Phoebe bootanica (Meisn.) Gangopadhyay (2011: 215)

Chakrabarty, Tapas, Kumar, Anand & Ghoshal, Partha Pratim, 2023, A revision of the genus Phoebe (Lauraceae) in the Indo-Burmese region, Phytotaxa 606 (1), pp. 29-42 : 32-34

3. Phoebe bootanica (Meisn.) Gangopadhyay (2011: 215) .

Type:— BHUTAN. s.d., fl., W. Griffith 2483 (lectotype designated here: K000778799, digital image!; isolectotypes: BM000950966, G00368974, fragm. NY00355317, digital images!) . [ BHUTAN] East Himalaya, fl., W. Griffith 1117, Kew Distrib. No. 4265 (additional syntypes: GH00041886, K000778798, L.1804386, digital images!).

Basionym:— Machilus bootanica Meisner (1864: 42) .

Homotypic synonym:— Persea bootanica (Meisn.) Kostermans (1962: 191) .

Heterotypic synonyms:— Phoebe hainesiana Brandis (1906 : t. 2803).

Type:— INDIA. West Bengal, West Duars, May 1893, fl., H.H. Haines 303 (lectotype designated here: K000778868, digital image!; isolectotype: HBG508052, digital image!). INDIA. Sikkim, December 1893, fr., H.H. Haines 303 (additional syntypes: K000778867, HBG508053, digital images!). INDIA. Sikkim, s.d., fl., H.H. Haines 303 (additional syntypes: CAL0000021966!, CAL0000021967!, CAL0000021968!, L.1814097, digital image!). INDIA. West Bengal, Duars , s.d., fl., H.H. Haines 303 (additional syntypes: CAL0000021958!, CAL0000021960!, CAL0000021962!).

Phoebe goalparensis Hutchinson (1916: 190) .

Type:— INDIA. Assam, Goalpara dist., Aie Reserve , 9 February 1915, immat. fr., U.N. Kanjilal 5092 (lectotype designated here: DD, digital image!, bearing printed label ‘TYPE’ ; isolectotypes: ASSAM 0000000108!, ASSAM 0000000109!, DD [3 sheets] without barcodes, digital images!). INDIA. Assam, Goalpara dist. , Aie Reserve, 15 July 1915, fr., U.N. Kanjilal 5092 (additional syntype: K000778865, digital image!). INDIA. Assam, without precise locality, 16 April 1915, fl., U.N. Kanjilal 5092 (uncited original material: K000778866, digital image!) .

Phoebe cooperiana Kanjilal & Das (1937: 7) , syn. nov.

Type:— INDIA. Arunachal Pradesh, without locality, June 1922, immat. fr., H.L. Cooper 7722 (holotype: ASSAM0000000107 !). INDIA. Arunachal Pradesh, East Siang dist. , Pasighat, 19 May 1934, fl., A.Das 10634 (paratypes: ASSAM0000000104 !, ASSAM0000000105 !, ASSAM0000000106 !, CAL0000021973 !, E00393291 , digital image!) .

? Phoebe assamica Kalyankumar Purakayastha (1938: 402) .

Type:—Not designated.

Phoebe baishyae Gangopadhyay (2006: 148) , syn. nov.

Type:— INDIA. Arunachal Pradesh, West Kameng, Nechiphu , 12 September 1978, fr., K. Haridasan 4642 (holotype: APFH Herbarium of State Forest Research Institute, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar—not located) . [icon] M.Gangop. in Bull. Bot. Surv. India 48: 148, fig. 23. 2006 (lectotype designated here) .

Trees, 20–45 m high; bud scale scars in dense rings around twigs; branchlets densely yellowish, greyish or rusty tomentose, pilose or puberulous when young, glabrescent. Leaves more or less clustered at the ends of the twigs and also evenly spaced, obovate, obovate-elliptic to obovate-oblong or sometimes oblong-elliptic to elliptic (or broadly so) or ovate-elliptic, 10–32 × 3.5–13 cm, cuneate, acute to subacute or sometimes unequal or oblique at base, apiculate to acuminate (acumen 5–20 mm long, blunt to acute) at apex, membranous to chartaceous, glabrous or occasionally puberulous on midrib above, scattered yellow or greyish pilose to tomentellous (on veins) or sometimes sparsely puberulous to glabrous ( P. goalparensis , P. hainesiana ) beneath, green, brown, dark brown, dark reddish brown or blackish above when dry, green to brown or blackish beneath, not glaucous; lateral veins slender, (8–)10–18 pairs, prominent above, raised beneath; tertiary veins faint to prominent above, faint to prominent beneath; veinlets obscure to somewhat prominent above, inconspicuous to faint or sometimes prominent beneath; petioles 10–60 mm long, scattered greyish or fulvous pilose to tomentellous, sparsely puberulous to glabrescent. Panicles 7–23 cm long, few-branched; axis and branches fulvous tomentellous to scattered greyish pilose or sometimes sparsely puberulous to glabrous ( P. goalparensis , P. hainesiana ). Flowers: pedicels 5–8 mm long, articulated near base, scattered whitish, greyish or fulvous pilose to tomentellous; tepals broadly ovate to ovate-oblong, apiculate, 4–6 (–7) × 2–3.7 mm, scattered greyish or fulvous pilose to tomentellous outside and inside; stamens 4.2–5 mm long; staminodes ca. 3 mm long; ovary ovoid, ca. 2.5 mm long; style ca. 3 mm long. Fruits ellipsoid, 2–3 × 1.3–2 cm (reported to be up to 4 cm long); fruiting pedicels up to 12 mm long, stout or somewhat thickened; fruiting tepals up to 7 mm long.

Local name: — Nikahi (Assamese).

Phenology: —Flowering in February to May and fruiting in June to December.

Habitat: —Rare in tropical and evergreen forests between 200–1800 m elevations.

Distribution: — Bhutan, India, and Nepal.

Uses: —Reported to be a timber tree.

Specimens examined:— BHUTAN. Type material as cited above . INDIA. Assam: Tinsukia dist., Digboi , s.d., fl., without collector 11 ( CAL) . Tripura: Munpui , 3 April 1941, fl., K. Biswas 5172 ( CAL) . West Bengal: Darjeeling dist., Darjeeling , s.d., fr., H.H. Haines 303 (CAL0000021951, CAL0000021953); Gayabari, s.d., fl., without collector 10 ( CAL) . NEPAL. Central Nepal, Lamjung Himalaya, Madi Khola , fl., 28 April 1968, fl., J.D.A. Stainton 6255 (BM, E01137628) .

Notes: — Gangopadhyay (2011), while transferring Machilus bootanica to Phoebe , united P. hainesiana with it. However, possibly he had some doubt about this merger because subsequently Gangopadhyay et al. (2020) treated the latter as a distinct species. The present studies revealed that P. goalparensis as well as P. hainesiana represent less pubescent forms of P. bootanica with less persistent hairs on different parts but otherwise indistinguishable. Additionally, P. cooperiana is also found to be conspecific with P. bootanica .

The specimen, A. Das 10530 (CAL0000021985) collected from Sadya in Arunachal Pradesh and identified as Phoebe cooperiana represents a distinct species. The impression of the broken fruits indicates that these were ellipsoid and 3–4 cm long (as described in P. cooperiana ) but the specimens differs from P. cooperiana clearly by the absence of rings of bud scale scars on the twigs, evenly spaced leaves with glaucous undersurface. The material possibly represents a hitherto undescribed species allied to P. cathia but we refrain from describing it due to its poor condition.

The material, Haines 303 was collected from three different localities, West Duars, Sikkim and Darjeeling (as marked on the specimens). The original drawing of Phoebe hainesiana shows a flowering twig, dissected parts of flower and an intact fruit. Thus, the drawing corresponds to at least two of these collections, in flowering and fruiting. Accordingly the flowering specimens at Kew bearing handwriting of Brandis is selected here as the lectotype. In the duplicate specimen at HBG, the “West Duars” has been struck out and Sikkim is written in Pen. There are further collections with field number Haines 303 at CAL without citation of any locality.

Hutchinson (1916: 190) cited “ INDIA. Assam: Goalpara district; Aie Reserve, stem buttressed at the base, fls. Feb., fr. July , Upendranath Kanjilal in Dehra Dun Herb. 5092” in the protologue of Phoebe goalparensis , There are several specimens belonging to collection no. 5092 of which four specimens are at DD, two at ASSAM, and two at K. The one of the specimens, K000778866 bearing Hutchinson annotation ‘ Phoebe goalparensis Hutchinson n. sp. ” was collected in April, so it must be considered as an uncited original material instead of syntype because April collection was not cited in the protologue. As the protologue states that type was deposited in ‘Dehra Dun Herb.’, we preferred to choose the lectotype from the collections of DD. The best preserved specimen at DD bearing the print label ‘TYPE’ in red is designated here as lectotype.

The type of Phoebe assamica is not available. However, from the description, it appears that the species belongs here. The holotype of P. baishyae has been misplaced. Hence, the original drawing has been selected here as the lectotype of the name as per Art. 9.12 ( Turland et al. 2018). It is a good match with P. bootanica in all respects except for the relatively shorter fruits.