Urginea epigea Dyer (1947

Martínez-Azorín, Mario, Crespo, Manuel B., Dold, Anthony P., Pinter, Michael & Wetschnig, Wolfgang, 2015, New combinations and lectotype designations in Asparagaceae subfam. Scilloideae, Phytotaxa 201 (2), pp. 165-171 : 169

Urginea epigea Dyer (1947 : tab. 1027)

Type (lectotype, here designated):— SOUTH AFRICA. Transvaal: Middelburg District. F. Z. van der Merwe 2203 ( PRE, bar code 0048542- 1!, the inflorescence in two pieces, excluding the three unconnected leaves).

When describing Urginea epigea, Dyer (1947) cited the following gatherings: “Transvaal: Middelburg District.; van der Merwe 2203, grown at National Herbarium, Pretoria, 27194 (type); Lydenburg district.; Sekukuniland, 4000 ft., Nov., Barnard 71 ”. Jessop (1977) cited the type of this species as “ van der Merwe 2203 ( PRE holo.!) ”. The protologue mentions “Folia hysterantha”, “absence of leaves at flowering time”, and “The majority of the preserved specimens consist of inflorescences only”, establishing the fact that the inflorescence and leaves were not coetaneous. The original material at PRE comprises two sheets. The first ( PRE, bar code 0048542-1) bears an inflorescence broken in two pieces and three unconnected leaves. The label indicates “Nat. Herb. No 27194 (…) F. Z. v. d. Merwe 2203 (…) Figd. for F. P. S. A. by E. K. Burges Sept.’43, Leaves taken later”. The second sheet ( PRE, bar code 0048542-2), under the same collecting number, includes one bulb with seven leaves, and the label indicates “Figd. for F. P. S. A. by E. K. Burges Sept.’43”. It is evident therefore that the “ holotype ” consist of inflorescences and leaves taken at different times, as explicitly indicated on the label. As the species was described prior to 1 January 1958, no holotype indication was needed by that time, and therefore the name is validly published. However, as the “type” includes different gatherings, a lectotype is designated here.