Erythrina coralloides, 1825

Guacchio, Emanuele Del, Cennamo, Paola, Torres, Mario Vázquez & Menale, Bruno, 2016, When art meets taxonomy: identity of Erythrina laeta (Fabaceae), Phytotaxa 255 (2), pp. 144-152 : 149

Erythrina coralloides

Candolle (1825) cited the Icones Florae Mexicanae ineditae by Sessé y Lacasta and Mociño in the protologue of E. coralloides . According to Stafleu & Cowan (1981: 526), Mociño gave on loan their large collection of plates to A.P. de Candolle, who based 279 new American species on them. Before returning the original plates to Mociño, Candolle commissioned copies which were made rapidly (that relative to E. coralloides is the no. 253). Subsequently Candolle (1874) published many “outlines” of these plates. McVaugh (1987: 513) already indicated the plate 253 in G-DC ( fig. 3 ) as “type” of E. coralloides . However, according to the detailed historical background by McVaugh (1998) himself, the pertinent original plate is now preserved in the Torner’s collection (“ Erithrina [sic!] coralodendron [sic!] Linn.”, Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, accession number: 6331.0257). A thumbnail of the original illustration is available at http://fmhibd.library.cmu.edu/HIBD-DB/ArtCat/ recordlist.php?-skip=0&-sortfieldone=Title&-sortorderone=ascend. The plate in G-DC is to be regarded as original material for E. coralloides , because it was made under the supervision of Candolle ( McVaugh 1998). However, as the cited illustrations have not priority above the uncited illustrations (Art. 9.12 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012), the previous lectotypification by McVaugh (1987) should be maintained (see also McVaugh 2000 for further details). The depicted plant fits well with the protologue but it does not appear as a typical E. coralloides , especially concerning the shape of leaflets (see also Krukoff & Barneby 1973). According to the authors ( Krukoff 1939; McVaugh 1987, 2000), the identity of the plant depicted in the copies is disputable. Therefore, an epitype has been also designated, chosen among the material revised by Krukoff. McVaugh (2000) reports that the gathering “ Pringle 6839 ” was indicated as the “ neotype ” by Krukoff (1939), but this statement is rather arbitrary. Firstly, none neotype can be designated until original material is extant (Art. 9.13 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012). Besides, a formal designation of “ Pringle 6839” as “type” by Krukoff (1939) is lacking (Art. 7.10 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012).

Figures

FIGURE 3. Lectotype of E. coralloides (G-DC) (©: Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève).