Dracaena usambarensis Engl.

Damen, T. H. J., Burg, W. J. van der, Wiland-Szymańska, J. & Sosef, M. S. M., 2018, Taxonomic novelties in African Dracaena (Dracaenaceae), Blumea 63 (1), pp. 31-53 : 45

21. Dracaena usambarensis Engl. — Map 20

Dracaena usambarensis Engl. (1895) 144. — Neotype (designated here): Volkens 65 (neo K-photo; isoneo BR-photo ( BR0000021770135 )), Tanza- nia, zw. Magali und dem Sigi, 24 Jan. 1893.

Dracaena gazensis Rendle (1911) 214. — Lectotype (designated here): Swynnerton 80 (lecto BM ( BM000911614 )), Zimbabwe, near Chirinda , 10 Oct. 1905, syn. nov.

Dracaena pseudoreflexa Mildbr. (in Mildbraed & Perkins 1910) 63. — Lec- totype (designated here): Wiss. Ergebn. Deut. Zentr.-Afr. Exped., Bot. (1907–1908) Taf. V, G–K (iconotype), syn. nov.

Dracaena brachythyrsa Peter in sched.

Dracaena usambarensis Engl. var. angustifolia Peter in sched.

Distribution — Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, South Africa.

Notes — Dracaena nitens , D. mannii , and D. perrottetii are very similar to D. usambarensis and according to Bos (1984) are synonyms of the same species. However, D. usambarensis is easily distinguished from the others by its large flowers of 40–55 mm long and is reinstated here.

Three syntypes of D. usambarensis are mentioned in the protologue: one collected at Quilimane (probably a Stuhlmann collection), Volkens 65 and Volkens 1938. We could not find this material in B and assume it was destroyed during the WWII bombing of the Berlin-Dahlem herbarium. The only material we could trace was found in K and BR and represent photos of the herbarium sheets Volkens 65 and Volkens 1938. We agree with Mildbraed ( Mildbraed & Perkins 1910) that Volkens 1938 belongs to D. afromontana Mildbr. and should be excluded. The photos of Volkens 65 match the description in the protologue and has been of great help in fixing the application of the name D. usambarensis . The photo in K is bigger and clearer than that in BR. Therefore, we have chosen the photo of Volkens 65 in K as the neotype of D. usambarensis .

Dracaena brachythyrsa is an unpublished name written on the label mounted on Peter 13906 deposited in B (B_10_0184055) and WAG (WAG.1154506).

The protologue of D. gazensis cites two syntypes with different locality data and collecting date, but with one collection number Swynnerton 80 and so a lectotype has to be assigned. Bos recognised this and annotated the BM specimen BM000911614 as lectotype but never formalized his choice. We agree with Bos that the BM specimen with both leaves and an inflorescence is most suited to serve as the lectotype. The other duplicate in BM, with different date, and the specimens in Z and K that carry

Map 20 Distribution of Dracaena usambarensis Engl.

a different number, Swynnerton 80a, are disregarded. We also disregard the specimen Swynnerton 80b from SRGH mentioned in Flora Zambesiaca as the holotype for D. gazensis ( La Croix 2010) , although we did not see material of this specimen .

Dracaena gazensis was described from a plant with the same inflorescence type, flower length and leaf shape as D. usambarensis . In the protologue, Rendle only compared D. gazensis with D. deremensis Engl. ; he probably had not seen any material of D. usambarensis when describing his new species. The protologue of D. pseudoreflexa cites two syntypes, Mildbraed 2813 and Mildbraed 2175. Both specimens are probably lost at B during WWII and we could only trace photos of Mildbraed 2813 in K and BR. The drawing in the protologue is the only original material left and has enough detail to fix the application of this name; therefore we have chosen this drawing as a lectotype for D. pseudoreflexa .

Mwachala & Mbugua (2007) cites a specimen Mildbraed 2813 deposited in B as the holotype of D. pseudoreflexa , hence ignoring the syntype Mildbraed 2175. We have not been able to trace Mildbraed 2813 in B .

Dracaena pseudoreflexa was described from a plant with small- er leaves than the typical D. usambarensis . Leaf shape within D. usambarensis is highly variable and intermediates also exist (Damen, pers. obs.). We do not recognise this form as a distinct taxon. Mildbraed also mentioned that the tube length equals the lobes in the flower of D. usambarensis compared to the lobes being shorter than the tube in D. pseudoreflexa . The protologue of D. usambarensis has no information about the length of the lobes and we only found specimens with lobes shorter than the tube.

Dracaena usambarensis var. angustifolia is an unpublished name written on the label mounted on Peter 18536 deposit- ed in B, BR [BR0000025334135] and WAG [WAG.1154504] [WAG.1154505].