Triplaris guanaiensis Rusby (1896: 111–112)

Koenemann, Daniel Mark & Burke, Janelle M., 2025, A nomenclatural synopsis of the genus Triplaris (Polygonaceae), Phytotaxa 700 (2), pp. 115-146 : 124-125

Triplaris guanaiensis Rusby (1896: 111–112)

Type (designated by Brandbyge 1986):— BOLIVIA. La Paz Department, Vicinity of Guanai [= Guanay], July 1892 (fr), A. M. Bang 1600 (lectotype: US [ US 102474, digital image!]; isolectotypes: B [ B 10-0250419 , digital image!], BM [ BM 993257 , digital image!], CAS [ CAS 4740 , digital image!], G [ G 437680 , G 437679 , digital image!], GH [ GH 36841 , digital image!], M, MO [ MO 216236 , digital image!], NY [ NY 324233 , NY 324234 , NY 324235 , digital image!], PH [ PH 28434, digital image!], PUL [ PUL 293 , digital image!], US [ US 946249, US 102472, US 102473, digital image!]) .

Syntypes:— BOLIVIA. La Paz Department, Vicinity of Guanai, July 1892 (fr), A. M. Bang 1601 ( BM [ BM 993255, digital image!], BR [ BR 5288236, digital image!], CORD [ CORD 2359, CORD 2360, digital image!], M, NY [ NY 324231, NY 324232, digital image!], PH [ PH 28435, digital image!], US [ US 102475, US 946250, digital image!], ZT [ ZT 79984, digital image!].

Notes:— The protologue lists two collections, i.e. numbers 1600 and 1601 (syntypes according to the Art. 9.6 of ICBN). Brandbyge (1986) designates one of them ( Bang 1600) as the lectotype and considered the other one ( Bang 1601) as a paratype. However, Rusby (1896: 112) reported another specimen, i.e. Rusby 1243 stating “This [ Bang 1600 and 1601] is possibly the same as my 1243 from the lower plains, but I think not.” As a result, Rusby 1243 is not original material.

The locality name may have undergone orthographic changes. Rusby (1896: 112) stated “Guanai” as the locus classicus. There is a locality in Bolivia with the name Guanay (La Paz Department). One of the above mentioned isolectotypes ( NY 324235) reports a different locality and date from that of the lectotype designated by Brandbyge (1986). The date is given as 1891 and the locality as “Bolivian Plateau”. It would be truly special if this Triplaris specimen had been collected on the Altiplano as Triplaris grows only in lowlands. Rusby’s (1896) note contrasting Bang 1600 and Bang 1601 with other collections from the “lower plains” suggests that the type locality is at some elevation, but most likely not the high plains. However, this may give some indication as to the general area in which Bang was collecting. Guanay is located at the base of the eastern slope of the Altiplano. Thus, it seems reasonable

(although not certain) that “Guanai” of the protologue is synonymous with present-day Guanay. We leave the spelling as it is given in the protologue but are reasonably confident that the orthographic variant represents the same locality.

There is another specimen including a different collection date ( G 437679). The printed date on the collection slip is 1892, but it has a hand-written 1893 also. We consider this likely an orthographic error.

It is unclear how many different individuals make up the Bang 1600 specimen. The sheets of Bang 1600 contain both males (e.g., PUL 293) and females (e.g., CAS 4740). This is in spite of the fact that Triplaris is described as strictly dioecious. The Bang 1601 specimens appear to be all male.