Piper argyrophyllum Miq. Syst. Piperac.

Mukherjee, Prasanta Kumar, 2020, Nomenclatural notes on Piper (Piperaceae) from India III, Phytotaxa 441 (3), pp. 263-273 : 264-265

1. Piper argyrophyllum Miq. Syst. Piperac. 330. 1844

Type:— INDIA: India orientali, Wallich Num. list no. 6642 F (lectotype designated here): U (U1476732-image!) ; isolectotypes: K ( K001124384 -image!), CAL (379571!)

Leaves petioled, lamina membranaceous, often whitish abaxially, obliquely elliptic lanceolate, apex cuspidate, base subequally acute, 10 to 15 cm long and 2.5 to 4 cm broad; veins 5, weak, 2 upper laterals arising alternately, terminating at the margins short of reaching the apex. Female spikes to about 8 cm long, shorter or equaling the leaves in length; peduncle equals the petiole; fruits ovate-elliptic, sub-densely packed on the rachis.

Distribution:— INDIA: Tamilnadu, Kerala; Sri Lanka.

Note:— Specimen Wallich Num. list no. 6642 F can be found at U (U1476732) It is catalogued there as Piper malamiri with the annotation as Piper argyrophyllum by Miquel. Its duplicate, also catalogued as Piper malamiri at K (K001124384) does not have the annotation by Miquel. The specimen Wallich Num. list no. 6642 F also matches t. 56 of Miquel’s illustration (1845). Therefore, the specimen at U is designated here as the lectotype. There is another specimen at U (Wight 887- U1476681!), which does not have any Wallichian numbering and is annotated as P. argyrophyllum var. ’plus’. This specimen has a branch with male flowers, but Miquel (1844) had not described the male plant. Plate 1941 of Wight’s Icon (1843) shows a male plant, the only one he had available and he suspected (p. 4) that Miquel had not seen this as his description altogether refers to the female plant.

J. D. Hooker (1886: 94) believed that more than one species was placed under P. argyrophyllum . He recognized six varieties, distinguishing them chiefly on the nature of bracts, i.e. ‘proper’, ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’, ‘5’ and ‘6’. He had not assigned those proper epithets and valid names (Art. 3, Turland et al. 2018). Hooker’s var. ‘proper’ was meant to designate P. argyrophyllum var. argyrophyllum with the citation of Wallich Num. list no. 6642 F. Heterogeneity of species as observed by Hooker was also noted by J. S. Gamble (1921: 1207) as he wrote “A small leaved form (var. 2 or var. 5 of the F.B.I.) may perhaps have to be separated when better known”.

Hooker’s P. argyrophyllum vars. 2, 3 and 5 are different from Wallich Num. list no. 6642 F and also differ between them. These are recognized here as distinct species with new names: var. 2 as P. travancorianum P. K. Mukh. nom. nov., var. 3 as Piper courtallensis P. K. Mukh. nom. nov., and var. 5 as Piper kurgianum P. K. Mukh. nom. nov. A part of Hooker’s var. 4 is found to be similar to Piper obtusistigmum C. DC. (1925: 211) and seems to be isotypic. Both therefore are treated here as synonymous. Hooker held Piper walkeri Miq. (1845: 438) as a synonym for var. 6.

Diagnosis and descriptions along with other details of all these new names are given below, along with other species treated here.

2. Piper attenuatum Buch. -Ham. ex Miq. Syst. Piperac. 306. 1844 non Link Jahrb. 1(3): 63. 1820 pro syn., et non Piper attenuatum Willd. ex Kunth. Linnaea 13: 603. 1839 pro syn.

Type:— INDIA: Assam & BANGLADESH (Rangpur): Gualpara et Gongachora, 17 July 1809, Wallich Num. list no. 6642 B (lectotype designated here) U (U1476639-image!) excl. syntypes Penang Wallich Num. list no. 6643 E (U1477688- image!), K ( K 001124395- image!), CAL!

Homotypic synonym: Piper sirium C. DC.Prodr. 16: 361. 1869 nom. illeg.

Type:— INDIA: Assam, Gualpara, 6August 1802, Wallich List no. 6642 C, (lectotype designated here) K ( K 001124379-image! -lower one only), syntype Bangladesh, Silhet, Wallich List no. 6642 D except the lower left specimen ( K 001124381-image!).

Note: —Francis Buchanan-Hamilton’s unpublished name P. attenuatum was included as List no. 6642 B in Wallich’s catalogue. Miquel (1844: 306) published the name citing Hamilton’s collections from Gualpara (Assam, Assam) and Gongachora (Rangpur, Bangladesh) as included in Wallich’s catalogue. There is a specimen at U (U1476639) bearing Wallich Num. list no. 6642 B labeled as ‘ Piper attenuatum Herb. Hamilt. ’ The locality and collection date mentioned there is ‘Gualpara et Gangachora, 17 thJuly, 1809’, the same as mentioned by Miquel. Miquel (1859: 451) had some doubt about the name Gongachora, as he had put a question mark after the name. The date of collection mentioned on the specimen U1476639 seems doubtful as the two locations are situated at two distant places.A specimen at E (E00313768- image!) representing undoubtedly a Hamilton specimen, numbered 105 and was collected from ‘Gongachora’ on 17 July 1809. This sheet carries no Wallich List number and neither any annotation by Miquel. Wallich Num. list no. 6642 B at K ( K 001124380), catalogued as Piper malamiri , has a similar specimen on it. The plant was collected from Gongachora by Hamilton on 17 July 1809. The same species was collected by Hamilton in Gualpara on 6 th August 1802 and included by Wallich under Num. list no. 6642 C. This is present at K ( K 001124379-image!-lower specimen, stored/ data based there as Piper malamiri ). Therefore, Hamilton’s collection from Gongachora and Goalpara were made on two different dates: the Goalpara plant was collected on 6 August 1802 and that from Gongachora on 17July 1809.

Piper sirium C. DC. (1869: 361) was based on Wallich Num. list no. 6642 C (from Gualpara) and Wallich Num. list no. 6642 D (from Silhet). Hooker (1886: 92) cited Wallich Num. List nos. B, C, and D as P. attenuatum with P. sirium as a synonym. Wallich List no. 6642 D at K ( K 001124381-image! ‒upper specimen catalogued there as P. malamiri ) and also at CAL (the lower specimen) have plants similar to Wallich 6642 C ( K 001124379!). Piper sirium becomes homotypic with P. attenuatum with the inclusion of Wallich List no. 6642 C from Gualpara.

Wallich Num. list no. 6642 C at K also has a specimen at the top ( K 001124378- image!) which is mentioned as Piper malamiris of ‘ Hb. Roxb.’ and happens to be a Roxburgh collection included in Wallich’s catalogue as no. 6642 A. It is a male specimen with peltate bracts as noted in pencil by an unknown earlier observer. This one is identified as the type of Piper malamiris Roxb. (1820: 160) non Linnaeus. It was renamed as Chavica pseudo-melamiris Miquel (1843: 244) . Hooker (1886: 84) cited this as a synonym of P. sylvaticum Roxburgh (1820: 158) . Considering all the facts, Wallich Num. list no. 6642 B at U (U1476639) is designated here as the lectotype of P. attenuatum as it has the mention of the exact locality as given by Miquel. Typification of P. sylvaticum has already been discussed by Mukherjee (2018: 29).

Piper malamiris Linnaeus sensu Amalago of Rheede (1678: t.16) is not P. attenuatum (Nicolson, et al. 1988: 208). Saldanha & Nicolson (1976, quoted from Rahiman & Nair, 1987: 69) considered P. attenuatum as a synonym of P. trioicum Roxburgh (1820: 151) but Rahiman & Nair (1987: 84) suggested that the name P. trioicum be ignored. This has not been verified. Inclusion of P. diffusum Vahl (1804: 333) as a synonym of P. attenuatum seems doubtful (Hooker (1886: 96). Roxburgh’s specimen of Piper malamiris at Delessert’s herbarium, as stated by Miquel, could not be seen.

Wallich Num. list no. 6643 E from Penang was mentioned under P. attenuatum by Miquel as a syntype. K holds two Wallich specimens from Penang ( K 000794902 and ( K 000794900) under the name P. nigrum . Besides, Wallich Num. list no. 6643 E is also catalogued at K ( K 001124395) as P. attenuatum . The specimen at CAL can be located at the Wallichian herbarium at CAL under the name P. attenuatum . All these specimens are sterile and have roots at nodes which according to Miquel are stolons of P. attenuatum . However, the plants there are are different from P. attenuatum and as such Wallich List no.6643 E is excluded as a syntype. Wallich Num. list no. 6643 E was subsequently included by N. E. Brown (1884: 438) as P. porphyrophyllum (Lindley) Brown ( Cissus (?) porphyrophyllus Lindley 1861: 225). Lindley mentioned the origin of his plant from India collected by Lobb, though Wallich mentioned it from Penang. Suwanphakdee et al. (2018:7–12, f. 10b) designated as lectotype one of the specimens of Wallich Num. list no. 6643 E specimens at K without definite indication as to its barcode no /Id. They (2018:12, f. 10 b) described female spikes wherein bracts are found as spathulate, which is also true for P. attenuatum and the plant in the accompanying figure can well be P. attenuatum . Notwithstanding Miquel’s observation, identity of this taxon as a species of Piper appears uncertain. Whatever it may be, at its present state, it should be excluded from P. attenuatum , as all the specimens are sterile and Suwanphakdee et al. ’s observation about spikes of both sexes remains doubtful. The shape of the leaf is characteristically uniform all over its distributional range.

Distribution:— INDIA: West Bengal, Sikkim, Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Tamilnadu, Kerala, Karnataka; BHUTAN, MYAMAR, CHINA.