Triplaris melaenodendron (Bertol.) Standl. & Steyerm. (1943: 5) subsp. colombiana (Meisn.) Brandbyge (1986: 566)

Koenemann, Daniel Mark & Burke, Janelle M., 2025, A nomenclatural synopsis of the genus Triplaris (Polygonaceae), Phytotaxa 700 (2), pp. 115-146 : 129

Triplaris melaenodendron (Bertol.) Standl. & Steyerm. (1943: 5) subsp. colombiana (Meisn.) Brandbyge (1986: 566)

≡ Triplaris colombiana Meisn. (1856: 175–176)

Type (designated by Brandbyge 1986):— PANAMA / COLOMBIA. [North coast of western Colombia near Panama, 1831–1833] (fr), Cuming 1108 (lectotype: K [ K 585002 , digital image!]; isolectotypes: K [ K 585003 , K 585004 , K 585005 , digital image!], MEL [ MEL 2457048 , MEL 2457049 , MEL 2457053 , digital image!], MO [ MO 2073271 ], NY [ NY 324217 , NY 324222 , NY 324223 , digital image!], W [ W 68505 , W 68506 , digital image!]) .

Notes:— This plant was originally described by Meisner (1856) as Triplaris colombiana Meisn. Brandbyge (1986) reduced this species to a subspecies of T. melaenodendron (Bertol.) Standl. & Steyerm. , retaining the type of T. colombiana for T. melaenodendron subsp. colombiana . The protologue of Triplaris colombiana reports “In Panamâ et Colombíâ, Cuming, n. 1108!” (syntype according to Art. 9.6 of ICBN) and “v. s. [vidi siccus] in herb. Shuttlew. et Arnott.”. Brandbyge (1986) designated the specimen Cuming 1108 as the lectotype, indicating the herbaria K and W. There are, however, specimens of Cuming 1108 also at NY, of which two ( NY 324217 and NY 324222) bear the annotation “Mr. R. J. Shuttleworth”. This suggests that one of the specimens cited by Meisner (as "v. s. in herb. Shuttlew. et Arnott.") was likely Cuming 1108. A third NY specimen ( NY 324223) bears a label indicating that it is "Cuming n. 1108. B nob. in hb. Arnott!", suggesting that Arnott had a duplicate of Cuming 1108 in his herbarium.

The collection date of the type is ambiguous. It is 1833 on W 68505, but is 1831 on K 585005. NY 324223 reports the collection date as “17.June.51 [1851]”, which is very different from both 1831 and 1833 and may represent the date NY received the collection.

The type locality is in question. The lectotype ( K 585002) offers no locality data. K 585003 and K 585005 (isolectotypes) each bear the original label that reads “1108 Triplaris , Panama et Colombia occidentalis., H. Cuming, 1831”. The third isolectotype ( K 585004) has the following label: “1108 Triplaris , Colombia 6. T. Colombiana Meisner ”. One of the NY specimens ( NY 324223) was collected in “North Coast of Colombia and Panama ”, and the W and MEL specimens report the locality as “Ex Panama et Colombia (nec Chile) Cuming n. 1108.”. All of these localities agree each other. On the other hand, NY 324217 and NY 324222 include a more specific locality (“Greville, Panama.”) which may contradict the label on K 585004. However, we note that Panama was part of Gran Colombia until 1831 and, therefore, the names may refer to the same geographic area. We have been unable to locate Greville. It is likely that Cuming 1108 was collected on the northern coast of the Darien but we give a broad, hybrid locality here.

In reviewing the MA specimens currently available through JSTOR Plants (of which there are nearly 40), there is no material with collector or number that could link them to the Cuming 1108 collection.

There is a photonegative of Cuming 1108 at F ( F 31190). The specimen is indexed as “ Triplaris cumingiana Fisch. et al. ex.” from Chile, but the label clearly reads “ Triplaris colombiana Meisn. … Ex Panama et Colombia (nec Chile) Cuming n. 1108” (from Panama and Colombia and not Chile). The label also has a note by Cuming that indicates he believes this plant might be the same as T. cumingiana Fisch. and C.A.Mey. ex C.A.Mey. , “Forsan eadem ac T. cumingiana Fisch. et Mey. ” (Maybe the same as T. cumingiana Fisch. and Mey. ), which is probably the source of the indexing error in the F collections. This photonegative is a picture of one of the lectotypes at W ( W 68505). The photonegative reveals that there is a leaf missing from W 68505. There is another specimen at W ( W 68506) that, however, has no information on the sheet. Brandbyge annotated this specimen with "probably an isotype " of T. melaenodendron (Bertol.) Standl. and Steyerm. subsp. colombiana (Meisn.) Brandbyge ( T. melaenodendron is homotypic with T. colombiana ). Upon close inspection, one of the leaves on W 68506 is the same as the missing leaf from W 68505 as seen in F 31190. As a result, we include both W 68505 and W 68506 as isolectotypes.

Collections of Triplaris melaenodendron subsp. colombiana made by Fernandez and Pérez-Arbaláez do not represent type material. These specimens represent other material Brandbyge (1986) consulted in the process of making the synonymization of T. melaenodendron and T. colombiana (see also the entry of T. melaenodendron subsp. mutisiana below).

The various type specimens of Triplaris colombiana (Cuming 1108) contain a mixture of male and female inflorescences. Brandbyge (1986) described Triplaris as a strictly dioecious genus. Either these collections are made up of multiple individuals or Triplaris is monoecious.