have been intensely studied) to be transferred to Blepharocysta (currently with the only acceptable element P. splendor-maris). This would cause severe nomenclatural instability, and such new combinations would most likely not be accepted by the scientific community. Our proposal causes disadvantage regarding the deviant concept of Blepharocysta only. It is described by Carbonell-Moore (l.c.), who aims at preserving the misapplied usage of B. splendor-maris in the interpretation of Stein (l.c.) under ICN Art. 14.9 with a conserved type, namely with pl. VII 17. The strategy would be justified in case of the absence of original material assignable to P. splendor-maris but in this case, Ehrenberg’s specimens and drawings clearly date prior to the publication of the name (Elbrächter & al., l.c.). Overall, the proposal by Carbonell-Moore (l.c.) aims at an easy but ambiguous solution to preserve current misapplications of Blepharocysta (including 12 names, 9 of them species including synonyms, all of them scarcely observed). However, accepting this solution would neglect Ehrenberg’s careful documentation of the species. Furthermore, Stein’s misidentification cannot be brought in line with Ehrenberg’s protologue data including the species description (see Elbrächter & al., l.c.). According to our studies, Stein’s concepts of Blepharocysta and B. splendor-maris, currently only consisting of a misapplied name and some drawings, do not need any conserved type but new formal descriptions and legitimate and validly published names as well as a contemporary physical type, independent of Ehrenberg’s (l.c. 1860) observations. Later names, formally linked to Ehrenberg’s concept and characterised by original material but based on the misapplication of Blepharocysta would remain available to serve as basionyms for appropriate combinations (ICN Art. 56.1 Note 1). For the authors of this proposal rejection of Blepharocysta in favour of Alexandrium is a higher good than preserving misapplications of Blepharocysta by means of a conserved type.

case, Ehrenberg's specimens and drawings clearly date prior to the publication of the name (Elbrächter & al., l.c.). Overall, the proposal by Carbonell-Moore (l.c.) aims at an easy but ambiguous solution to preserve current misapplications of Blepharocysta (including 12 names, 9 of them species including synonyms, all of them scarcely observed). However, accepting this solution would neglect Ehrenberg's careful documentation of the species. Furthermore, Stein's misidentification cannot be brought in line with Ehrenberg's protologue data including the species description (see Elbrächter & al., l.c.). According to our studies, Stein's concepts of Blepharocysta and B. splendor-maris, currently only consisting of a misapplied name and some drawings, do not need any conserved type but new formal descriptions and legitimate and validly published names as well as a contemporary physical type, independent of Ehrenberg's (l.c. 1860) observations. Later names, formally linked to Ehrenberg's concept and characterised by original material but based on the misapplication of Blepharocysta would remain available to serve as basionyms for appropriate combinations (ICN Art. 56.1 Note 1).
For the authors of this proposal rejection of Blepharocysta in favour of Alexandrium is a higher good than preserving misapplications of Blepharocysta by means of a conserved type.

590
(2687) Proposal to conserve the name Phyllopsora against Triclinum and Crocynia (Ramalinaceae, lichenized Ascomycota)  (1860). Accordingly, we here propose to conserve the name Phyllopsora against Triclinum and Crocynia. Because Symplocia is already rejected in favour of Crocynia, conservation of Phyllopsora against the latter will preclude adoption of Symplocia because a "rejected name […] may not be restored for a taxon that includes the type of the corresponding conserved name" (Art. 14.7 of the ICN -Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018 The genus Symplocia was described by Massalongo in 1854 based on the single species Lichen gossypinus Sw. In 1860, Massalongo replaced the name Symplocia with Crocynia, based on Lecidea sect. Crocynia Ach., also originally based on L. gossypinus only. No other names have been introduced in Symplocia. Crocynia has already been conserved against Symplocia (ICN, App. III), and so, as noted above, if Crocynia is rejected in favour of Phyllopsora, Symplocia cannot be taken up for this genus.
The genus name Phyllopsora is widely known to lichenologists working on tropical material, whereas the name Triclinum has, to our knowledge, not been used between its introduction in 1825 and the typification by Jørgensen (l.c.). Moreover, accepting the name Triclinum instead of Phyllopsora would require 56 new combinations. Adopting Crocynia would necessitate an inconvenient re-circumscription of a genus already in a taxonomic disarray caused by the historical inclusion of distantly related species, of which the type material has mostly been lost.
Adopting the oldest name, Triclinum, would avoid adding more exceptions to the rules of nomenclature, and would involve reinstalling a name with almost no previous use for a genus that has recently been given a new taxonomic concept. Thus, it would be Timdal (l.c. 2008) synonymized Squamacidia and Triclinum with Phyllopsora, and suggested that Phyllopsora be proposed for conservation, should this synonymization be supported by future studies. The generic circumscriptions in a recent molecular phylogenetic evident which species truly belonged in the genus and whether or not the new taxonomy had been followed. Adopting the name Phyllopsora, on the other hand, would result in renaming only the few morphologically well-distinguished and recognized Crocynia species to Phyllopsora. At the same time, it should be noted that the circumscription of the genus Phyllopsora sensu Kistenich & al. (l.c.: in press) more closely resembles its earlier understanding (Swinscow & Krog, l.c.;Brako, l.c. 1991) than the more recent (Timdal, l.c.