Sabdariffa heterophylla (Vent.) McLay & R.L.Barrett, 2025

Barrett, Russell L., Yoshikawa, Vania Nobuko, McLay, Todd G. B., Duarte, Marília Cristina, Mwachala, Geoffrey & Hanes, Margaret M., 2025, Reinstatement of Sabdariffa and new combinations to support a monophyletic concept of Hibiscus (Malvaceae: Hibisceae), Australian Systematic Botany 38 (3), pp. 1-97 : 55-56

Sabdariffa heterophylla (Vent.) McLay & R.L.Barrett , comb. nov.

( Fig. 18 c, d .)

Hibiscus heterophyllus Vent., Jard. Malm. 2: 103, t. 103 (1804), non Griff. (1854); Type: Cultivated. France, Malmaison, from material collected in Australia [most likely originating from New South Wales: Sydney region, 1802–1803, Leschenault or Guichenot s.n.], E.P. Ventinat s.n. (holo [mounted on 3 sheets]: G 00341495).

Hibiscus flabellatus Desf. , Tabl . École Bot . 147 (1804). Type citation: ‘… N. Holl.…’. Type: ‘N. Holl.’ [ Australia: New South Wales: Sydney region, Baudin Expedition, 1802–1803, J. Leschenault de la Tour or A. Guichenot s.n.] (holo: P 00270074).

Hibiscus procerus Wall. , Num . List no. 2692 [p. 91] (1831), nom. inval., nom. nud.

Hibiscus persicifolius Eckl. & Zeyh., Enum. Pl. Afric. Austral. 1: 38 (1835). Type: South Africa: In the Great Karroo; between Graaf Reynet and Uitenhage; near Klipplaatrivier, Dec., C.F. Ecklon & C. L. P . Zeyher 305 (Herb. Sond.) (lecto, designated by F. D.Wilson, Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. London (Botany) 29(1): 77 (1999): S G-10316; isolecto: MEL, NBG, S 07-10463 ) .

Hibiscus margeriae A.Cunn. ex Benth., Fl. Austral. 1: 213 (1863); Hibiscus heterophyllus var. margeriae (A.Cunn. ex Benth.) Domin, Biblioth. Bot. 22(89): 405 (1928). Type citation: ‘ The northern specimens belong mostly to a broader-leaved form, distinguished by A. Cunningham under the name H. Margeriae .’ Type: Australia: Queensland: Brisbane River , Sep. 1829, A . Cunningham 43 (syn: K 000659814 ); Brisbane River , A . Cunningham 41 (syn: K 000659815 ) .

Hibiscus heterophyllus var. hispidifolius F.Muell., Fragm. 6: 170 (1868) (as ‘ hispidifolia ’). Type citation: ‘haec ad flumen Fitzroy-River nascitur.’

Type: Australia: Queensland: Fitzroy River, Rockhampton , s. dat., A . Thozet 306 (holo: MEL 18723 !) .

Hibiscus heterophyllus var. genuinus Hochr., Annuaire Cons. Jard. Bot. Genève 4: 122 (1900), nom. inval.

Hibiscus heterophyllus var. leefei Hochr., Annuaire Cons. Jard. Bot. Genève 4: 122 (1900). Type: Australia: Queensland: scrub near Rockhampton , [c. 1870], Rev . I.E. Leefe 44 (holo: K 000659877 ) .

Hibiscus amaliae Domin, Biblioth. Bot. 22(89): 404 (1928). Type: Australia: Queensland: Rockhampton , A. Deitrich 747 (syn:? K, MEL 1057692 !) .

Hibiscus heterophyllus var. discolor Domin, Biblioth. Bot. 22(89): 405 (1928). Type citation: ‘Port Molle, H.M.S. Alert, V. 1881, comm. COPPINGER; Shoalwater Bay, R. Brown Iter Australiense 1802 –05 No. 5126.’ Type: Australia: Queensland: Shoalwater Bay, s. dat., R. Brown s.n. [ Iter Austral. No. 5126] (lecto, here designated: BM 013824575).

Descriptions and illustrations

Ventenat et al. (1804, p. 103, t. 103); Desfontaines (1804, p. 147); de Lamarck and Poiret (1804, p. 220); Bailey (1899, p. 127); Hochreutiner (1900, p. 121); Domin (1928, pp. 404, 405); Bates (1965 a, pp. 89, 79, fig. 23h); Borssum Waalkes (1966, p. 66); Wilson (1974, p. 168, fig. 13, 170, fig. 14); Wilson and Craven (1995, p. 445); Spencer (1997, p. 379); Cooper and Cooper (2004, pp. 277–278, fig.); McLay (2022).

Typification

Hibiscus persicifolius has often been considered a synonym of S. diversifolius . Wilson (1999, p. 77) suggests that the type of Hibiscus persicifolius may have been cultivated or adventive and that the name may actually apply to S. heterophylla . We agree with this conclusion.

The type of Hibiscus heterophyllus var. hispidifolius had not previously been recognised as the protologue information is rather vague but there is only a single collection at MEL annotated with this variety name and we therefore accept this as the holotype.

The Coppinger collection representing Hibiscus heterophyllus var. discolor from Port Molle (Long Island, Whitsundays) has not been traced, therefore a sheet at BM with a favourable amount of material, collected by Robert Brown , is here designated as lectotype of the name Hibiscus heterophyllus var. discolor Domin.

Notes

We could not find evidence of a valid description of Hibiscus procerus in Wallich (1831), therefore we consider this to be a nomen nudum. Several specimens appear to be associated with the proposed name but these have no type status: India : 1816, W. Roxburgh s.n. (G 00218926); India : Wallich Cat . 2692 (K 001116821, K 001116822); cultivated from seed from New South Wales [ Australia] (BR 0000013466190; BR 0000013466206). Wilson (1999, p. 77) states that Roxburgh’s illustration [Icones Roxburghianae 1506 (K)] is of the white-flowered form of S. heterophylla from Australia. Roxburgh (1832) does not mention the name but does list Hibiscus heterophyllus as a species from New South Wales, cultivated in the botanic garden (represented by BM 013732147), consistent with Wilson’s interpretation.

We here exclude all the yellow-flowered forms from the concept of S. heterophylla , placing these under S. divaricata instead, but further research on this complex is required.

Distribution

Queensland and New South Wales, Australia .

Figures

Fig. 18. (a, b) Sabdariffa greenwayi. Photographs by livexplores, iNaturalist: 263003333, CC BY-NC. (c, d) Sabdariffa hetero- phylla. Photographs by (c) Jason Searle, iNaturalist: 234465681, CC BY-NC. (d) Tony Bean, iNaturalist: 196001089, CC BY-NC.