Magnolia macklottii (Korth.) Dandy

Chen, J. & Baldini, R. M., 2020, Flora of Singapore precursors, 19: Nomenclatural notes on Artabotrys (Annonaceae) and Magnolia (Magnoliaceae), Blumea 65 (3), pp. 179-187 : 185-186

Magnolia macklottii (Korth.) Dandy

Magnolia macklottii (Korth.) Dandy (1927) 263. — Manglietia macklottii Korth. (1850) 97. — Aromadendron macklottii (Korth.) Sima & S.G.Lu (2012) 67. — Lectotype (designated by Nooteboom 1987): Korthals s.n. (lecto L0038360;isolecto BO 1291543,U0043856), [ Indonesia,] Sumatra, Singalang. See note 1.

var. beccariana (A.Agostini) Noot. — Fig. 5

Magnolia macklottii (Korth.) Dandy var. beccariana (A.Agostini) Noot. (1987) 348. — Michelia beccariana A. Agostini (1926) 184. — Aromadendron macklottii (Korth.) Sima & S.G.Lu var. beccarianum (A.Agostini) Sima & S.G.Lu (2012) 67. — Type: Beccari PS 116 (holo FI007537; iso BM000574751, K000681574,L0038359,MEL2115999,MEL2116000),[ Indonesia,] Sumatra, Mount Singalang, June–July 1878. See note 2.

Magnolia aequinoctialis Dandy (1928) 185. — Type: Houtvester Sumatra’s Oostkust 25 (holo BO 1291529 ;iso L0038358 ),[ Indonesia,] Sumatra, Karolanden .

Magnolia maingayi King (1889) 369. — Aromadendron maingayi (King) Sima & S.G.Lu (2009) 37. — Lectotype (designated here): Maingay s.n. (Kew distribution no. 17) (lecto K000681527 , K000681528 , a single specimen over two sheets; isolecto CAL0000004114 , CAL0000004115 , L0038362 ), [ Malaysia,] Penang. See note 3.

Notes — 1. In the protologue of Manglietia macklottii, Korthals merely cited a locality (Mount Singalang) without mentioning any specimen. Nooteboom (1987) lectotypified this name with L0038360 ( Fig. 5a ) by providing the type statement “Type: Korthals (L, sheet nr. 908.126-1018; iso BO), Sumatra, Mt Singalan)”. Nooteboom (2012) erroneously regarded L0038360 as a holotype. Korthals initially labelled L0038360 as Manglietia oortii but later changed it to Manglietia macklottii . Although Manglietia oortii was also collected from Singalang and also described by Korthals in the same publication (see under Magnolia elegans note 3), the floral and leaf morphology of L0038360 correspond more closely to Korthals’ description of Manglietia macklottii . In particular, the description ‘ foliis concoloribus ’ and ‘ petalis exterioribus calycinis ’ in the protologue of Manglietia macklottii is consistent with L0038360; the description ‘ foliis subtus glaucis ’ in the protologue of Manglietia oortii is inconsistent with L0038360.

2. When discussing Magnolia macklottii var. beccariana, Nooteboom (1987) cited the basionym as ‘ Michelia beccariana Agostini’ immediately following the proposed combination on page 348. Nooteboom (1987) provided a full reference of the basionym ‘Agostini, Atti Com. Accad. Fisiocrit. Siena IX, 7 (1926) sep. 23’ on page 347, where Michelia beccariana is cited as a synonym of Magnolia macklottii . Although Nooteboom’s citation is erroneous (the series and volume number are erroneous, and the day and month of publication are provided in place of the page number), these errors do not prevent valid publication of the new combination according to Art. 41.6 of the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018). Agostini (1926) cited a single gathering ‘Becc. P.S. n.° 116’from ‘monte Singalan’ in the protologue of Michelia beccariana . In the brief introduction to her paper, it was mentioned that she consulted the Webb’s Herbarium in FI, which is in the same room as Beccari’s Herbarium (FI-B). We located only a single specimen of Beccari PS 116 in FI-B ( Fig. 5b ), which represents the holotype of Michelia beccariana . Nooteboom (2012) correctly stated that the holotype is deposited in FI.

3. Although King cited a single gathering ‘ Maingay No. 17’ in the protologue of Magnolia maingayi , several duplicates in various herbaria exist. These are considered as syntypes and it is unclear what material was used by King when preparing his description. It should also be noted that the no. 17 refers to the Kew distribution number rather than Maingay’s collection number. By indicating ‘Type: Maingay 17 (?; iso L)’, Nooteboom (1987) is quite explicitly excluding the L specimen from the possibility of it being the holotype. This seems to make sense as Maingay’s types are largely kept in K . Moreover, the L specimen consists of only a few detached leaves, a few seeds and fragments of petals, whereas the K specimen (mounted over two sheets) has intact twigs with leaves, flowers and fruits, consistent with King’s description. Therefore, the K specimen ( Fig. 5c, d ) is here selected as lectotype. Nooteboom (2012) incorrectly indicated that the holotype is deposited in CAL .

Figures

Fig. 5 a. Lectotype of Manglietia macklottii Korth.(= Magnolia macklottii (Korth.) Dandy),Korthals s.n. (L0038360);b. holotype of Michelia beccariana A.Agostini (= Magnolia macklottii (Korth.) Dandy var. beccariana (A.Agostini) Noot.), Beccari PS 116 (FI007537); c. first sheet of the lectotype of Magnolia maingayi King (= Magnolia macklottii (Korth.) Dandy var. beccariana (A.Agostini) Noot.), Maingay s.n. (Kew distribution no. 17) (K000681527);d. second sheet of the lectotype of Magnolia maingayi King (= Magnolia macklottii (Korth.) Dandy var. beccariana (A.Agostini) Noot.), Maingay s.n. (Kew distribution no. 17) (K000681528).