(2804) Proposal to reject the name
 Ephedra major
 (
 Ephedraceae
 )

The name Ephedra major Host (Fl. Austriac. 2: 671. 1831) is currently applied by several authors to a mostly Mediterranean taxon (e.g., Widder in Phyton (Horn) 1: 71–75. 1948; Maire, Fl. Afrique N. 1: 10–11. 1952; Coode & Cullen in Davis, Fl. Turkey 1: 85. 1965; Blečić & Horvatić, Analitička Fl. Jugoslavije: 178–179. 1967; Riedl in Sci. Pharm. 35: 225–228. 1967; Jalas & Suominen, Atlas Fl. Europ. 2: 40. 1973; Christensen, Mountain Fl. Greece: 49–50. 1986; Freitag & Maier-Stolte in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur. , ed. 2, 1: 49. 1993; Price in Int. J. Pl. Sci. (Suppl.) 157: S40–S49. 1996). The same taxon is otherwise widely known as E. nebrodensis Tineo ex Guss. (Fl. Sicul. Syn. 2: 638. 1844) (e.g., Bertoloni, Fl. Ital. 10: 392–395. 1855; Parlatore, Fl. Ital. 4: 100–108. 1867; Stapf in Denkschr. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math.-Naturwiss. Kl. 56: 77–79. 1889; Amaral Franco in Castrovejo & al., Fl. Iber. 1: 191–195. 1986; Christensen in Strid & Tan, Fl. Hellenica 1: 15–17. 1997; Nouviant in Bull. Murith. Soc. Valais. Sci. Nat. 116: 69–80. 1999 [“1998”]; El Oualidi & Mathez in Trav. Inst. Sci. Univ. Mohammed V, Sér. Bot. 36: 65. 1999; Achhal in Valdés & al., Cat. Pl. Vasc. N. Maroc 1: 76. 2002; Arrigoni, Fl. Sardegna 1: 174. 2006; Le Floc’h & al., Cat. Syn. Fl. Tunisie: 66–67. 2010; Dimopoulos & al. in Englera 31: 42. 2013; Pignatti, Fl. Ital., ed. 2, 1: 92. 2017). Indeed, according toGreuter& al. (Med-Checkl. 1: 29. 1984),E.major should be considered a nomen ambiguum, although probably a synonym of E. campylopoda C.A. Mey. (in Bull. Cl. Phys.-Math. Acad. Imp. Sci. SaintPétersbourg 5: 34. 1845). Note that E. foeminea Forssk. (Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 219. 1775) is the accepted name for E. campylopoda in POWO (http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/, accessed 2 Jan 2020), but for E. major itself in Christensen (l.c. 1997), Nouviant (l.c.), and Dimopoulos & al. (l.c.). This confusion is explicable on account of the lack of an established type for E. major. In the protologue, Host (l.c.) cited a polynomial by Clusius [L’Écluse] (Rar. Pl. Hist.: 91. 1601), i.e., “Polygonum quartum Plinii majus”, which is accompanied by an illustration (which is original material), and a specimen by Portenschlag collected “In Dalmatiae montibus”, thus a syntype with priority for lectotypification purposes (Art. 9.12 of the ICN, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). AsHost (l.c.) did not indicate a single herbarium, his “syntype” must refer to an entire gathering (Art. 9.6 of the ICN). Therefore, the “type” indication by Coode & Cullen (l.c.; “Type: Dalmatian mountains, Portenschlag”) does not add any further element for an effective typification. Riedl (in Linzer Biol. Beitr. 25: 649–655. 1993) first, even if only implicitly, limited the indication by Host to a single specimen formerly kept at W. Unfortunately, according to Riedl himself (l.c. 1993), the syntype was destroyed during World War II; more importantly, he did not formally indicate it as the (lost) lectotype. Indeed, he located at W a further specimen (available online at: http://jacq.nhm-wien.ac.at/djatoka/jacq-viewer/viewer.html? rft_id= w_19590007465), also collected by Portenschlag, but not original material, which Riedl, therefore, proposed as a neotype. This proposal is in conflict with Art. 9.12 of the ICN, which, in the absence of other original material, imposes the choice of the illustration by Clusius (l.c.) as the obligate lectotype. This cannot be avoided by the exclusion of the same illustration made by Riedl (l.c. 1993), unless a formal proposal of conservation with a conserved type were submitted under Art. 14.1 of the ICN (cf. Art. 57.1), something that Riedl did not suggest. Unfortunately, the illustration by Clusius (l.c.) has been identified as E. fragilis Desf. (Fl. Atlant. 2: 372. 1799), first by Meyer (in Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. Saint-Pétersbourg, Sér. 6, Sci. Math., Seconde Pt. Sci. Nat. 5: 260. 1849) and then by Riedl himself (l.c. 1993). This identification appears to be reliable as E. fragilis was collected in 1899 by Reverchon (Nouviant, l.c.) in the locality indicated by Clusius (l.c.), i.e., Vêlez el Rubio (Spain). The illustration shows a branch of a male individual with robust twigs and crowded and subsessile cones. These details allow the exclusion of the illustrated plant as being of either of the two other species of Ephedra occurring in the region. These are E. distachya L. (Sp. Pl.: 1040. 1753), which bears remotely spaced and pedunculate male cones, and E. nebrodensis, characterized by slender twigs and cones very small and spaced. Besides, Nouviant (l.c.) observed that the neotype of E. major proposed byRiedl (l.c. 1993), even if collected by Portenschlag inDalmatia, was labelled as “E. distachya” by Kotschy. In addition, Nouviant (l.c.) located another specimen gathered by Portenschlag in Dalmatia and sent to P from Vienna by Kotschy, but labelled by him as “Ephedra major Host” (image available online at http://coldb. mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p01582798). Nouviant argued that this could be regarded as original material, but definitive proof is lacking. Maybe for this reason, Nouviant once again refrained from designating a type. In any case, Nouviant identified this specimen as E. foeminea (although Freitag indicated on a separate label “E. fragilis”, a species not occurring in Dalmatia). Further pertinent specimens were searched for by us at B, BP, FI, G, GJO, GZU, H, MW, P, PR, and W (cf. Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 98: 339–340. 1979); none were located at BP (N. Bauer, in litt.), FI (C. Nepi, in litt.), G (F. Stauffer, in litt.), PR (O. Sida, in litt.), while the online databases of B, GJO, GZU, P, and W did not reveal any. The requests to the other cited herbaria did not receive any response. In conclusion, on the one hand, the name Ephedra major does not yet have a formally designated lectotype; on the other hand, it is not clear to which species Host intended to apply the name. The Clusius illustration appears as the only sure original material, but it