Chionanthus ramiflorus Roxb., Fl. Ind.

Turner, Ian M., 2022, FROM ACACIA TO ZIZIPHUS: PLANT NAMES COMMEMORATING THE BOTANIST WILLIAM ROXBURGH, Edinburgh Journal of Botany 79 (1911), pp. 1-102 : 34-35

Chionanthus ramiflorus Roxb., Fl. Ind. 1: 106–107 (1820). – Type: [unpublished illustration]

Icones Roxburghianae 1310 (lectotype K, designated by Chakraborty et al., Ethnobot. Jarawa Tribe Andaman Isl. , India 66 [2020]) .

Olea paniculata Roxb., Fl. Ind. 1: 104–105 (1820), nom. illegit., non O. paniculata R.Br. (1810) . – Olea roxburghii Spreng., Neue Entdeck. Pflanzenk. 3: 78 (1822). – Olea roxburghiana Schult., Mant. 1: 77 (1822), nom. illegit., superfl. – Phillyrea brachiata Stokes, Bot.

Comm. 1: 26 (1830), nom. illegit., superfl. – Linociera intermedia var. roxburghii (Spreng.) C.B.Clarke, Fl. Brit. India 3(9): 609 (1882). – Chionanthus roxburghii (Spreng.) S.K.Srivast. & S.L.Kapoor, Geophytology 11: 262 (1981). – Chionanthus paniculatus K.K.N.Nair

& K. P. Janardh , J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 78(2): 331 (1981), nom. illegit., superfl. – Chionanthus paniculatus var. roxburghii (Spreng.) K.K.N.Nair & K.P.Janardh, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 78(2): 331 (1981). – Type: [unpublished illustration] Icones Roxburghianae 507 (lectotype K, designated here) .

Sprengel renamed Olea paniculata Roxb. as Olea roxburghii because Roxburgh’s name was a later homonym. Slightly later, Schultes published Olea roxburghiana for the same purpose. Regarding the typification of Chionanthus ramiflorus Roxb., Kiew (1979) referred to the type as ‘Smith 1819 (K)’. This must refer to a specimen from Hooker’s herbarium labelled ‘H.B.C. 1819//Sir J.E. Smith’, which is probably a duplicate of a specimen in Smith’s herbarium labelled ‘Bot. Gard. Calcutta. Wallich 1819’. As these specimens date from 1819, after Roxburgh’s death in 1815, they cannot represent original material for Roxburgh’s name. Green (2003) referred to the ‘holotype’ of Chionanthus ramiflorus Roxb. as the specimen under catalogue number 2824B in K-W. This is a specimen collected by Francis Buchanan-Hamilton from a tree in Calcutta Botanic Garden. I see no reason to suppose Roxburgh based his description on this specimen. Green (2003) also referred to a Wight specimen from the Circars in K as the holotype of Olea paniculata Roxb. This might represent a Roxburgh specimen in Wight’s herbarium, but I have not located a sheet that is labelled as such. Therefore, I accept the lectotypification to the Roxburgh drawing for Chionanthus ramiflorus by Chakraborty et al. (2020) and designate here the Roxburgh drawing for Olea paniculata . Chrysophyllum roxburghii G.Don, Gen. Hist. 4: 33 (1837). – Chrysophyllum acuminatum Roxb., Fl. Ind. 2: 345–346 (1824), nom. illegit., non C. acuminatum Poir. (1811) . – Chrysophyllum roxburghianum Wall. ex Speede , New Indian Gardener 282 (1848), nom. illegit., superfl. – Donella roxburghii (G.Don) Pierre ex Lecomte, Fl. Indo-Chine 3: 897 (1930). – Type: [unpublished illustration] Icones Roxburghianae 2041 (lectotype K, designated here). Figure 6 .

George Don renamed Roxburgh’s Chrysophyllum acuminatum as it was a later homonym. No herbarium material relevant to Roxburgh’s name has been located, so Roxburgh’s drawing is here designated as lectotype. Speede also published a replacement name, but this is superfluous because Don’s publication came out before.

Cinnamomum verum J.Presl, Přir. Rostlin 2: 37 (1825). – Laurus cinnamomum L., Sp. Pl. 1: 369 (1753). – Type: Herb. Clifford 154, Laurus 6, sheet 6B (lectotype BM [BM000558701], designated by Soh, Blumea 56: 261 [2011]).

Cinnamomum zeylanicum var. roxburghii Lukman., Nomencl. Icon. Cannel. 6 (1889). – Type: Ceylon, Herb. Brongniart (P [n.v.]).

I have not traced the collection Lukman referred to in describing Cinnamomum zeylanicum var. roxburghii .

Clematis zeylanica (L.) Poir. in Lamarck , Encycl., Suppl. 2: 296 (1811). – Atragene zeylanica L., Sp. Pl. 1: 542 (1753). – Type: Herb. Hermann 2: 64 ; 3: 41; 4: 55, No. 226 (lectotype BM [ BM000621724 , BM000621950 , BM000628266 ], designated by Dassanayake in Dassanayake & Clayton, Rev. Handb. Fl. Ceylon 10: 353 [1996]) .

Naravelia zeylanica var. roxburghii DC., Syst. Nat. 1: 167 (1817). – Type : [ India], Coromandel, J. Macé s.n. (lectotype P [ P00145470 ], designated here).

De Candolle based his var. roxburghii on Roxburgh’s account of Atragene zeylanica in

Plants of the Coast of Coromandel but also indicated that he had seen a specimen from Coromandel. There is nothing relevant in G-DC, but there is a Macé specimen in P that is labelled ‘ Clematis zeylanica Roxburg. Decand. Coromandel’, which is here selected as lectotype for the variety.

Figures

Figure 6. The lectotype of Chrysophyllum acuminatum Roxb., replaced synonym of Chrysophyllum roxburghii G.Don. Icones Roxburghianae 2041 in the collection of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Reproduced with the permission of the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.