Phytoneuron [electronic resource]

Nesom, G.L 2010. Typification of Verbena spuhaL. (Verbenaceae). Phytoneuron 2010-16: 1-3. Mailed 13 May 2010.

TYPIFICATION OF VERBENA SPURIA L. (VERBENACEAE)

GuyL. Nesom
2925 Hartwood Drive
Fort Worth, TX 76109
www.guynesom.com

ABSTRACT

A neotype is designated for Verbena spuria L. — the plant mounted as Clayton 431 in BM,
apparently mislabelled, since the label information clearly refers to V. urticifolia L. It is possible or
even probable that the plant was among those studied by Linnaeus in his formulation of the
description of V. spuria, but since it cannot be unequivocally demonstrated to be original material,
tieotypification is appropriate.
KEY WORDS: Verbena spuria, Linnaeus, neotype

According to Jarvis (2007), a type for Verbena spuria has not been designated and original
material has not been traced. It is argued here that a plant representing V. spuria indeed is in the
Clayton herbarium and that it perhaps was studied by Linnaeus in the formulation of his concept of V.
spuria. That plant however, is mislabelled as V. urticifolia. Because it cannot be unequivocally
demonstrated to be original material, the Clayton plant is designated as neotype.

Verbena spuria L., Sp. PL 1: 20. 1753. Verbena officinalis L. var. spuria (L.) Hook., Companion
Bot. Mag. 1: 176. 1836. NEOTYPE (designated here): [USA]. Virginia. Clayton 431, the
plant but not the accompanying label, which mis identifies it as V. urticifolia (BM-Clayton
digital image!).

The protologue for Verbena spuria is this: "12. VERBENA tetrandra, spicis filiformibus,
foliis multifido-laciniatis, caulibus numerosis. Hort. ups. 8. Veronica humilior, foliis incisis. Clayt.
virg. 8. Habitat in Canada, Virginia." This essentially repeated the text of Verbena species No. 3 of
Hortus Upsalensis — also repeating the references to the relevant page number from that publication

("Hort. ups. 8") as well as from a species in Gronovius's Flora Virginica ("Clayt. virg. 8").

Verbena No. 3 in Hortus Upsalensis is described in this way: "3. VERBENA tedrandra [sic],
spicis filiformibus, foliis multido-lacinitis, caulibus numerosis. Verbena humilior foliis incisis. Clayt.
virg. 8." The first phrase is repeated from a description in Hortus Cliffortianus that clearly refers to
V. officinalis. The second phrase is rqieatedfrom the brief description on p. 8 of Flora Virginica.

Only a single collection of Verbena sensu stricto is in the BM-Clayton herbarium — the one
identified as V. urticifolia (Clayton 431 from Virginia, annotated by J.L. Reveal in 1990 as a syntype
of V. urticifolia), the one apparently presumed to be associated by Gronovius in Flora Virginica (p. 7)
with the concept of V. urticifolia. This specimen, however, is not V. urticifolia but instead V.
officinalis.

The Clayton 431 label obviously was intended originally for a collection of Verbena
urticifolia, because the label information matches the concept of that species: "Verbena alta fol.
urticae, fl. dilute caeruleis spicatum in summis caulibus congestibus, Clayt. n. 431," this repeated in
the Flora Virginica text (p. 7) for V. urticifolia. But the leaves on the Clayton specimen are linear-

oblong, the margins not at all serrate but instead with a few narrow proximal lobes, the spikes are few
and uncrowded, the fruits arQ distantly remote but distinctly larger than in V. urticifolia, and the
corollas are large!' than in V urtictfolia. There would have been no other species other than V
officinalis in Clayton's area that could have matched this collection. Verbena officinalis probably
was planted by the early colonists for its medicinal properties and perhaps already was naturalizing
when Clayton collected it.

Because the plant mounted on the Clayton 431 sheet does not match the concept of V.
urtictfolia, and because even the early descriptions of V spuria (or V officinalis) and V urtictfolia are
distinct, it is probable that confusion in labeling occurred. Reveal (1985) noted other examples of
misapplication of names resulting from specimens mislabelled by Gronovius and Linnaeus. The plant
with the 431 label, however, could match the briefer description on p. 8 of Flora Virginica
("VERBENA humilior foliis incisis. Clayt"), especially since it presumably would have been an
unnumbered collection ("Clayt") before the 431 label was mistakenly associated with it. Published
descriptions of V. spuria only referred to, directly or indirectly, the species on p. 8 of Flora Virginica,
without reference to a numbered collection by Clayton. Linnaeus cited "Gron. virg. 7" (referring
directly to the description on p. 7, thus indirectly to Clayton 431) in association with V. urticifolia in
both Hortus Upsalensis and Species Plantarum, but it is unlikely that he would have identified the
plant now associated with Clayton 431 as V. urtictfolia, so dissimilar is it.

Verbena urticifolia has been leetotypified by a LINN specimen by Mendez Santos and
Cafferty (200 1, p. 1140). They noted that, as part of the original material, Clayton 431 was "seen by
Linnaeus,'" but in the interpretation here, Linnaeus may not have seen a Clayton plant of bonafide V.
urticifolia, since he only referred to the description by Gronovius. The path and ultimate fate of the
Clayton collection properly associated with the 431 label is unknown.

Verbena officinalis and V. spuria in North America

Early North American floristic accounts by Michaux (1803) and Pursh (1814) included

Verbena spuria but not V. officinalis. Subsequent treatments by Torrey (e.g., 1826) and Gray (e.g..
1848) also included V. spuria (without V. officinalis), but the revised edition of Gray's Manual of
Botany (1859) apparently was the first to treat it as a synonym of V. officinalis. Gray studied in
London in 1838-1839 and 1855 (Dupree 1959) and perhaps on the second of these trips became
convinced of the equivalence of the two names.

A plausible explanation of the choice of the epithet "spuria" supports the synonymy of
Verbena spuria and V. officinalis. Linnaeus would have recognized the resemblance of the plant in
the American collection to the European V. officinalis, and although he was familiar with V.
officinalis and surely aware of variability in its native range, he may have been reluctant to identify
the American plant as the same species. A comparison of authentic and inauthentic is implicit in the
definition of "spurious."

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I'm grateful to Jim Reveal for comments and advice. This research was done in conjunction

with prq^aration of the FN A treatment of Verbena and supported by the Flora of North America
Association.

LITERATURE CITED

Dupree, AH. 1959. Asa Gray, 1810-1888. Belknap Press, Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Miss.
Gray, A. 1848. Manual of Botany of the Northern United States. J. Munroe, Boston.
Gray, A. 1859. Manual of Botany of the Northern United States (rev. ed.). Ivison & Phinney, New
York.

Jarvis, C. 2007. Order Out of Chaos: Linnaean Plant Names and Their Types. Linnaean Society of

London and the Natural History Museum, London.
Mendez Santos, I.E. and S. Cafferty. 2001 Typification of Linnaean names of taxa of Verbenaceae

s. str. described from the Greater Antilles. Taxon50: 1137-1141.
Michaux, A. 1803. Flora Boreali- Americana. Apud fratres Levrault, Parisiis &. Argentorati.
Pursh, F. 1814. Flora Americae Septentrionalis. White, Cochrane, and Co., London.
Reveal. J.L. 1985. Additional comments on Linnaean types of eastern North American plants. Bot.

J. Linn. Soc. 92: 161-176.
Torrey, J. 1826. A compendium of the flora of the northern and middle states. S.B. Collins, New

York.

Figure 1 (left). Neotype of Verbena
spuria L., Clayton 431 at BM (see text).

Figure 2 (below). Label of Clayton 431,
enlarged and superposed.

Vertex M-ticLfe^- l.,

S T . ?l. I'. 26. «?£3.