taxonID	type	description	language	source
DE4CD01CFFABFFC32ECFFED3AC53F56A.taxon	description	Contrary to the statement of Bruyns & Berry (2019: 833), there is no holotype for the name E. conspicua. The Code clearly states that ‘ A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is the one specimen or illustration (but see Art. 40.4) either (a) indicated by the author (s) as the nomenclatural type or (b) used by the author (s) when no type was indicated. ’ (Turland et al. 2018: Art. 9.1). When Brown (1912: 600) described E. conspicua he did not indicate a holotype. Brown (1912) cited an illustration in Monteiro (1876: 13) and a single collection number, Welwitsch 641, but that number consists of at least five specimens that are found at: BM (BM 000911284), COI (COI 00096924), G (G 00018242), K (K 000253152), and LISU (LISU 223726). As Welwitsch grouped distinct collections of the same taxon under a single number, specimens with the same number are not necessarily duplicates (see for example Albuquerque et al. 2009 and Smith & Figueiredo 2020). The specimen at LISU (LISU 223726) is the neotype of the name E. candelabrum Welw.; it was designated by Leach (1981: 484). Leach (1981) simultaneously designated the same specimen as ‘ type’ [here corrected to lectotype (Turland et al. 2018: Art. 9.2)] for the name E. conspicua, so making the two names homotypic. Therefore, if the name E. candelabrum is considered to have been validly published by Welwitsch, the name E. conspicua will be nomenclaturally superfluous and illegitimate (Turland et al. 2018: Art. 52.1).	en	Figueiredo, Estrela, Smith, Gideon F. (2020): Typification of Euphorbia candelabrum (Euphorbiaceae) and associated names. Phytotaxa 447 (3): 216-220, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.447.3.8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.447.3.8
DE4CD01CFFABFFC02ECFFC5BAF0EF54E.taxon	description	The name currently cited in the literature as E. candelabrum Trémaux ex Kotschy was published by Kotschy (1857) as ‘ Euphorbia candelabrum Tremeau’ without further reference to either literature or material. Five years later, Boissier (1862: 84) was apparently the first to assume that ‘ Tremeau’ was a misspelling of ‘ Trémaux’. Thus, Boissier (1862) cited the name as E. candelabrum Trémaux ex Kotschy [Klotzsch, sic] and placed ‘ E. canariensis Trémaux, voy. pitt. Soudan t. XIV. ’ in its synonymy. However, nowhere did Kotschy (1857) refer to any of Trémaux’s publications nor to ‘ E. canariensis Trémaux’. Furthermore, the epithet ‘ candelabrum ’ that Kotschy (1857) ascribed to ‘ Tremeau’ is not mentioned in Trémaux’s work that contains Plate 14 cited by Boissier (1862), i. e., the Atlas ([…] atlas de vues pittoresques […]) (Trémaux 1852 – 1859). As argued by Leach (1981), making a connection between the name E. candelabrum and Trémaux’s plate of E. canariensis is, at best, extremely tenuous, and rooted in an assumption that there was communication between the authors, of which no evidence exists. Carter (1985) argued that, since Trémaux’s Plate 14 has the title ‘ Plantes venenifiques’ [in fact a subtitle below the plate] and Kotschy (1857) used the epithet ‘ venefica’ in the name ‘ Euphorbia venefica Tremeau’, there is an indirect link between the two authors. Boissier (1862: 84) mentioned a single plate under E. candelabrum, i. e., Plate 14. This cannot be considered an effective typification since he did not mention the word type or equivalent (Turland et al. 2018: Art. 7.11). Brown (1912: 599), under ‘ 186. E. candelabrum Trémaux ex Kotschy’, cited two plates as part of his references to the earlier works of Boissier (1862) and Trémaux (1852 – 1859), as follows: ‘ Boiss. in DC. Prodr. xv. ii. 84. E. canariensis, Trémaux, Voy. Soudan Orient. Atlas, tt. 13 – 14, with description. ’; this citation of two plates was followed by subsequent authors such as Carter (1985 & 1988). Leach (1981) questioned the publication date of Trémaux’s plates, noting that it was not clear that they antedated Kotschy’s publication. Trémaux’s Atlas consists of 61 plates that were issued in parts (livraisons) at different times, starting in 1852. Carter (1985), who cited the publication as ‘ Trémaux, M. [sic] 1853. Voyages au Soudan Oriental, Atlas: tabs. 13, 14 with text. Borrani, Paris’, considered the date of publication of Plates 13 and 14 to be 1853, ‘ according to the copy deposited in the library of the Royal Geographical Society, London’ (Carter 1985: 700). Trémaux’s Atlas is presently cited in catalogues (e. g. of the Bibliotèque Nationale de France) as dating from 1852 to 1859. The Atlas does not contain information on the dates of each livraison. Plates 13 and 14 of the Atlas were cited as types of E. candelabrum Trémaux ex Kotschy by Carter (1988: 485) [‘ Trémaux, Voy. Soudan Orient., Atlas: pl. 13 & 14 (1853) ’], but this was not an effective typification of the name as under Turland et al. (2018: Art. 8.1) a lectotype is ‘ […] a published illustration […] ’ [note singular]. Both plates 13 and 14 depict more than one species. Plate 13 depicts several distinct plants, representing at least three taxa: two trees that dominate the landscape, as well as a shrub in the right foreground. Bruyns & Berry (2019) designated Plate 13 as lectotype. They mentioned ‘ … Euphorbia canariensis … ’ in their typification, but did not clearly indicate in that type designation, as they did in the caption to their Figure 5 on p. 834, that the lectotype refers only to the large illustration of a candelabra-shaped tree on the right of the plate. Furthermore, they did not indicate in the designation, nor in the caption to Figure 5, which of the two plants on the right, i. e. the tree or the shrub, they referred to. This has resulted in ambiguity and their proposed lectotypification not being effective under Turland et al. (2018: Art. 9.11). The name E. candelabrum Trémaux ex Kotschy is here unambiguously lectotypified with the illustration on the extreme right of Plate 14 in Trémaux (1852 – 1859; Pl. 14 dating from 1853 fide Carter 1985). Below the illustration on the extreme right is printed ‘ Euphorbia canariensis’. This is the plate that was first associated with the name E. candelabrum Trémaux ex Kotschy, by Boissier (1862: 84). No material of E. candelabrum that was collected by Kotschy is currently known to exist at Herb. W, where Kotschy was employed in the forerunner of the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien (C. Bräuchler, pers. comm). A considerable number of the reportedly 300,000 specimens collected by Kotschy is kept at W.	en	Figueiredo, Estrela, Smith, Gideon F. (2020): Typification of Euphorbia candelabrum (Euphorbiaceae) and associated names. Phytotaxa 447 (3): 216-220, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.447.3.8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.447.3.8
DE4CD01CFFA8FFC02ECFF99BAA29F1EA.taxon	description	The type of the name Euphorbia similis is cited by Bruyns & Berry (2019: 837) as being ‘ missing’. Berger (1907: 69) did not cite any material in the protologue of the name Euphorbia similis. However, an illustration of the plant was included in the work, as Figure 15 (Berger 1907: 70). Brown (1912: 591) noted that the species was ‘ described from a living plant long cultivated at Kew! ’ In 1911 Brown annotated a specimen at K (specimen K 000253385) with: ‘ A branch of this was sent to Mr [Alwin] Berger for comparison with his type & confirmed by him as being the above species [Euphorbia similis] ’. This indicates that a specimen (pressed or preserved in a liquid fixative?) might have been prepared by Berger. In the first decade of the 1900 s Berger was based at the Hanbury Gardens, La Mortola, near Ventimiglia, Italy (Smith & Figueiredo 2014). However, there is no specimen of E. similis kept at HMGBH (A. Guiggi, pers. comm.). Berger’s exsiccata of material he collected or cultivated, including at La Mortola, are held in several herbaria, including B, BH, BR, G, M, NY, and US (see https: // www. sil. si. edu / DigitalCollections / tl- 2 / browse. cfm? vol = 1 # page / 234). The photograph of Euphorbia similis (Berger 1907: 70) is here designated as lectotype of the name as it represents original material.	en	Figueiredo, Estrela, Smith, Gideon F. (2020): Typification of Euphorbia candelabrum (Euphorbiaceae) and associated names. Phytotaxa 447 (3): 216-220, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.447.3.8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.447.3.8
DE4CD01CFFA8FFC02ECFFCCBADF6F30E.taxon	description	The other species published by Kotschy (1857) and that he attributed to ‘ Tremeau’ [note, not to ‘ Trémaux’], was cited by Boissier (1862: 178) as ‘ Euphorbia venefica (Trémaux mss ex Kotschy in litt.) ’. It is not known why Boissier (1862) used the term ‘ mss’ in this case. Without providing an explanation, Brown (1912: 562) changed ‘ venefica’ to ‘ venenifica’, a view that was followed by Carter (1985 & 1988), who referred to ‘ venefica’ as an ‘ authovariant’ [sic] (Carter 1985) or as an ‘ incorrect orthographic variant’ (Carter 1988) of ‘ venenifica’. However, we argue that ‘ venefica’ is not incorrect. The Latin word ‘ veneficus’ means poisonous. The word ‘ venenificus’ does not exist in Latin. As was the case with the name E. candelabrum, there are no specimens or literature references cited by Kotschy (1857) for E. venefica, and Carter (1988 & 2002) likewise cited as type ‘ Trémaux, Voy. Soudan Orient., Atlas: pl. 13 & 14 (1853) ’. This is not an effective typification as two plates were cited and a lectotype is ‘ […] a published […] illustration […] ’ (Turland et al. 2018: Art. 8.1). Additionally, both plates include plants of two species (see discussion above; one of the images in one of the plates should have been clearly and unambiguously designated). There is at least one specimen of the original material of E. venefica. It is deposited at Herb. W and was collected by Kotschy in 1837 and labelled ‘ Euphorbia venefica Tremeaux [sic] ’. This specimen (W 0078596) is here designated as lectotype of the name E. venefica, with the original spelling of the epithet retained.	en	Figueiredo, Estrela, Smith, Gideon F. (2020): Typification of Euphorbia candelabrum (Euphorbiaceae) and associated names. Phytotaxa 447 (3): 216-220, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.447.3.8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.447.3.8
DE4CD01CFFA9FFC12ECFFF1FAA35F5FE.taxon	description	There has been some confusion in the literature regarding the types of the names E. confertiflora and E. reinhardtii, both of which were published by Volkens (1899). Bruyns & Berry (2019: 837) incorrectly cited E. confertiflora as a ‘ nom. illeg. superfl. ’ homotypic with E. reinhardtii, both with the type ‘ Holst 8821 (B, destroyed) ’. According to the protologue of E. confertiflora the name was based on spirit-preserved material collected by Holst under the number 8821. Volkens (1899) stated that the number also included material of E. reinhardtii, i. e., two specimens existed under number 8821 and they were interpreted by Volkens as representing separate species. Carter & Gilbert (1987) synonymised E. confertiflora with E. heterochroma Pax (1895: 242) citing two syntypes, but excluding one of them: ‘ Volkens s. n., excl. Holst 8821 (syntypes B †) ’. In fact there was no mention of any preserved specimen by Volkens (1899), and only Holst 8821 pro parte is the known original material. Later, Carter (1988) synonymised E. confertiflora with E. candelabrum Trémaux ex Kotschy instead, then correcting the type citation to: ‘ Holst 8821, partly (B, holo. †) ’. Carter (1988) postulated that the part of 8821 used to produce the description was juvenile material of the same taxon as the remaining part of 8821. As noted by Carter (1988) and confirmed at Herb. B (Robert Vogt, pers. comm.) this spirit material is no longer extant, thus it is not possible to verify this hypothesis.	en	Figueiredo, Estrela, Smith, Gideon F. (2020): Typification of Euphorbia candelabrum (Euphorbiaceae) and associated names. Phytotaxa 447 (3): 216-220, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.447.3.8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.447.3.8
DE4CD01CFFA9FFC12ECFFC5BACBAF243.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: — [TANZANIA] C. Holst 8821 pro parte (B †).	en	Figueiredo, Estrela, Smith, Gideon F. (2020): Typification of Euphorbia candelabrum (Euphorbiaceae) and associated names. Phytotaxa 447 (3): 216-220, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.447.3.8, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.447.3.8
