Allium tuberosum Rottler ex Spreng., Syst. Veg.

Turner, Ian M., 2022, FROM ACACIA TO ZIZIPHUS: PLANT NAMES COMMEMORATING THE BOTANIST WILLIAM ROXBURGH, Edinburgh Journal of Botany 79 (1911), pp. 1-102 : 17-20

Allium tuberosum Rottler ex Spreng., Syst. Veg. 2: 38 (1825). – Type: [ India, Malabar ] J.P.

Rottler s.n. ( lectotype B †, designated by Stearn, Herbertia 11: 233, t. 265 [1946]) .

Allium tuberosum Roxb., Fl. Ind. 2: 141 (1832), nom. illegit., non A. tuberosum Rottler ex Spreng. (1825) . – Allium roxburghii Kunth, Enum. Pl. 4: 454 (1843). – Type: India, Calcutta, 1809, W. Roxburgh s.n. (lectotype LINN [LINN-HS 583.21], designated here).

Kunth provided Allium roxburghii as a replacement name for A. tuberosum Roxb. Sprengel’s senior homonym refers to the same species. Alpinia roxburghii Sweet, Hort. Brit. 390 (1826). – Alpinia bracteata Roxb., Fl. Ind. 1: 61–62 (1820), nom. illegit., non A. bracteata Roscoe (1816) . – Type: W. Roxburgh 154 (lectotype BM [BM000958163], designated here).

Sweet renamed Alpinia bracteata Roxb. Alpinia roxburghii . This name is still accepted.

Alysicarpus roxburghianus Thoth. & A.Pramanik, Bull. Bot. Surv. India 21 (1–4): 189 (1981). – Type : India, Shevaroi Hills, Perrottet 272 (holotype CAL, isotype CAL).

Amaranthus graecizans subsp. thellungianus (Nevski) Gusev, Bot. Zhurn. 57(5): 462 (1972). – Amaranthus thellungianus Nevski, Trudy Bot. Inst. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., Ser. 1, Fl. Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 4: 311 (1937). – Type: In angustiis Bulak-Dara ad pedem montium Kuhitang supra pagum Karluk, 11 vii 1931, S.A. Nevski Plantae Turcomanicae 1931 730 (lectotype LE, designated by Townsend, Fl. Pakistan 71: 19 [1974]).

Amaranthus roxburghianus H.W.Kung, Fl. Ill. Nord Chine 4: 19 (1935), as ‘ Amarantus’ . – Type: [unpublished illustration] Icones Roxburghianae 443 (lectotype K, designated here).

Amaranthus roxburghianus Nevski, Trudy Bot. Inst. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., Ser. 1, Fl. Sist. Vyssh. Rast. 4: 311 (1937), nom. illegit., non A. roxburghianus H.W.Kung (1935) . – Type: India, [Trichionopoly, 8 xi 1826], R. Wight s.n. [ EIC 6906 ] (lectotype LE [ LE00012008 ], designated by Nair, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 73: 61 [1976]; isolectotype K-W [ K000195197 ]).

Kung and Nevski proposed Amaranthus roxburghianus in close succession, apparently applying it to the same taxon, although based on different types. Kung’s was effectively a renaming of Amaranthus polygonoides sensu Roxburgh , so it is here lectotypified to Roxburgh’s drawing. Nevski’s later homonym was based on Indian material in LE.

Amblyanthus glandulosus (Roxb.) A.DC., Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., Sér. 2, 16: 83 (1841). – Ardisia glandulosa Roxb., Fl. Ind. 2: 276–277 (1824). – Ardisia roxburghiana D.Dietr., Syn. Pl. 1: 617 (1839), nom. illegit., superfl. – Type: [unpublished illustration] Icones Roxburghianae 2442 [2441 on drawing] (lectotype K, designated here). Figure 1 .

Ardisia roxburghiana D.Dietr. is a superfluous renaming of Ardisia glandulosa Roxb. Roxburgh’s drawing is here designated as lectotype, as no herbarium material has been located.

Amorphophallus paeoniifolius (Dennst.) Nicolson , Taxon 26: 337 (1977). – Dracontium paeoniifolium Dennst., Schlüssel Hortus Malab. 38 (1818). – Type: [published illustration] ‘Mulen-Schena’, Rheede, Hort. Malab. 11: t. 19 (1692) (lectotype designated by Nicolson, Taxon 26: 338 [1977]).

Arum campanulatum Roxb., Pl. Coromandel 3: 68–69, t. 272 (1820). – Candarum roxburghii Schott, Melet. Bot. 1: 17 (1832), nom. illegit., superfl. – Amorphophallus campanulatus (Roxb.) Decne., Nouv. Ann. Mus. Hist. Paris 3: 366 (1834). – Amorphophallus paeoniifolius var. campanulatus (Roxb.) Sivad. , Taxon 32: 130 (1983). – Type: [published illustration] ‘Mulen-Schena’, Rheede, Hort. Malab. 11: t. 19 (1692) (lectotype designated by Hay et al., Blumea, Suppl. 8: 39, 27 [1995]).

Candarum roxburghii Schott represents a superfluous renaming of Arum campanulatum Roxb.

Ampelocissus latifolia (Roxb.) Planch., Vigne Amér. Vitic. Eur. 8: 375 (1884). – Vitis latifolia Roxb., Hort. Bengal. 18 (1814). – Cissus latifolia (Roxb.) Peterm., Pflanzenr. 636 (1845), nom. illegit., non C. latifolia Lam. (1783) . – Cissus roxburghii Peterm., Pflanzenr. 1011 (1845). – Type: [published illustration] ‘Vallia-pira-pitica’, Rheede, Hort. Malab. 7: t. 7 (1688) (lectotype designated by Shetty & Singh, Taxon 37: 170 [1988]).

Cissus roxburghii Peterm. is a legitimate replacement in Cissus for Vitis latifolia Roxb.

Anoectochilus roxburghii (Wall.) Lindl. in Royle, Ill. Bot. Himal. Mts 368 (1839). – Chrysobaphus roxburghii Wall., Tent. Fl. Napal. 2: 37, t. 27 (1826). – Zeuxine roxburghii (Wall.) M.Hiroe, Orchid Flowers 2: 68 (1971). – Type: Nepal, N. Wallich s.n. (lectotype WU [sheet no. 0044614], designated by Bhattacharjee & Chowdhery, Taxon 63: 1116 [2014]).

Wallich commemorated Roxburgh with the name of this orchid from Nepal.

Antidesma sect. Roxburghiana Pax. & K.Hoffm., Pflanzenr. 81: 115 (1922). – Type: non designatus.

Figures

Figure 1. The lectotype of Ardisia glandulosa Roxb., basionym of Amblyanthus glandulosus (Roxb.) A.DC. Icones Roxburghianae 2442 [2441 on drawing] in the collection of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Reproduced with the permission of the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.