Piper insectifugum Seem., 1868

Gardner, R. O., 2013, Piper (Piperaceae) in New Guinea: the climbing species, Blumea 57 (3), pp. 275-294 : 284

9. Piper insectifugum Seem. — Fig. 3c

Piper insectifugum C.DC. ex Seemann (1868) 262; C.DC. (1869) 354; A.C.Sm. (1981) 61; R.O. Gardner (2010) 7. — Type: Seemann 569 (BM, GH, K), Viti Levu, 1860.

Piper austrocaledonicum C.DC. (1869) 346; Chew (2003) 16, syn. nov. — Syntypes: Forster s.n. (BM n.v.), New Caledonia; Vieillard 1227 ( GH n.v., P), New Caledonia .

Piper peekelii C.DC. (1922) 354; Peekel (1984) 129; Chew (2003) 16. — Type: Peekel 322 (holo B), Neu-Mecklenburg [New Ireland].

Piper melula Trel. (1928) 148; Chew (2003) 20, syn. nov. — Type: Brass 1130 (holo A; iso BRI n.v.), Papua New Guinea, Vailala [‘Vaitata’] River , Gulf Province.

Piper philippinum sensu Quisumb. (1930) , non Miq. (1843–1844) 322.

Distribution — Taiwan, Philippine Is., New Guinea, Solomon Is., New Caledonia, Fiji and Samoa.

Habitat & Ecology — In forest, near the sea or some way inland but at low altitude.

Notes — For P. insectifugum in New Guinea De Candolle (1925: 219) cited Riggenbach 16 [Mamberamo region] and Moskowski 16 [no locality given]. Chew (2003), under P. austrocaledonicum , cited two collections: Peekel 322 as in the synonymy above, and Schlechter 14381, ‘ Torricelli’, BO. I have only seen Peekel 322, and can confirm its identity.

I have also seen some of the material maintained by Chew (2003) as P. melula and do not think this taxon differs from P. insectifugum in any important way (compare Fig. 3c with Gardner 2010: f. 6a, b). Chew (2003: 20) in the notes following his full description suggested that P. melula appeared “to be related to P. austrocaledonicum ”.

Piper insectifugum appears to be rare on the New Guinea mainland (I cannot add to the specimens listed by Chew (2003) under P. austrocaledonicum or P. melula ). However, for the Bismarck Archipelago Peekel (1984: 129) says: “Common on the foreshore”. It is in accordance with this observation that all (four) P. melula specimens cited by Chew (2003) come from coastal or low-altitude places. In particular, the type is from ‘Hewa’ on the Vailala River, a locality 3 days canoe travel inland from Ihu near the mouth of that river ( Van Steenis-Kruseman 1950: 76). Piper philippinum sensu Quisumbing and the very similar P. albidirameum C.DC. and P. magnaasanum C.DC. ( Quisumbing 1930) are typified from Philippine Islands collections. Quisumbing’s excellent descriptions and illustrations leave little doubt in my mind that these names are synonyms of one another, and also indicate (e.g., in the narrow male spikes and large, partly concrescent fruitlets with large stigmas), that these taxa are conspecific with P. insectifugum . The occurrence of sterile female floral structures in the flowers of P. philippinum ( Quisumbing 1930, Gardner 2006) should not, I think, be decisive in keeping this apart from P. insectifugum , since the bisexual condition is known to occur sporadically at least in several other species, e.g., in P. betle and P. nigrum .

Quisumbing (1930: 112) thought the type of P. philippinum was the male collection Cuming 912, but Miquel simply mentioned this as possibly being conspecific with the female collection Cuming 1642 he was describing ( Miquel 1843 –1844, Gilbert & Xia 1999). Miquel’s statement that the female had free fruitlets 4– 5 mm long means it cannot be placed in P. insectifugum , so this name still has priority for the taxon being considered here. The extension of the range of P. insectifugum to Taiwan is based on the occurrence there of P. kwashoense Hayata , the name used by Gilbert & Xia (1999: 193) to replace P. philippinum sensu Quisumbing.

Figures

Fig. 3 Specimens of Piper species. – a. P. caninum Blume. – b. P. decumanum L. – c. P. insectifugum Seem. – d. P. lessertianum C.DC. (a: NGF 26031, A; b: Darbyshire & Hoogland 8124, A; c: Brass 23997, A; d: Cuming 1343, BM).