On the Status and Synonymy of the Names Dactylorhiza majalis and D. incarnata (Orchidaceae) and Their Typification

• Published in: Taxon 2000-08, Vol.49 (3), p.539-544
• Main Author: Pedersen, Henrik Ærenlund
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Dactylorhiza incarnata; Dactylorhiza majalis; Lectotypes; Nomenclature; Orchidaceae; Plant names; Plants; Synonyms; Taxa; Terminology; Typification
• ISSN: 0040-0262; 1996-8175
• DOI: 10.2307/1224351

In conjunction with a proposal to reject the name Orchis latifolia L. 1753 (Pedersen 2000), the nomenclature of the two species commonly known as Dactylorhiza majalis (Rchb.) P. F. Hunt & Summerh. and D. incarnata (L.) Soó is examined. The basionyms, Orchis majalis Rchb. 1828 and O. incarnata L. 1755, respectively, are both considered to be legitimate. The former is lectotypified here, whilst Vermeulen's lectotypification of the latter is accepted. Orchis fistulosa Moench 1794, considered by Baumann & Künkele as the basionym for the correct name of the species here called Dactylorhiza majalis, is considered to be illegitimate (O. latifolia pro syn.). Dactylorhiza strictifolia (Opiz) Rauschert is found to be a synonym of D. incarnata. Orchis comosa Scop. 1772, accepted by P. D. Sell as the basionym for the correct name of the species here called Dactylorhiza majalis, is here considered to be legitimate. However, a lectotype and an epitype designated in the present paper in effect place Orchis comosa in the synonymy of Dactylorhiza incarnata. In conclusion, the names Dactylorhiza incarnata and D. majalis should be accepted [assuming that the proposed rejection of Orchis latifolia is approved; otherwise, the name Dactylorhiza latifolia (L.) Soó must be recognised as the correct name for either D. incarnata, D. sambucina, or D. majalis--depending on its much-debated typification]. However, if a wide species concept is applied, Orchis majalis Rchb. 1828 may be found conspecific with O. elata Poiret 1786 [the basionym of Dactylorhiza elata (Poiret) Soó].