Mucuna novo-guineensis Scheff.

Wiriadinata, H., Ohashi, H. & Adema, F., 2016, Notes on Malesian Fabaceae (Leguminosae-Papilionoideae) 16. The genus Mucuna, Blumea 61 (2), pp. 90-124 : 113

30. Mucuna novo-guineensis Scheff.

Mucuna novo-guineensis Scheff.(1876) 18; Verdc. (1979) 450,f. 104, 107A; Wilmot-Dear (1990) 32. — Neotype (here designated by Adema): Van Royen & Sleumer 6300 (L), Netherlands New Guinea, distr. Hollandia , Cycloop Mountains , road Sentani to Bozai village, 110 m, 26 July 1961.

Mucuna kraetkei Warb. (1891) 329. — Type: Warburg s.n.? (n.v.), Papua New Guinea, Hatzfeldhaven.

Distribution — Malesia: Moluccas: Halmahera; New Guinea.

Habitat & Ecology — Primary, secondary or swamp forest, usually along rivers, at river or stream banks. Altitude up to 2000 m. Soil: stoney clay, limestone, granite, volcanic sedi- ments. Flowering: February to November; fruiting: March, July, December.

Uses — Stems are used for lashing and bridge construction. The sap is used for dying stringbags. Men in Haus Tambura ( E Sepik prov.) drink the sap during ceremonial occasions .

Note — Sap is watery, colourless or milky at first slowly turn- ing to red and later to black. Mucuna novo-guineensis is in New Guinea a rather common liana. From other red/orange-flowered Mucuna species ( M. bennettii , warburgii ) it can easily be distin- guished by its very short calyx teeth. Mucuna novo-guineensis is a rather variable species, especially in the length of inflorescences and peduncles and in the indumentum of several parts. Shrimps are attracted by flowers that drop into the water (pers. comm. Wanda Ave, Wim Vink). Mucuna novo-guineensis was described by Scheffer (1876) on fruiting specimens. The description of calyx and fruits fit nicely with that of specimens usually called M. novo-guineensis . He based his description on three specimens collected by Teijsmann in New Guinea: near Doré, near Andaj and in the Humboldt baai. As far as known to us no Teijsmann material from these localities exist nowadays. In his manuscript for a Flora Malesiana treatment Wiriadinata named Teijsmann 7465 as ‘type’. The BO and L duplicates of this specimen consist of leafy twigs only and are in a bad shape. The L duplicate seems to lack stipellae and probably belongs to M. bennettii . As Scheffer used three specimens in his description Wiriadinata should have selected a lectotype. However, as there are no original Teijsmann specimens available, a neotype is needed.The specimen Teysmann 7465 proposed as type is of uncertain provenance and not identifiable. We decide to select as neotype a specimen from the same general area (W Irian, ‘ Netherlands New Guinea’) were Teijsmann collected his original specimens.