Triplaris poeppigiana Wedd. (1849: 265)

Koenemann, Daniel Mark & Burke, Janelle M., 2025, A nomenclatural synopsis of the genus Triplaris (Polygonaceae), Phytotaxa 700 (2), pp. 115-146 : 132-133

Triplaris poeppigiana Wedd. (1849: 265)

Type (further designated here):— PERU. Loreto Department, Maynas Province, "Maynas Alto", E. F. Poeppig s.n. (lectotype: P [ P 734733 , digital image!]; isolectotype: B [ B 10-0250415 , digital image!], P [ P 734734 , digital image!]) .

Notes:— The specimen cited in the protologue is “(Poeppig).— V. S., Herb. Mus. Par.”, i.e. it is a specimen deposited at P. Brandbyge (1986) designated a Poeppig collection (no. 1958) at P as lectotype, and a F specimen as an isolectotype. Additionally, Brandbyge (1986) listed Poeppig 1957 (mentioned in Meisner 1856) as a paratype but no herbarium was cited for it.

There are two sheets of Triplaris poeppigiana at P ( P 734733 and P 734734), both collected by E. F. Poeppig and both fitting the type locality given in the protologue (“ Maynas alto ”). Both of these P specimens were annotated by Brandbyge as “ lectotype ”. None of these two P sheets bears the collection number cited by Brandbyge (1986), i.e. 1958. It seems that Brandbyge (1986) incorrectly recorded the specimen information in his lectotypification. Therefore, we here report the type specimens as without number of collection (as “ Poeppig s.n. ”, see above).

According to the Art. 9.17 of ICBN, Brandbyge’s proposal represented an incomplete typification that can be further designated, and we here designate the specific specimen P 734733 as the lectotype. P 734733 displays both vegetative and reproductive parts. Another specimen at B ( B 10-0250415) is an isolectotype.

Regarding the number “1958”, the situation is quite complicate. There are two sheets at F ( FV 0077062 F and FV 0043099 F), the first one having a label “ Poeppig 1957 ” which was later crossed out and “ Poeppig 1958 ” was written above it. Brandbyge (1986) does not seem to have seen this sheet which was not cited by him. The second sheet ( FV 0043099 F) bears fragments of both Poeppig 1958 (female) and Poeppig 1957 (male) collections. Brandbyge (1986) has a handwritten annotation label affixed that indicates the Poeppig 1957 fragments as paratype material and the Poeppig 1958 fragments as isolectotype material. There are arrows drawn on the sheet indicating which fragments go with which number.

There is also a collection at G ( G 437663) that is claimed to be a mix of Poeppig 1958 and Poeppig 1957 (based on notes on the sheets themselves). The specimen is separated into two sheets with the second sheet containing both male and female inflorescences. The labels indicate that staminate material represents Poeppig 1957 and the pistillate material represents Poeppig 1958.

Finally, at OXF there is a sheet of Poeppig 1957 ( OXF 190594) with a collection label fitting the type locality (“Maynas”, the handwritten label reads at least “Maynas” with the full text possibly reading “Maynas sub andinicam”). In contrast to the collections at both F ( FV 0043099 F) and G ( G 437663) where Poeppig 1957 is male, Poeppig 1957 at OXF is female.

We have not been able to find any documentation associating the collection numbers 1958 and 1957 with the Poeppig collection cited in the protologue. Furthermore, there seems to be a great amount of confusion as to the physical plant material associated with those collection numbers. As a result, we have not included those sheets as possible original material here, though future work may reveal them to be so.