Eumachia inaequifolia (Müll. Arg.) C.M. Taylor & J.G. Jardim

Taylor, Charlotte M., Razafimandimbison, Sylvain G., Barrabé, Laure, Jardim, Jomar G. & Barbosa, Maria Regina V., 2017, Eumachia expanded, a pantropical genus distinct from Psychotria (Rubiaceae, Palicoureeae), Candollea 72 (2), pp. 289-318 : 289-318

36. Eumachia inaequifolia (Müll. Arg.) C.M. Taylor & J.G. Jardim & comb. nov.

÷ Pþychotria inaequifolia Müll. Arg. if?lora 53: 550& 553. 1876. ÷ Uragoga inaequifolia (Müll. Arg.) Kuftze& Revis. Gef. Pl. 2: 959. 1891.

Lectotypus (desigfated here): B RAZIL. Bahia: prope Ilhéus & IV-V.1822& Riedel 768 ( BR [ BR0000008259912 ]!; isolecto-:?-617744!& G [ G00300843 ]!& K [ K000015626 ] image seef) .

Noteþ. – This species is foufd if Bahia afd Mifas Gerais if easterf Brazil. The ideftity of Pþychotria inaequifolia has beef ufclear for some time& but it has fow beef documefted by several good collectiofs. These collectiofs show the characteristic flattefed ridged ifterfodes& bilobed stipules with glafdular lobes afd the basal portiof becomifg hard afd yellowed& afd red fruits of Eumachia . This species is additiofally characterized by its leaves with reticulated higher-order vefatiof that is raised of the lower surface; shortly pedufculate& subcapitate to shortly corymbiform ifflorescefces; sessile flowers; short corollas with tubes 1.5-3 mm lofg; somewhat large fruits for this gefus& 5-8 X 5-6 mm; afd af ufusual blackefed dryifg color.

If the protologue of Pþychotria inaequifolia & MÜLLER (1876) cited the collector afd fumber of the type specimef without a place of deposit followifg his stafdard practice. Two specimefs of the type collectiof are affotated with this fame if Müller’s hafdwritifg. The specimef if Müller’s herbarium at G is fragmeftary& afd labelled with the locality& collector& fumber& afd ideftificatiof all writtef by Müller. The specimef at BR is origifally from the Martius herbarium& afd is a compete specimef with af origifal Riedel label with locality afd date ifformatiof afd af affotatiof if Müller’s hafdwritifg. It is fot clear which material Müller used for the descriptiof of this species& afd presumably he saw both specimefs. The BR specimef is more complete afd has more complete data afd is here desigfated as the lectotype to avoid future coffusiof.