Zamia

Delpinoa, n.s. 37-38: 9-17. 1995-1996

What is Zamia fischeri Miquel ?

DENNIS W M . STEVENSON 1 , † SERGIO SABATO 2 , ALDO MORETTI 2 ,
PAOLO DE LUCA 2
1

New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458, U.S.A. 2Dipartimento
di Biología Vegetale, Universitá di Napoli Federico II, Via Foria 223,
80139 Napoli, Italia.

Abstract. Most specimens and plants in cultivation of Zamia fischeriMiquel, a Mexican cycad belonging to Zamiaceae, do not conform to
the description and illustrations provided by Miquel. These plants have
more leaves, larger leaves, a different leaflet shape and texture, and
2n=18 instead of the 2n=16 found in Z. fischeri. Accordingly, the disparate
element commonly called Zamia fischeri is referred to a new species,
Zamia vazquezii D. Stevenson, S. Sabato & P.De Luca.
Riassunto. La gran parte dei campioni di erbario e delle piante coltivate di
Zamia fischeri Miquel, una specie messicana delle Zamiaceae, non appaiono
congruenti con la descrizione e le illustrazioni di Miquel. Rispetto a Z. fischeri
queste piante hanno foglie pi grandi e piü numerose, una differente forma
e consistenza delle foliole ed un numero cromosomico 2n=18 invece di 2n=16.Pertanto, queste piante comunemente riferite a Z. fischeri vengono qui attribuite
alla nuova specie Zamia vazquezii D. Stevenson, S. Sabato & P. De Luca.
Key words: Zamia fischeri, Zamia vazquezii, Zamiaceae.

In 1844 F.A.W. Miquel, in a letter to Louis Van Houtte, a
noted Belgian horticulturalist, included a Latin description of a
new species of Zamia that he apparently intended to publishin his
monograph of cycads that would appear in Linnaea with specimen
citation and illustration. However, Van Houtte published this Latin
description ¡n his horticultural catalogue, Hortus Vanhoutteanus,
while attributing authorship to Miquel by concluding the description
with "Miquel in litt." ( VAN HOUTTE, 1845). As pointed out by
STEVENSON & S ABATO (1986) in their work on thetypification of
names in Zamia, this publication of Miquel's Latin description of

10

Zamia fischeri Miquel has priority for nomenclatural purposes
even though no material was cited. Because no specimens were
cited in the letter published in Hortus Vanhoutteanus, Stevenson
and Sabato chose to neotypify Z. fischeri with a specimen ( Fig. 1A)
that clearly was the specimen upon which Miquel based hisdrawing (Fig. 1B) for his monograph in Linnaea. Subsequent to
this, the identify of Z. fischeri remained within the description
and illustrations supplied by Miquel. This is true for the numerous
monographs of M IQUEL (1847, 1848, 1849, 1852, 1861, 1869)
and R EGEL (1857a, 1857b, 1876, 1878), in the treatment of D E
CANDOLLE (1868), in the description and illustration of D YER
(1883), andin treatment by SCHUSTER (1932). There were only
about six collections of Zamia fischeri up to the time of monograph
by SCHUSTER in 1932. All of these collections are similar in
morphology and are housed either at U or LE with the Berlín
material destroyed in World War II.
Sometime after 1932, plants from Veracruz, Mexico were
introduced into cultivation under the name Zamia fischeri butthese
plants are clearly different from the original specimens (compare
Fig. 1 and 2 with Fig. 3). V OVIDES et al. (1983, 1992) included
Zamia fischeri in their treatment of the cycads of Veracruz,
Mexico. It is clear from their description and the cover illustration
of the 1992 English edition that the plants are not really Z. fischeri
as understood by earlier authors in the narrow sense butrather
plants from Veracruz that have been referred to Z. fischeri in
recent times. VOVIDES et al. were hampered by too few collections
both from Veracruz and from San Luis Potosí with material from
the latter being the original source of Z. fischeri and all herbarium
specimens from there being housed in European herbaria.
However, it has become clear that plants growing in Veracruz (Fig....