Anaphyllum beddomei Engler, Pflanzenr. Heft, 1911

Sivadasan, M., Jaleel, V. Abdul, Boyce, P. C., Alfarhan, A. H., El-Sheikh, M. A. & Al- Obaid, S. M., 2016, Typification of names in the genus Anaphyllum (Araceae), Phytotaxa 243 (1), pp. 91-96 : 91-93

Anaphyllum beddomei Engler, Pflanzenr. Heft 48 (IV. 23C): 26. 1911.

Lectotype (designated here):— INDIA. Tinnevelly Hills, Prov. Malabar & Travancore, no date, R. H. Beddome 7869 or 7873 ( BM!, BM000958557 ). Fig. 1

Other specimens studied: — INDIA. Tinnevelly Hills, 1873, R. H. Beddome s.n. ( K!, K 000499256); Anamallays, 4000 ft. elev., 1873, R. H. Beddome s.n. ( CAL!, CAL 0000027004); Prov. Malabar & Travancore, R. H. Beddome 217 ( BM!, BM 000957455).

In the protologue of Anaphyllum beddomei (Pflanzenr. Heft 48 ( IV. 23 C): 26–28. 1911), Engler (1911) cited specimens as “ Beddome n. 7869-7873—Herb. Hort. Calcutta, Herb. Brit. Mus.”, which can be assumed to refer to a total of five specimens numbered consecutively from 7869 to 7873. In the absence of indicating a single specimen as the type, all of the specimens cited in the protologue are to be treated as syntypes (Art. 9.5 of ICN, McNeill et al. 2012).

There are two specimens in the herbarium of The Natural History Museum, London ( BM), both are probably syntypes, and one among them ( BM 000958557) bears a label reading “Prov. Malabar & Travancore: Tinnevelly Hills. Coll. R. H. Beddome, No. 7869 or 7873 ” seems to have been remounted. It is probable that during remounting the collection number might have been mixed up or changed, and might be the reason for the entry of two numbers on the label as “ Beddome 7869 or 7873 ” by whoever entered label data on the specimen. The other remounted specimen at BM ( BM 000957455) was labelled as “Prov. Malabar & Travancore, Coll. Major R. H. Beddome No. 217 ” with an annotation as “[damaged Engler det. label. See capsule]”. The “capsule”—a paper envelope—contained part of a burnt determination slip by Engler bearing the caption “Bearbeitet für das Pflanzenreich” indicating that this specimen was seen and studied by Engler and would likely represent one of the syntypes. The damage of the specimen by burning could have caused loss of the original collection number, and whoever remounted it might have assigned a different number to it. Otherwise this specimen also would be a syntype.

The single Beddome specimen in the herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew ( K) ( K 000499256) is labelled “Tinnevelly Hills, Coll. Major R. H. Beddome, Date. 1873” with a tag bearing the number ‘ 694 ’. This number tag was not attached to the specimen and is likely a later addition by error. As this was another of Beddome’s specimens collected in 1873, and seen, studied and determined by Engler, it can be considered as one of the syntypes. Based on thorough scrutiny of all of the syntypes, one of the two specimens at BM ( BM 000958557) is selected and designated here as the lectotype of Anaphyllum beddomei .

The first author examined Beddome’s specimens of A. beddomei at BM, the Central National Herbarium of the Botanical Survey of India, Howrah ( CAL), and K. The only specimen at CAL ( CAL 0000027004) collected from “Anamallays, 4000 ft. elev.” is without collection number. The specimen represents a juvenile plant and lacks the characteristic adult leaf and inflorescence, and was determined by Engler as Anaphyllum wightii and cited under this name ( Engler, 1911). There is also a 1929 annotation by Fischer who correctly identified it as A. beddomei .

Figures

FIGURE 1. Lectotype of Anaphyllum beddomei (BM000958557). (Image reproduced with permission from Natural History Museum, London).