TAXON 60 (3) • June 2011: 911–912
(2022) Proposal to conserve the name Spermacoce capitata Ruiz & Pav. against
S. capitata P.J. Bergius (Rubiaceae)
Pedro Luís Rodrigues de Moraes
Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Instituto de Biociências, Departamento de Botânica, Av. 24A 1515,
C.P. 199, 13506-900, Rio Claro, SP, Brazil; pmoraes@rc.unesp.br
(2022) Spermacoce capitata Ruiz & Pav., Fl. Peruv. 1: 61. 1798
(med.) [Dicot.: Rub.], nom. cons. prop.
Lectotypus (hic designatus): Peru, Huánuco, “in declivibus
montium, Pillao ad Iscutunam”, 1787, Ruiz & Pavón (MA
No. 815641 ex Herbarium Peruvianum Ruiz et Pavon No.
13/12).
(H) Spermacoce capitata P.J. Bergius, Nova Acta Phys.-Med.
Acad. Caes. Leop.-Carol. Nat. Cur. 4: 146. 1770, nom. rej.
prop.
Lectotypus (hic designatus): Suriname, “locis apricis et
arenosis”, Rolander (SBT No. 4.2.5.37).
The name Spermacoce capitata Ruiz & Pav. (basionym of the
more recently used Borreria capitata (Ruiz & Pav.) DC.) has been
widely used since 1798 for the “baldhead (or Pensacola) false button-
weed” (“kamarolai” in Caribbean, “siki sikidan” in Arawak, “poaia”
and “poaia do campo” in Portuguese, “botoncillo” in Spanish), a
well-known species of the genus Spermacoce L. with a widespread
distribution in South America. Consequently, S. capitata Ruiz & Pav.
(or its combined name in Borreria) has been the name used in national
and regional floristic studies, as well as in taxonomic treatments and
in ecological works or related disciplines for over 200 years (e.g.,
Poiret in Lamarck, Encycl. 7: 317. 1806; Sprengel, Syst. Veg. 1: 402.
1824; Schumann in Martius, Fl. Bras. 6(6): 44–45. 1888; Standley in
Macbride, Fl. Peru 6(1): 250. 1936; Mori, Guide Vasc. Pl. C. French
Guiana: Dicotyl. 2: 647. 2002; Delprete & Cortés-B. in Revista Biol.
Neotrop. 3: 71. 2006; Taylor & al. in Rodriguésia 58: 613. 2007; Kåre-
hed & al. in Molec. Phylog. Evol. 49: 851, 864. 2008; Govaerts, World
Checkl. Select. Pl. Fam., version 27 Nov 2009).
In the protologue of Spermacoce capitata, Ruiz & Pavón gave
a complete description of the species and indicated its flowering in
August, September and October, which suggests they could have col-
lected multiple specimens. In Madrid are two specimens of S. capitata
collected by Ruiz & Pavón: the one here selected as lectotype, MA No.
815641 (ex Herb. Peruvianum Ruiz & Pavon no. 13/12), is annotated
“Spermacoce capitata Sp. Pl. Fl. Per. de Iscutunam 1787”, agreeing
with the locality in the protologue, and also was annotated by Kurt
Krause as “Borreria capitata (R. et P.) DC.” in 1931; and MA No.
815643 annotated “Spermacoce capitata Fl. Peruv. 1. ta. 91. fa. b / Ex
Herbario Fl. Peruv. anno 1828” and bearing the printed label “Plantae
a «Ruiz et Pavón» in vice-regno Peruviano et Chilensi lectae”. From
the label information on these sheets, one cannot be certain they are
from the same gathering, although several authors have indicated
“Holotype, MA” (e.g., Cabral & Bacigalupo in Darwiniana 37: 264.
1999; Delprete in Rizzo, Fl. Estados Goiás e Tocantins 40: 1174. 2010)
without seeing those specimens, or being aware of the existence of the
two sheets in Madrid. Other original material of S. capitata Ruiz &
Pav. has been observed in other herbaria, viz the “authentic material
seen, ex herb. Berol.” quoted from Standley in Macbride (l.c.), refer-
ring to a specimen at B that has not been located and was probably
De Moraes • (2022) Conserve Spermacoce capitata
destroyed during WW II; a fragment (one leaf and one head) at F (No.
606934) annotated “Ruiz Peru” most likely came from this speci-
men, since the Ruiz & Pavón specimens in Berlin had come from the
acquisition of part of Lambert’s Herbarium, which often had labels
indicating Ruiz as sole collector. Another fragment at F (No. 844059)
from Madrid bears the same printed label “Plantae a «Ruiz et Pavón»
in vice-regno Peruviano et Chilensi lectae” found on MA No. 815643,
being annotated by Steyermark as “Borreria capitata (R. & P.) DC.
var. capitata f. capitata” in 1969. Later Steyermark (in Mem. New York
Bot. Gard. 23: 821. 1972) described the main features observed on this
specimen and another attributed to Ruiz & Pavón at Oxford (OXF No.
00054402), indicating some differences between them in the indu-
ment of stems, development of heads, and the subtending involucral
leaves that suggests they may have come from different gatherings.
When Candolle (Prodr. 4: 545. 1830) combined the species in Bor-
reria, he noted a specimen he had seen from Herbarium Dunant (not
located), a fragment (a head) of which is at G-DC in a small envelope
with the annotation “Ruiz & Pav.” Another Ruiz & Pavón specimen
at Geneva, ex Herbarium Moricand, annotated “Perou. Pavón. 1826”,
referring to the year Pavón had sent the specimen, was photographed
by Macbride (F negative No. 25583) mounted on the same sheet with
an isotype of Celtis gardneri Planch. (Gardner 1406, F negative No.
25567). Currently this sheet has only the Gardner specimen (with the
Field Museum label); the Ruiz & Pavón specimen has been removed
and is probably mounted on other sheet that has not been located yet
(A. Chautems, pers. comm.).
By contrast, the overlooked earlier homonym, Spermacoce
capitata P.J. Bergius, refers to a Surinamese plant that was collected
by Daniel Rolander during his stay in Suriname from June 1755 to
January 1756 (see Moraes & al. in Harvard Pap. Bot 15: 179. 2010).
Its voucher is currently housed at SBT, being annotated by Bergius
as “e Surinamo Rolander” and “Spermacoce mihi capitata”, and by
Wikström as “Borreria”, and here designated as lectotype. Bergius’s
name is not mentioned in any botanical publication since its original
appearance, only in a few bibliographic catalogues that have cited
his article, which is entitled “Spermacoce capitata descripta et de-
lineata” (e.g., Friedrich Nicolai (ed.), Allg. Deutsche Biblioth. 17(1):
56. 1772; Dryander, Cat. Bibl. Hist. Nat. Banks 3: 241. 1797; Reuss,
Repert. Commentat. Soc. Litt. Edit. 2: 191. 1802; Sandermann Olsen,
Bibliogr. Discip. Linnæi: 47. 1997). As suggested by Bergius’s cita-
tion of Patrick Browne’s (Civ. Nat. Hist. Jamaica: 141, n. 4. 1756)
“Spermacoce 4. Fruticulosa atque ramosa, foliis linearibus, floribus
constipatis ad alas supremas” as a synonym of his S. capitata and
confirmed by examination of the lectotype, his species proved to be
the same as Borreria suaveolens G. Mey. (Prim. Fl. Esseq.: 81, t. 1.
1818) [≡ Spermacoce suaveolens (G. Mey.) Kuntze (Revis. Gen. Pl.
3(3): 123, 124. 1898) – Typus: Suriname, “in arenosis continentis circa
Arowabischkreck”, Jan., Rodschied (GOET?)], described also from
Suriname by Meyer, who had also cited Browne’s “Spermacoce 4”
in the synonymy.
911
De Moraes • (2022) Conserve Spermacoce capitata
According to Delprete (in J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 3(2): 809. 2009),
recent phylogenetic studies have confirmed the wide delimitation of
the genus Spermacoce L. (incl. Borreria G. Mey.). In this same refer-
ence (l.c.: 810) S. capitata Ruiz & Pav. and S. suaveolens (G. Mey.)
Kuntze are treated as distinct taxa. According to Taylor & Steyer-
mark (in Steyermark & al., Fl. Venez. Guayana 8: 528. 2004), the
relationship of the two taxa, which have been distinguished either at
varietal rank (under B. capitata, as by Steyermark, l.c. 1972: 820–821;
Andersson in Scripta Bot. Belg. 1: 83. 1992; Funk & al. in Contr. U.S.
Natl. Herb. 55: 479. 2007) or at species rank (under Borreria, e.g.,
Taylor in Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 2216. 2001, or
Spermacoce, e.g. Burger & Taylor in Fieldiana, Bot. 33: 319. 1993)
requires further study.
Since Spermacoce capitata Ruiz & Pav. is an illegitimate later
homonym and S. suaveolens a later taxonomic synonym of S. capi-
tata P.J. Bergius, usage of both of these names or their epithets is
threatened at either rank. At species rank, depending on the taxonomy
employed, the former would require replacement by a later name, such
as S. orinocensis Willd. (1818) or S. ferruginea A. St.-Hil. (1824),
the latter by S. capitata P.J. Bergius. Usage of the same binomial in
Spermacoce for a different but related taxon would create consider-
able confusion. If the two were distinguished at varietal rank, but now
912
TAXON 60 (3) • June 2011: 911–912
under S. capitata P.J. Bergius, the variety represented by Borreria
capitata var. suaveolens (G. Mey.) Steyerm. would become the aut-
onymic variety and the current autonym would require a new name,
again a confusing situation. All of these unfortunate consequences
can be avoided by conservation of S. capitata Ruiz & Pav. against its
earlier homonym S. capitata P.J. Bergius as here proposed, restor-
ing the former name to legitimacy (ICBN Art. 14.1; McNeill & al.
in Regnum Veg. 146. 2006) and making the latter unavailable (Art.
14.10), aiming to the stability of nomenclature (Art. 14.2).
Acknowledgements
I thank James Dobreff (Lund University) for drawing my atten-
tion to the existence of the Bergius paper; Jochen Heinrichs (GOET)
for searching for the Rodschied specimen; Alain Chautems and Nico-
las Fumeaux (G) for searching for specimens in Geneva; Paloma
Blanco and Charo Noya Santos (MA), Christine Niezgoda and Anna
Balla (F) for sending images of requested specimens; Juan C. Penagos
Zuloaga (MO), John H. Wiersema (ARS–USDA) and John McNeill
(RBGE) for help with literature; and Julio A. Lombardi (HRCB) for
suggestions to the manuscript. John Wiersema is specially acknowl-
edged for improvements and suggestions to the original version.