Kalanchoe , Berger 1930
Creators: name: Smith, Gideon F.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Plantae
Tracheophyta
Magnoliopsida
Saxifragales
Crassulaceae
Kalanchoe

description: Kalanchoe [sect. Kalanchoe] subsect. Integrifoliae (A.Berger) Boiteau (1947: 9).
Basionym:— Kalanchoe [unranked] Integrifoliae Berger (1930: 407, as “§ 9”).
Type:— Kalanchoe integrifolia Baker (1887: 471), an accepted name.
9. The infrageneric classification of Kalanchoe of Pierre L. Boiteau and Octave Mannoni (1948–1949)
Smith & Shtein (2022) provided an analysis of the infrageneric classification system proposed for Kalanchoe by Pierre L. Boiteau and Octave Mannoni in 1948 and 1949. Only a summary is given here. For information on the collecting and other activities of Boiteau and Mannoni in Madagascar see Dorr (1997: 47) and Dorr (1997: 295–296), respectively.
In a succession of papers, all entitled “Les Kalanchoe ” and that all appeared in Cactus (Paris) after the initial work of Boiteau (1947) was published, Boiteau & Mannoni (1948a –d, 1949a–d) discussed and provided descriptions in French of some of the proposed subsections, as “§”, up to ‘subsection’ number 8 [§ 8. Streptanthae], which they recognised. Note though that these designations were actually proposed, but not validly published, as unranked names (Table 8, 1 st column). As far as could be determined, no further papers, beyond 1949d, on Kalanchoe were published, jointly or severally, by Boiteau and Mannoni.
1 See Figueiredo & Smith (2017: 717) for the nomenclature to use for this widely naturalised species.
2 Presumably K. humbertii Mannoni & Boiteau (1947: 150), nom. illeg. and not K. humbertii Guillaumin (1939: 337), the latter often being treated as a synonym of K. lindmannii Hamet (1913b: 1), an Angolan species included in K. subg. Kalanchoe and not in K. subg. Bryophyllum (Figueiredo et al. 2020: 139).
Jacobsen (1986: 604) stated that “…Boiteau and Mannoni were not able to complete the publication of their article [sic, “articles”] and so I unfortunately cannot reproduce their detailed classification of the sections”. It is not known why the series of papers was not completed, but it could have something to do with the severe criticism of the work on Kalanchoe of Boiteau and Mannoni by Raymond-Hamet (1954a, b). Jacobsen (1977: 281–282) also stated that the “Division of the genus Kalanchoe into Sections [is] according to P. Boiteau and O. Mannoni”, with “MANN.” incorrectly listed as a co-author of two of the three sections published by Boiteau (1947; see ‘8. The infrageneric classification of Kalanchoe of Pierre L. Boiteau (1947) ’, above), but with ‘ Eukalanchoe ’ correctly amended to simply “ Kalanchoe ”.
Boiteau & Mannoni (1948a –d, 1949a–d) provided more detailed descriptions, in French, of some of the Kalanchoe species known at the time, and proposed ‘names’ for, but did not validly publish, several new infraspecific taxa. They did not furnish the proposed names with Latin diagnoses or descriptions, and their new infrageneric and infraspecific designations were not validly published (Turland et al. 2018: Art. 39.1). However, some new combinations at the rank of varietas were validly published (Table 8).
Note that Boiteau & Mannoni (1948d, 1949a) discussed the two species, K. uniflora and K. porphyrocalyx, and only these two species, that Raymond-Hamet (1933) earlier included in “ K. sect. Alatae ”, and rather included them in their “ K. [unranked] Epidendrae ”, i.e., at a proposed rank different from that of section. Boiteau & Mannoni (1948d: 57) clearly cited “(Section Alatae R. Hamet in Bul. Soc. Bot. France, 1933, p. 547)” in the synonymy of their “ K. [unranked] Epidendrae ”. However, Raymond-Hamet (1933: 547) did not validly publish “[Bryophyllum / Kalanchoe / Kitchingia] sect. Alatae ”, and, by definition, a replaced synonym must have been validly published (Turland et al. 2018: Art. 41.1 and Glossary, p. 197). Despite Smith & Shtein (2022) proposing otherwise, the designation “ K. [unranked] Epidendrae ” was not validly published.
......continued on the next page
TABLE 8. (Continued)Section II.Bryophyllum§ 4. Epidendrae2; i.e., “K. [sect.Bryophyllum] [unranked]Epidendrae”,nom. inval. (continued) 13.K. uniflora(Stapf 1908: 258) Hamet (1910b: 52), as follows (see also Stapf 1909): • “K. unifloravar.typica”,nom. inval., i.e.,K. unifloravar.uniflora• “K. unifloravar.brachycalyx” Boiteau & Mannoni (1949a: 9),nom. inval. (continued from Boiteau & Mannoni 1948d) § 5. Scandentes; i.e., “K. [sect.Bryophyllum] [unranked]Scandentes” 14.K. schizophylla(Baker 1884: 340) Baillon (1885: 469) (see Shtein & Smith 2021) 15.K. ×poincareiRaymond-Hamet & Perrier de la Bâthie (1913: 149),pro sp. (see Shtein & Boiteau & Mannoni (1949a: 9),nom. inval. Smith 2021: 114) 16.K. beauverdiiHamet (1907a: 887), as follows (see Shtein & Smith 2021): • “K. beauverdiivar.typica”,nom. inval., i.e.,K. beauverdiivar.beauverdii•K. beauverdiivar.parvifloraBoiteau & Mannoni (1949a: 13) •K. beauverdiivar.guignardii(Hamet & Perrier de la Bâthie 1912: 368) Boiteau & Mannoni (1949a: 13) § (unnumbered) Bulbilliferae; i.e., “K. [sect.Bryophyllum] [unranked]Bulbilliferae” Boiteau & Mannoni (1949a: 14),nom. inval. (to be continued) 17.K. tubiflora(Harvey 1862: 380) Hamet (1912a: 44) (to be continued in Boiteau & Mannoni 1949b)Boiteau & Mannoni (1949b)§ (unnumbered) Bulbilliferae; i.e., “K. [sect.Bryophyllum] [unranked]Bulbilliferae”, 17.K. tubiflora(Harvey 1862: 380) Hamet (1912a: 44) (continued from Boiteau & Mannoni 1949a)nom. inval. (continued) 18.K. daigremontianaRaymond-Hamet & Perrier de la Bâthie (1914: 128) (see Smith & Shtein 2021d and Smith & Figueiredo 2023b)
......continued on the next page
1 Kalanchoe jongmansii subsp. ivohibensis Humbert is often omitted from online databases, but was validly published by Humbert (1933: 168).
2“ Kalanchoe [unranked] Epidendrae ” Boiteau & Mannoni (1948d: 57) was not validly published. See main text, under ‘7. The infrageneric classification of Kalanchoe by Raymond-Hamet (1933) ’, above, and Smith (2023a) for discussions.
3The designation “ Kalanchoe porphyrocalyx var. sambiranensis ” Humb. ex Boiteau & Mannoni (1948d: 58) was not validly published, because it lacked a description or diagnosis in Latin, which, by 1948, had been one of the requirements for the valid publication of, inter alia, the scientific names of species and infraspecific taxa for 13 years, i.e., since 1 January 1935 (Turland et al. 2018: Art. 39.1). The full and correct citation of the species name is Kalanchoe porphyrocalyx var. sambiranensis Humb. ex Smith & Figueiredo (2019c: 206). 4The correct name of K. humbertii Mannoni & Boiteau (1947: 150) non K. humbertii Guillaumin (1939: 337) is K. marnieriana H.Jacobsen ex Boiteau & Allorge-Boiteau (1995: 102) (see Smith & Figueiredo 2019d and Smith 2021c: 204).
5See Smith (2023d).
See ‘7. The infrageneric classification of Kalanchoe by Raymond-Hamet (1933) ’, above, for the nomenclature applicable to K. subg. Alatae.
In summary, none of the designations proposed Boiteau & Mannoni (1948a –d, 1949a–d) for infrageneric groups in Kalanchoe were validly published.
10. The infrageneric classification of Kalanchoe followed by Raymond-Hamet & Marnier-Lapostolle (1964)
With one exception, Raymond-Hamet & Marnier-Lapostolle (1964) did not use or provide names for the numbered “GROUPE” that they recognised. In fact, in this work they also referred to “ Kalanchoe sect. Alatae ” as “GROUPE ALATAE RAYMOND-HAMET” (Raymond-Hamet & Marnier-Lapostolle 1964: 93 [page not numbered]), even though Raymond-Hamet (1933) himself proposed (but did not validly publish) the designation more than 30 years earlier, at the rank of section. See Smith (2021a), Smith et al. (2021a), and Smith (2023a) for discussions of Raymond-Hamet’s “ K. sect. Alatae ”, which is here recognised as K. subg. Alatae.
No nomenclatural novelties at infrageneric ranks, or other ranks for that matter, were therefore published or proposed by Raymond-Hamet & Marnier-Lapostolle (1964).
See ‘7. The infrageneric classification of Kalanchoe by Raymond-Hamet (1933) ’, above, for the nomenclature applicable to K. subg. Alatae.
11. The infrageneric classification of Kalanchoe of René Charles Joseph Ernest Maire (1977)
Smith (2020c) provided an analysis of the classification system proposed for Kalanchoe by René Charles Joseph Ernest Maire in 1977. Only a summary is given here.
Maire contributed the treatment of the Crassulaceae, which was published posthumously in 1977, to the Flore de l’Afrique de Nord (Maroc, Algérie, Tunisie, Tripolitaine, Cyrénaïque et Sahara). In this treatment Maire proposed four infrageneric categories in Kalanchoe, i.e., two at the rank of subgenus and two at the rank of section.
Firstly, Maire (1977: 253) published the following statement as a heading in the text: “Subgen. Verea ANDREWS (1797), ut genus = Kalanchoë Adanson, sensu stricto; Berger, Pflanzenfamil. Ed. 2, 182, p. 402 (1930)” (Table 9, row I). However, a subdivision of a genus that includes the type of the genus, as in this case, must repeat the name of the genus unaltered (Turland et al. 2018: Articles 22.1 and 22.2). “ Kalanchoe subg. Verea ” (Andrews 1798: t. 21) Maire (1977: 253) was therefore not validly published, because it was proposed for a subgenus that includes K. laciniata (Linnaeus 1753: 430) Candolle (1802: t. 100), the type of Kalanchoe. Nomenclaturally, this can be indicated as follows:
description: Published as part of Smith, Gideon F., 2023, A review of the infrageneric classifications proposed for Kalanchoe (Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae) from the earliest times up to 2000, pp. 1-38 in Phytotaxa 619 (1) on pages 15-20, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.619.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/8425641