Triplaris speciosa Taub. (1890: 14–15)

Koenemann, Daniel Mark & Burke, Janelle M., 2025, A nomenclatural synopsis of the genus Triplaris (Polygonaceae), Phytotaxa 700 (2), pp. 115-146 : 136-137

Triplaris speciosa Taub. (1890: 14–15)

Type (designated by Brandbyge 1986):— BRAZIL. [Near Rio de Janeiro, Araruama, 1879–1882] (fl & fr), Glaziou 11442 (lectotype: C [ C 10017408 , digital image!]; isolectotypes: B [ B 10-0250416 , digital image!], C [ C 10017409 , digital image!], F [ F 4973 , photonegative digital image!], K [ K 585022 , digital image!], P [ P 734723 , digital image!]) .

Notes:— The protologue gives the type locality as “Brasilia loco non indicato” but some of the duplicates of the type specimen (Glaziou 11442) contain more precise locality information. The B specimen ( B 10-0250416) gives the type locality as Rio de Janeiro and this is corroborated by the label of the K specimen ( K 585022), which indicates a locality “near Rio de Janeiro ”. The K specimen also indicates a date of collection: November 1879.

The two specimens at P provide contradicting information. They both indicate a collection date of 24 February 1882. As a result, we have given a range of dates for the collection date of the type specimen. The P collections also further refine the type locality by providing “Araruama”, a city on the Atlantic coast some 50 miles east of Rio de Janeiro.

The isolectotype at F is a photonegative of the isolectotype at B.

Triplaris surinamensis Cham. (1833: 138) var. surinamensis , nom. illeg. et superfl. ≡ Blochmannia weigeltiana Rchb. (1828: 163) ≡ Triplaris weigeltiana (Rchb.) Kuntze (1898: 270)

Type (of Blochmannia weigeltiana ):— SURINAME. 1827 (fr), Weigelt s.n. (lectotype: B [ B 10-0250409, digital image!]).

Notes:— Chamisso (1833: 138) validly published the name Triplaris surinamensis , but cited the valid (see Art. 30 of ICBN) Blochmannia weigeltiana as synonym. According to the Art. 52.2. of ICBN, T. surinamensis is superfluous and illegitimate and its type is that of B. weigeltiana , which means that the two names are homotypic synonyms (as also recognized by Brandbyge 1986: 563-564). Brandbyge (1986: 563) cited the type specimen (without specifying what kind of type) as “Weigelt s.n. leg et exsicc. Weigelt 1827”, and the protologue also suggests that this is the case.

Note, finally, that Chamisso (1833: 138) cited also “ Triplaris americana Rottb. ” as a synonym of T. surinamensis . The type of T. americana Rottb. is the type of T. pyramidalis Jacq. The name Triplaris pyramidalis Jacq. ( Jacquin 1763: 7) has priority and should have been adopted by Rottbøll (Art. 52.2, ICBN).

Triplaris surinamensis Cham. (1833: 138) var. benthamiana Meisn. (1855: 50) Type (designated by Brandbyge 1986):— BRITISH GUIANA. On the Creek Longjohn on the upper Essequibo, 1837 (fr), Schomburgk

223 (lectotype: K [K 585017, digital image!]; isolectotypes: BM [BM 993262, 993263, digital image!], NY [NY 324215, digital image!], OXF [OXF 190614, digital image!], TCD [TCD 7235, digital image!]). = Triplaris surinamensis Cham. var. crassifolia Benth. in Hook. (1845: 628)

Notes:— Meisner (1855: 50) cited in the protologue the following syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICBN): “ Weigelt, Schomburgk n. 223 ... R. Spruce ”. Moreover, he reported as synonyms Blochmannia weigeltiana , Triplaris surinamensis var. crassifolia “ex parte” (= in part, partly), and T. americana Rottb. Brandbyge (1986) correctly designated Schomburgk 223 (at K) as the lectotype. Note that this specimen had already been cited by Bentham (1845) for his T. surinamensis var. crassifolia .

Taken together, this is problematic. Meisner (1855) cites another variety ( Triplaris surinamensis var. crassifolia ) as a synonym of T. surinamensis var. benthamiana , but he adds “ex parte” while citing only a single specimen. In the absence of the “ex parte” it would seem that T. surinamensis var. benthamiana is an illegitimate renaming of T. surinamensis var. crassifolia . The “ex parte” being included, the relationship between these names is unclear. Brandbyge (1986) did not address this, rather he considered these plants synonymous with T. weigeltiana .

We located an additional three specimens at P (P734735, P734736, and P734737) labeled with Schomburgk 223. However, the collection dates and numbers (eg. 1854 on the K specimen, but 1841 [or no date] on the P specimens) do not match that of the lectotype (K) and, therefore, we prefer to avoid these P specimens as isolectotypes.