taxonID	type	description	language	source
03CA87B2FFE7F501CBEC871A94B10EDA.taxon	description	Lectotype (designated here): — BRAZIL. Amazonas: C. F. P. von Martius s. n. (M- 0274950! [Fig. 1]).	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFE7F501CBEC871A94B10EDA.taxon	description	Notes: — The protologue of C. agraria var. repens provides the following information: “ statura depressa, caule repente, foliis parvis subcordato-ovatis ” and “ in pratis udiusculis ad oppidulum Ega prov. Rio Negro [...] Mart. [Martius] ”. I was able to trace three sheets at M (M- 0274950, M- 0274951 and M- 0274956) that contain original specimens for this name. I here designate one of them, M- 0274950 (Fig. 1) as the lectotype of C. agraria var. repens. The study of the type confirms that this name is a synonym of C. diffusa.	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFE7F501CBEC86BB92D808E7.taxon	description	Since C. guyanensis does not appear to threaten any currently accepted name, Art. 56.1 does not apply and therefore this name could not be proposed for rejection. Since it is not possible to lectotypify C. guyanensis, there is no basis to neotypify it, and no reason to reject it, this name is here listed as nomem dubium.	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFE7F502CBEC837297D70DC2.taxon	description	Lectotype (designated here): — BRAZIL. Bahia: “ in silvis udis ad Caitete ”, C. F. P. von Martius s. n. (M- 0243589! [Fig. 2]; isolectotype M- 0243590!).	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFE7F502CBEC837297D70DC2.taxon	description	Notes: — The protologue of C. martiana (Seubert 1855: 265) provides the following information on the type: “ Crescit in silvis udis ad Caitete prov. Bahiensis: M. [Martius] Floret Octobri ”. There are two sheets kept at M (M- 0243589 and M- 0243590) that can be considered original material for this name; the specimens on these two sheets evidently belong to the same species. These two sheets have labels with different numbers (59 and 60, respectively), which at first would suggest that they are not part of the same gathering. However, these labels are not Martius’ collector numbers and they were added much later by Adolph Toepffer as part of an effort to organise the collections housed at M (Hans-Joachim Esser, pers. comm.). I here designate one of these sheets (M- 0243589; Fig. 2), which has information on the label that matches exactly that provided in the protologue, as the lectotype of C. martiana.	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFE2F504CBEC85F5932B0B0E.taxon	description	Lectotype (designated here): — GUYANA. R. H. Schomburgk 1531 (B- 100247303! [Fig. 3]; isolectotype K- 000363253!).	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFE2F504CBEC85F5932B0B0E.taxon	distribution	Distribution: — Eastern tropical and subtropical South America: northeastern Argentina, eastern Bolivia, Brazil, Guyana (where the type originated from), Paraguay, and Uruguay, in altitudes ranging from sea level to 1000 m (Barreto 1997, Zuloaga et al. 2008, Fernández & Cayola 2014). Habitat: — Open areas, such as cerrado grasslands. Conservation status: — Least Concern (LC). This species has a wide distribution and is fairly common through its range. Notes: — Commelina platyphylla was first published by Schomburgk (1849: 897) for Guyana; however, the name was not validly published since it lacked a diagnosis and description (Art. 38.1; see also Art. 38.3). This name was later validly published by Seubert (1855: 262), who indicated the material was collected by “ [R. H.] Schomburgk in Guyana anglica ”, and cited it could also occur in northern Brazil. No further information was given on the type specimen. Since Johann Friedrich Klotzsch was in Berlin when both Schomburgk’s and Seubert’s names were published it is likely his specimens were there too. Therefore I designate here the specimen on a sheet kept at B (B- 100247303; Fig. 3) as lectotype for C. platyphylla; a duplicate (isolectotype) is kept at K (K- 000363253). The authorship of C. platyphylla has been erroneously presented in recent literature such as Fernández & Cayola (2014) and Hassemer et al. (2016 b), and the databases IPNI (http: // www. ipni. org) and Tropicos (http: // tropicos. org). The name C. platyphylla var. balansae was published by Clarke (1881: 177), originally spelled “ Balansai ”, based on plants collected in Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay. He described this variety as differing from C. platyphylla by “ foliis obtusis; seminibus oblongis ”. Later, Herter (1940) raised this entity to species rank, without any explanation regarding this change. The protologue (Clarke 1881: 177) provided the following information concerning the type: “ Paraguay (Balansa n. 593, floribus albis); Asuncion (Gilbert). Bolivia; in Andibus prope Chiquitos (D’Orbigny n. 942). Uruguay (Aug. de St-Hilaire n. 2566 partim, et n. 2567 partim; Lorentz n. 603 partim) ”; all these gatherings are to be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.5). As the first element mentioned, and being clearly in accordance with the description in the protologue, I chose a lectotype from the Balansa 593 specimens. Considering that Charles Baron Clarke worked for many years in Kew, I designate here a sheet kept at K (K- 000363250; Fig. 4) as lectotype for C. platyphylla var. balansae. Commelina platyphylla var. balansae has already been regarded as a synonym of C. platyphylla in taxonomic literature (Bacigalupo 1964) and check lists (Zuloaga et al. 2008, Fernández & Cayola 2014); however, some authors have accepted it as a separate taxon (e. g., Barreto 1997). Having had the opportunity to compare the types, I found no characters that permit to separate these two and therefore I agree with its synonymisation under C. platyphylla.	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFE2F504CBEC831597960516.taxon	description	Lectotype (designated here): — [illustration] tab. 36 (II) in Seubert (1855).	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFE2F504CBEC831597960516.taxon	description	Notes: — The protologue of C. pohliana provides the following information about the type: “ Crescit prope Ponzo Allegre prov. Minarum Geraës: Pohl in Herb. Caes. Vindob. n. 891 ”. No extant specimens that could be considered original material for this name could be located at W (Armin Löckher, pers. comm.), nor at any other herbaria consulted. Therefore, the only extant material for typification is the illustration (tab. 36 [II]) provided in Seubert (1855), which I designate here as lectotype of the name C. pohliana.	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFE1F507CBEC85F5923D0A18.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: — TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO. Trinidad, Irois Forest district under cacao trees in quantities, 25 January 1928, W. E. Broadway 6716 (K- 000363259! [Fig. 6]).	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFE1F507CBEC85F5923D0A18.taxon	distribution	Distribution: — Neotropical, occurring from southern Mexico to Paraguay and central Brazil, including Trinidad and possibly some other Caribbean islands (Hunt 1994). Habitat: — Forest understorey. Conservation status: — Least Concern (LC). This species has a wide distribution and is common through its range. Notes: — The protologue of C. rufipes (Seubert 1855: 265 – 266) provides the following information on the type: “ Crescit in Brasiliae prov. St. Pauli: M. [Martius] in Herb. Reg. Monac. ”. There are two sheets kept at M (M- 0210921 and M- 0210920) that can be considered original material for this name; the specimens on these two sheets evidently belong to the same species. These two sheets have labels with different numbers (76 and 77, respectively), which at first would suggest that they are not part of the same gathering; however, these labels are not Martius’ collector numbers, as they were added much later by A. Toepffer as part of an effort to organise the collections housed at M (Hans-Joachim Esser, pers. comm.). Only one of these sheets contains information on the collection date (1817, on M- 0210921). Here, I accept that these two sheets can be considered as belonging to the same gathering, and therefore, duplicates. One of these two sheets (M- 0210921; Fig. 5) is annotated with Seubert’s handwriting: “ Commelyna ochreata rufipes mihi ”; therefore, I here designate this sheet as the lectotype of C. rufipes. One hundred and twenty-six years after the description of Commelina rufipes, Commelinopsis glabrata was described for Trinidad. Hunt (1981) noted this was a widespread species in tropical America which was hitherto erroneously identified as Commelinopsis persicariifolia (Redouté 1816: tab. 472) Pichon (1946: 227). He presents the new species as similar to Commelinopsis rufipes (≡ Commelina rufipes), but differing by the glabrous bracts, slightly larger leaves, and glabrous leaf sheets. In fact, he admits that “ C. rufipes and C. glabrata, when more fully studied, may prove to be conspecific ”. Six years later, Faden & Hunt (1987) place this taxon into the genus Commelina at varietal rank: C. rufipes var. glabrata. Since then, this taxon has been accepted in every work that included C. rufipes (e. g., Barreto 1997, 2005, Aona & Leoni 2006, Espejo-Serna et al. 2009, Fernández & Cayola 2014, Aona 2015, Aona & do Amaral 2016). I must highlight here that Tropicos (http: // tropicos. org) erroneously mentions that Fernández & Cayola (2014) accept C. rufipes var. glabrata as a synonym of C. rufipes. A careful reading of Fernández & Cayola (2014: 516 – 517) reveals that the authors confusingly list all infraspecific names under the species heading of C. rufipes, and later unambiguously cite C. rufipes var. glabrata as an accepted infraspecific taxon. There appears to be no suitable character to distinguish between these two varieties, and hence I propose here the synonymisation of Commelinopsis glabrata under Commelina rufipes. With the revision of herbarium specimens from the entire range of C. rufipes I could observe that indumentum and leaf size vary greatly within this species, and this variation does not follow a geographic pattern. The indumentum of the leaf sheaths is today considered a distinguishing character between the two varieties (Barreto 1997, Aona & Leoni 2006, Aona & do Amaral 2016). The leaf sheaths of C. rufipes vary from being completely glabrous to completely covered in a dense red indumentum but intermediates linking these two extremes are common. Furthermore, I should highlight that the leaf sheaths of the type specimen of Commelinopsis glabrata (K- 000363259; Fig. 6) are not completely glabrous.	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFE1F50BCBEC8265972B0CE3.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: — GUYANA. R. H. Schomburgk 490 (B- 100247302! [Fig. 7]; isotype K- 000363254!).	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFE1F50BCBEC8265972B0CE3.taxon	distribution	Distribution: — Confirmed occurrences in Guyana (where the type originated from), Paraguay and southern Brazil. Habitat: — Open areas, particularly forest edges. Conservation status: — Least Concern (LC). This species has a wide distribution in South America and does not seem to be threatened. Notes: — The authorship of C. schomburgkiana has been erroneously presented in recent literature such as Barreto (1997), Zuloaga et al. (2008) and Hassemer et al. (2016 b), and databases such as IPNI (http: // www. ipni. org) and Tropicos (http: // tropicos. org). The taxonomic status of C. schomburgkiana, which is part of the C. diffusa group, has until now been confusing because the only reliable character to distinguish it from the latter species is leaf shape; linear-lanceolate in C. schomburgkiana, ovate to elliptic in C. diffusa. However, I discovered another taxonomically informative character. The flowers of C. schomburgkiana have three white and blue staminodes (Fig. 8), whereas those of C. diffusa have two yellow staminodes.	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFEDF50BCBEC877E94620EB3.taxon	description	Lectotype (designated here): — BRAZIL. Bahia: C. F. P. von Martius s. n. (M- 0274948! [Fig. 9]).	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFEDF50BCBEC877E94620EB3.taxon	description	Notes: — The protologue of C. schomburgkiana var. brasiliensis provides the following information: “ pedicello interiore abortivo, exteriore 1 – 2 - floro ” and “ in interioribus prov. Bahiensis leg. Martius ”. I was able to trace one sheet at M that can be considered original material for this name. Therefore, I designate here the specimen on this sheet (M- 0274948 — Fig. 9) as lectotype of the name C. schomburgkiana var. brasiliensis. Study of the specimen confirms that this name is a synonym of C. diffusa.	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
03CA87B2FFEDF50BCBEC868E93D30ADF.taxon	description	Notes: — The protologue of C. vestita provides the following information about the type: “ Crescit in Brasilia meridionali: Sellow in Herb. Reg. Berol. ”. The type of this name, which was collected by Friedrich Sello in southern Brazil, was most probably destroyed in 1943 when B was bombed. No extant specimens that could be considered original material for this name could be located at B (Robert Vogt, pers. comm.), nor at any other herbaria consulted, and no illustrations were cited in the protologue. The identity of C. vestita is not completely clear, because the description in the protologue is not informative enough: “ foliis oblique ovato-lanceolatis supra scabris utrinque hirtis, vaginis hirtis ore ferrugineo-ciliatis ”. Based on this description, C. vestita resemble any of the two South American red-haired Commelina species: C. obliqua and C. rufipes. Barreto (1997: 403) incorrectly regards C. vestita, along with C. monticola Seubert (1855: 264), a synonym of C. obliqua (see Hassemer et al. 2016 b), as a synonym of C. villosa (Clarke 1881: 183) Clarke ex Chodat & Hassler (1901: 438). This is incorrect because C. villosa is part of the C. erecta complex, which is morphologically distinct from other red-haired species such as C. obliqua and C. rufipes. Unfortunately the protologue of C. vestita provides no information on the fruits and seeds (“ Fructus et semina, quae in hocce Commelinae genere validissimos characteres specierum distinctioni inservientes praebere videntur adhuc ignota ”), which could be useful for the application of this name. Since both Clarke (1881: 162) (who must have seen the type at B) and Standley & Steyermark (1944: 33) regarded C. vestita as an infraspecific taxon of species today considered synonyms of C. obliqua, I here choose to follow their judgement and consider C. vestita as a synonym of C. obliqua. As an additional support to this decision, C. rufipes is not recorded for southern Brazil. Neotypification of the name C. vestita is undesirable, because the area cited in the protologue (southern Brazil, with an area of 576,774.31 km 2) is too vast to permit the selection of an appropriate specimen to link to this name; furthermore, the name C. vestita does not appear to threaten any name in current use.	en	Hassemer, Gustavo (2017): Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on neotropical Commelina (Commelinaceae), and an identification key for Brazil, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname and Uruguay. Phytotaxa 303 (2): 101-117, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.303.2.1
