English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Taxonomic difficulties have persisted within the genus  Ruppia  for a long time. We first unravel misconceptions as perceived on different continents and subsequently present a revised interpretation of the identity and typification of three European taxa at species level:  Ruppia maritima  L.,  Ruppia spiralis  L. ex Dumortier, and  Ruppia cirrhosa  (Petagna) Grande. To do this, historical specimens, illustrations and original descriptions were studied. We supersede a previous choice of the figure of  Buccaferrea maritima, foliis minus acutis  Micheli (1729) as the lectotype of  R. maritima  and type species of the genus  Ruppia  owing to a serious conflict with the protologue. Based on a meticulous interpretation of protologues and figures in a historical context, we reject the recent view of assigning  R. cirrhosa  and its proposed lectotype (iconotype) as a homotypic synonym of  R. maritima . We agree with an earlier lectotypification of  R. spiralis , though for another reason than the above-mentioned abused homotypy. Consequently,  R. cirrhosa  is a synonym of neither  R. maritima  or  R. spiralis , based on material from Petagna in the Herbarium of Naples designated as the holotype of  R. cirrhosa . We argue for three species to be considered as fully independent taxa:  R. maritima ,  R. spiralis  and  R. cirrhosa .

A profound view and discourse on the typification and status of three confused taxa: Ruppia maritima , R. spiralis and R. cirrhosa