Triplaris hispida Britton ex Rusby (1896: 111)

Koenemann, Daniel Mark & Burke, Janelle M., 2025, A nomenclatural synopsis of the genus Triplaris (Polygonaceae), Phytotaxa 700 (2), pp. 115-146 : 125-126

Triplaris hispida Britton ex Rusby (1896: 111)

Type (designated by Brandbyge 1986):— BOLIVIA. [Cochabamba Department] Espirito Santo , [vicinity of Cochabamba, 1891] (fr), M. Bang 1169 (lectotype: NY [ NY 324238 , digital image!]; isolectotypes: A [ A 36844 , digital image!], BM [ BM 993256 , digital image!], BR, G [ G 437664 , G 437665 , digital image!], GH [ GH 36843 , GH 36845 , digital image!], K [ K 585007 , digital image!], PH [ PH 28437, digital image!], M, MICH [ MICH 1111769 , digital image!], NY [ NY 658958 , digital image!], UC, US [ US 102478, US 102479, digital image!]) .

Syntypes:— BOLIVIA. Beni River, July 1886 (fl), H. H. Rusby 1424 ( BM [ BM 993258, digital image!], K [ K 585008, digital image!], NDG [ NDG 15049, digital image!], NY [ NY 324239 (fragment), NY 658959, digital image!], US [ US 102477, digital image!].

Notes:— The protologue lists two collections used as type material (syntypes). Brandbyge (1986) designated one as the lectotype ( Bang 1169: NY 324238) and the other as paratype (sic) (Rusby 1424). The protologue also reports the provenance as ” Espirito Santo “.All of the labels of the lectotype and isolectotypes give the location “vic. Cochabamba ” which means “vicinity of Chochabamba”. We can reasonably assume that it is the city and not the department of Chochabamba that is being noted here. We had difficulty finding an Espirito Santo near the city of Cochabamba.All we could find was a vague, unpopulated geographic area named “ Espíritu Santo ” to the east of Cochabamba along Route 4 between Paracti and Cristal Mayu. This would be the proper habitat and elevation for Triplaris but the evidence that this is the type locality is circumstantial at best. Brandbyge (1986) recorded the location given on the collection labels of the type specimens "vic. Cochabamba ".

The protologue gives the publication as “ Triplaris hispida Britton sp. n. ”. Thus, Brandbyge (1986) is mistaken in giving the authority as “ T. hispida Rusby ”. Rather, according to ICBN (Art. 46.2 and 46.5), the proper authority is T. hispida Britton ex Rusby.

Triplaris laurifolia Cham. & Schltdl. (1828: 55–56) ≡ Ruprechtia laurifolia (Cham. & Schltdl) C.A.Mey. (1840: 150)

Type (designated by Pendry 2004):— BRAZIL. Equatorial Brazil (fr), Sello s.n. (lectotype: B [ B 10-1001716, digital image!]).

Notes:— Brandbyge (1986) excluded this species in his treatment of Triplaris and considered T. laurifolia Cham. & Schltdl. (1828: 55–56) as heterotypic synonym of T. scandens (Vell.) Cocucci (1957: 361) , following Cocucci (1957). Historically, this species has been difficult to place and has moved back and forth between Triplaris and Ruprechtia with Pendry (2004) naming it as R. laurifolia (see also Brandbyge 1986). Sanchez & Kron (2011), based on molecular data, recently described the new genus Magoniella Adr. Sanchez (2011: 708) and placed T. laurifolia into it. Their results showed that two species ( R. triflora Grisebach [1879: 89] and R. obidensis Huber [1909: 344] ) are basal to the clade including Triplaris and Ruprechtia s.str.. Hence, Sanchez & Kron (2011) also proposed the new genus Salta Adr. Sanchez (2011: 708) for R. triflora (proposing Magoniella for R. obidensis ). At that time, T. laurifolia was also placed in Magoniella on the basis of the habit of this species (liana) which is the same as R. obidensis . However, neither Pendry (2004) nor Sanchez & Kron (2011) included T. laurifolia in the phylogeny. In our opinion, T. laurifolia shares morphological characters with Triplaris , most notably the hollow stem. In the absence of previous molecular studies, we here consider the taxon laurifolia as a Triplaris species.