Oberonia brunoniana Wight

Geiger, D. L., 2019, Studies on Oberonia 5 (Orchidaceae: Malaxideae). Twenty-four new synonyms, and a corrected spelling, Blumea 64 (2), pp. 123-139 : 124-125

Oberonia brunoniana Wight — Fig. 2

Oberonia brunoniana Wight (1851) 3, pl.1622. — Type: Wight s.n. (lecto,here designated K 000387708), India,Coimbatore, Iyamally Hills, Mount Agam- ullu ( type sheet). Wight 2914 (paralecto K 000387707), Mt Paulghautcherry.

Oberonia lindleyana Wight (non Brongn.), [ Oberonia santapaui Kapadia in Santapau & Kapadia (1960) 265]. — Type: Wight s.n. (syn repository unknown, India, Coimbatore, Iyamally Hills. Wight (1851 : pl. 1624) (lecto, here designated), Wight s.n. (epi here designated K 000387708), syn. nov.

Notes — Oberonia santapaui is here considered a synonym of O. brunoniana . Joseph (1982) contended that santapaui and brunoniana are indistinguishable based on flowers but have a distinct ecotype: The statement is here rather interpreted as a single species with consistent morphology of the reproductive structures being found in a variety of habitats. In fact, the habitat types (epiphyte on trees in shola forests) and elevation for the two names are if not identical, then heavily overlapping, and certainly not statistically different.

The types of the two names are confused. The Kew database identifies three sheets of O. brunoniana as types. The here designated lectotype was collected 08/1848, prior to the description in 1851 and is from the type locality. The sheet includes a drawing of the flower. Because the drawing is partially covered by plant material, the drawing was most likely made before the plants were affixed to the sheet, and may be in Wight’s hand. This additional information is decisive in the selection of the lectotype:The second gathering collected prior to the description was collected from Mount Paulghautcherry. I was unable to deter- mine the specific locality of those two collecting sites, though they seem to be in the vicinity of Coimbatore based on various travelogues consulted (e.g., Scott 1853, Bradshaw 1864).

The third gathering considered in the Kew database an ‘unspecified type’ K 000387715 was collected in 04/1857 after the publication of the description, hence, cannot have been the basis of the description and has no standing as a type.

The whereabouts of type material of O. lindleyana Wight (non Brongn.) are unknown, it may have been lost. Because Wight (1851) did not give collecting numbers in his description, it is very difficult to ascertain other material to be either unrecog- nised type material, or material examined by Wight. According to ICN Art. 9.3 illustrations of the protologue constitute original material, which makes the illustration in Wight (1851) the only candidate for typification. However, the drawing is by nature interpretative and the true characters of O. lindleyana and its alleged discriminating aspects from O. brunoniana are uncertain. To remove that uncertainty, Wight s.n. K 000387708 is here designated as the epitype of O. lindleyana Wight (non Brongn.) = O. santapaui . This renders all three names nomenclatural synonyms.

Cooke (1907) speculated whether the record of Dalzell & Gibson (1861) under O. lindleyana may refer to O. brunoniana . As those two names are here recognised as synonyms, Cooke’s (1907) opinion is validated here. Seidenfaden (1968) noted that O. brunoniana , O. santapaui , and O. platycaulon are often mixed up in herbaria. The first two are here considered synonyms, while O. platycaulon may be recognised by the bisaccate condition of the lip. The most distinct characters are the longish pedicellate flowers of O. platycaulon , while these are described as sessile in O. lindleyana ; however, the illustrations do not convey any difference in length of the pedicelled ovary. The colour was described as brown with darker centre in O. brunoniana , and dull orange in O. lindleyana ; those colours are well within the range observed in other species. The textual analysis of Wight’s diagnoses shows almost perfect agreement ( Table 1); the subtle differences can easily be attributed to intraspecific variability. Specifically, the margin of the lip is undulating in O. brunoniana illustration ( Fig. 2a ), more strongly crenate in the O. lindleyana illustration ( Fig. 2b ), but the drawing on the sheet of the lectotype / epitype is in between the two ( Fig. 2c ). Additionally, the names share the smooth surface of the disc with surrounding area of the lip with strong crenulate cell clearly seen in the SEM image ( Fig. 2e ).

Figures

Fig. 2 Oberonia brunoniana Wight. a–b. Illustrations of the flowers from Wight (1851): a. Oberonia brunoniana Wight; b. Oberonia lindleyana Wight. — c. Drawing of the flower on lectotype of O. brunoniana = epitype of O. lindleyana (from http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000387708). — d. SEM image of flower. K24122. — Scale bar = 1 mm.