Artabotrys maingayi Hook.f. & Thomson

Chen, J. & Baldini, R. M., 2020, Flora of Singapore precursors, 19: Nomenclatural notes on Artabotrys (Annonaceae) and Magnolia (Magnoliaceae), Blumea 65 (3), pp. 179-187 : 180-182

Artabotrys maingayi Hook.f. & Thomson — Fig. 2

Artabotrys maingayi Hook.f. & Thomson (1872) 55. — Lectotype (first step designation by Sinclair 1955, second step designation by Turner 2018): Maingay 2617 (Kew distribution no. 34) (lecto K000381024, K000381029, a single specimen over two sheets; probable isolecto L0185527, explicitly including only the right twig and monocarp in packet),[Peninsular Malaysia,] Malacca, 1867–1868. See notes 1–3.

Artabotrys havilandii Ridl. (1912) 382. — Lectotype (designated by Turner 2009): Haviland 1629 (lecto K000691275 ; isolecto SAR n.v.), [ Malaysia,] Sarawak, near Kuching , 9 Sept. 1892. See note 4.

Notes — 1. Hooker & Thomson (1872) merely cited ‘ Malacca, Maingay ’ in the protologue of A. maingayi . Sinclair (1955) cited ‘ Maingay 34 (C., Kew)’ as type material, but the number ‘34’actually refers to the Kew distribution number rather than Maingay’s collection number. Regardless, Sinclair’s type statement constitutes a first-step lectotypification of the name. Turner (2009) cited ‘ Maingay 2617 [Kew distrib. no. 34]’ as the holotype of A. maingayi , but it is impossible to ascertain that this specimen is the only specimen used by the authors. Turner (2011, 2012) likewise regarded ‘ Maingay 2617 ’ as the holotype of A. maingayi . Eventually, Turner (2018) designated Maingay 2617 (Kew distribution no. 34) as the second-step lectotype (Fig. 2a, b), explicitly stating that it is a single specimen over two sheets (K000381024, K000381029). Both sheets bear the same collection label and one of the sheets (K000381029) bears the annotation ‘2617 continued’ (Fig. 2b). This is thus consistent with Art. 8.3 of the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018), which states that “a specimen may be mounted as more than one preparation, as long as the parts are clearly labelled as being part of that same specimen, or bear a single, original label in common”.

2. There is some confusion between the type specimens of A. maingayi and A. pleurocarpus Maingay ex Hook.f. & Thomson , the latter differing from A. maingayi by its cuneate (vs decurrent) leaf base, larger number of flowers per inflores- cence, sparsely (vs densely) hairy petals and long-stipitate (vs short-stipitate) monocarps. Artabotrys pleurocarpus occurs in Peninsular Malaysia and Peninsular Thailand but not in Singapore ( Chen & Eiadthong 2020). Both sheets of the lectotype of A. maingayi were originally identified as ‘ Artabotrys pleurocarpus ’ but subsequently re-labelled as ‘ A. maingayi Hf & T’. Turner (2018) cited BM001014846 as the isolectotype of A. maingayi . This is erroneous, because BM001014846 represents a sepa- rate gathering (Maingay 3261) and is actually the isolectotype of A. pleurocarpus . This confusion probably arose as the original material of A. maingayi and A. pleurocarpus were annotated with the same Kew distribution number (Kew distribution no. 34). Furthermore, BM001014846 bears pencil markings of both names ( A. maingayi and A. pleurocarpus ), with a type label wrongly indicating it as the isotype of A. maingayi . However, the morphology of the specimen and the annotation ‘3261’ clearly indicate that it is actually the isolectotype of A. pleurocarpus .

3. A mixed gathering from L (Fig. 2c) may contain an isolectotype of A. maingayi . This specimen bears a label that indicates Maingay’s name, the Kew distribution no. 34 and the names of both species ( A. maingayi and A. pleurocarpus ). It also has an annotation slip (not glued to the sheet) that states ‘2617’, ‘Malacca’ and ‘1867’, corresponding to the collection number, type locality and year of collection, respectively. The specimen comprises three twigs, two detached leaves and a monocarp enclosed in a packet: the twig bearing a single flower on the right and the monocarp in the packet (outlined in red boxes in Fig. 2c) constitute a probable isolectotype of A. maingayi , the twig bearing many flowers on the left and the two detached leaves (with cuneate leaf base) are clearly A. pleurocarpus , and the twig at the bottom cannot be identified as it lacks leaves and flowers.

4. Multiple gatherings of Haviland and Beccari were cited in the protologue of A. havilandii . Some of them (e.g., Beccari 381, Beccari 713, Haviland 1629) correspond to Ridley’s description but two of them ( Beccari 554 and Haviland 3340) represent another species, Artabotrys roseus Boerl. Turner (2009) selected Haviland 1629 from K (Fig. 2d) as the lectotype of A. havilandii and reduced A. havilandii to a synonym of A. maingayi as the types of the two names are conspecific and A. maingayi represents the earliest legitimate name. It should be noted that Haviland & Hose 1629A from K (K000691273) and Haviland & Hose 1629E from L (L0180468) are not types of A. havilandii . The former was collected on 13 November 1894 and the latter was collected on 26 October 1894, both of which are later than the date of collection of Haviland 1629 (9 September 1892).