Hemiperis micrantha, (FRAPP. EX CORDEM.) SCHLTR.

Hermans, Johan & Cribb, Phillip J., 2025, Comments regarding the identity and typification of two species of Cynorkis Thouars (Orchidaceae, Orchidioideae, Habenariinae) from the Mascarene Islands, Adansonia (3) 47 (20), pp. 333-339 : 336-338

TYPIFICATION OF HEMIPERIS MICRANTHA (FRAPP. EX CORDEM.) SCHLTR. (CF. Pailler et al. 2024)

It is clear that the large genus Cynorkis is polyphyletic and contains a number of species that may belong elsewhere. Ongoing genetic work will undoubtedly unravel this compound group.

The taxonomic position and nomenclature of Cynorkis micrantha (Frapp. ex Cordem.) Schltr. are complex, as outlined by Pailler et al. (2024). The treatment of this particular species by Hermans & Cribb (2021, 2023) contains errors, some of which have already been addressed ( Hermans & Cribb 2023 addendum) and we are grateful to Pailler and his coworkers for their suggestions. Their neo-typification of Hemiperis micrantha with Pailler 167 (REU007364), however is questionable: Frappier in Cordemoy (1895: 239) was rarely specific on the material used in his descriptions, in this instance his protologue has simply: ‘ Hab., etc...? vu sec. spont. (herbier du Mus. de la Reun. ’ In line with the interpretation of other Frappier and Cordemoy herbarium material, it can be assumed that Frappier described plants that became part of the Cordemoy herbarium, initially in La Réunion but later transferred to the Aix-Marseille Université (MARS) herbarium. During our research, two specimens from the Cordemoy herbarium (MARS and K) were found to correspond with the protologue and, being associated with the author and his herbarium and matching more recent material, were therefore chosen as lectotypes ( Hermans & Cribb 2021: 103, not 2023 as stated in Pailler et al. 2024: 150). The two specimens were annotated by Cordemoy as Hemiperis , ( Habenaria ), ( Bescherellia ) aphylla, an unpublished name which was probably initially intended for the plants, they are without much doubt part of original material used by Frappier. Pailler et al. (2024: 150) dismissed the lectotypification because it was:‘collected in 1896, after the (1895) publication of the basionym’ [ collecté en 1896, après la publication du basionyme en 1895]. This statement is incorrect: the specimen of ‘ Cordemoy 9 ’ at K [K001551482] is part of a small group of orchid material acquired in 1896 and 1897 by the Kew herbarium, together with Cordemoy’s handwritten labels. The label on ‘ Cordemoy 9 ’ is annotated by Robert Allen Rolfe (1855-1921), then curator of the orchid herbarium at Kew, as ‘ Com. Dr. Cordemoy 1896’ and ‘Id of Reunion’, the same note being found on other specimens obtained at the same time. The ‘ Com.’ is an abbreviation of ‘ communicavit ’ and clearly refers to the date the specimen arrived at Kew and not to its date of collection. Therefore, it is more than likely to have been collected before 1895. The MARS lectotype ‘ Cordemoy 9 ’ was examined by us in P, when the Cordemoy herbarium was on loan to Jean Bosser but before it was recently mounted and re-arranged at REU. This unmounted specimen comprised several plants, labels and notes, including one separate note with the date 22 March 1897 but this is not in Cordemoy’s handwriting and is likely to be a later addition. We have tried to verify this MARS specimen but notwithstanding several requests for information to REU we have received no indication of its whereabouts since it was mounted. The Cordemoy/ Frappier herbarium material is original and strongly associated with protologue, therefore, according to the nomenclature code ( Turland et al. 2018), under article 9.3, 9.8, 9.11, 9.12, 9.19 the designated lectotypes ‘ Cordemoy 9 ’ are valid and should be followed; the lectotype takes precedence over the neotype unless there is serious conflict with the protologue.

Pailler et al. (2024: 150) also stated, without providing details, that the description of the species by Hermans & Cribb (2023: 118) appears erroneous compared with the protologue and type. In common with all descriptions in modern Floras, our text was based not only on the protologue and type but also on all of the additional herbarium material, dissections, drawings, descriptions, living material and photographs. As a result, the description gives the full range of measurements and characteristics of the species, which as to be expected goes in some respects beyond the protologue.