Search for a command to run...
*(2985) Amorphophallus peyri Linden ex T. Moore & Mast. in Gard. Chron., ser. 2, 14: 120. 24 Jul 1880 [Angiosp.: Araceae], nom. utique rej. prop. Typus: non designatus. Amorphophallus peyri Linden ex T. Moore & Mast. appeared (in Gard. Chron., ser. 2, 14: 120. 24 Jul 1880) in a review of the Belgian National Horticultural Exhibition in Brussels in 1880 in which it was reported: “For [the class of] 12 new plants introduced since 1878, M. Linden was 1st, while M. Van Geert and M. Jacob-Makoy also competed. Among M. Linden's plants were […] Amorphophallus Peyri, from the Seychelles, an Aroid with stiff, cylindric, erect leaf-stalks, creamy pink in colour, and marked with thin, close, longitudinal, blackish lines: the blade of the leaf is palmate, with narrow lanceolate-acuminate, entire dark green segments; […].” The exhibition was further reported on, in more or less abridged form but containing the same description of Amorphophallus peyri in English, Dutch and German, by Moore in Florist & Pomol. 1880: 143. Sep 1880; Groenewegen & al. in Sempervirens 9: 243. 31 Jul 1880; Otto in Hamburger Garten- Blumenzeitung 36: 400. 1880; and Lebl in Ill. Gart.-Zeitung 24: 261. 1880, here without description. In the only Belgian account we have found with the plant included, de la Devansay (in Fl. Serres Jard. Eur. 23: 95. 1880) listed it as Amorphophallus La Peyrie [sic], here also without description. Each of these instances where the name is accompanied by a validating description is either explicitly dated after 24 July 1880, or, when the exact date of publication is not readily discernible, clearly drawn from the Gardeners’ chronicle report. We therefore conclude that Linden's name was first validly published by Moore & Masters (l.c.), both of whom are known to have been co-editors of Gardeners’ chronicle at that time (see Stafleu & Cowan in Regnum Veg. 105 (TL-2): 363, 571. 1981). Plants of Amorphophallus peyri evidently never became established in horticulture, and after 1880 the name almost entirely disappeared from the literature, save for an entry in Index Kewensis (1: x & 109. 1893), with the provenance Seychelles and attributed to Linden. It was listed by Engler at the end of his revision of Amorphophallus (Pflanzenr. IV. 23C (Heft 48): 109. 1911) as a nomen nudum appearing in Gard. Chron. (l.c.), but with the provenance omitted. “Amorphophallus peyri N.E.Br.” was listed among synonyms in Amorphophallus in Govaerts & Frodin (World Checklist Bibliogr. Araceae: 96. 2002) but with its placement indicated to be doubtful. The name also appears in the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) with the author unknown and the provenance “Ins. Seychelles” (https://www.ipni.org/n/84423-1, accessed 1 Jun 2023), but attributed to N.E. Brown in Kew's Plants of the World Online (POWO) where it is “unplaced” (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:84423-1) and stated to be first published in Gardeners’ chronicle (l.c.). It is attributed to N.E. Brown again and with the epithet spelt ‘peyrei’ in GBIF where it is “accepted”* (https://www.gbif.org/species/3604502, accessed 21 Aug 2023). We imagine the attribution to N.E. Brown may be based on an assumption that the above-mentioned report was authored by Brown, but that is not apparent to us (there are no author initials at the end of the report), hence we attribute validation of the name to the editors of Gardeners’ chronicle at the time. No type material nor illustration has been found (and, despite extensive searching, we have been unable to trace who Peyr [or La Peyrie] was). If the stated Seychelles provenance of Amorphophallus peyri was accurate and the plant was native, it is with confidence identifiable as Protarum sechellarum Engl. (in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 30 (1, Beibl. 67): 42. 1901), a later name. The provenance is uncorroborated, though it seems improbable that a plant with leaves as described, and the tuberous habit implied by its ascription to Amorphophallus, should have so specific and plausible a provenance stated in error. No aroid known to be introduced in Seychelles matches the description. Protarum sechellarum is the only member of the monotypic tribe Protareae Engl. (Aroideae), a Gondwanan relict sister to all of the large, almost entirely Old World Pistia-Dracunculus Clade (or its position swapped with Pistia which then is sister to Protarum + the rest) (e.g., Renner & Zhang in Syst. Biol. 53: 422. 2004; Cabrera & al. in Amer. J. Bot. 95: 1153. 2008; Cusimano & al. in Amer. J. Bot. 98: 654. 2011; Nauheimer & al. in New Phytol. 195: 994. 2012; Nauheimer & Boyce in Pl. Syst. Evol. 300: 709. 2014; Lý & al. in Phytotaxa 303: 253. 2017). It is the only aroid native in and endemic to the Granitic Seychelles (Wise, Fragile Eden [text to plates]: 54. 1998; Bogner & Renner in Kapisen 3: 7. 2005), and likely the closest living relative to the pan(sub)tropical waterweed Pistia stratiotes L. (refs. above). As such, it may be said that Protarum sechellarum has “iconic” status, and we therefore propose that Amorphophallus peyri be rejected in order to preserve the appropriate name that has been used universally since its publication, including in still current, much-consulted specialist technical and semi-popular reference works (e.g., Mayo & al., Gen. Araceae: 275. 1997; Bown, Aroids, ed. 2: 170. 2000). Making a new combination in Protarum based on an uncertain name unused for over 140 years would be disruptive to botanical nomenclature. (2986) Amorphophallus spectabilis (Miq.) Engl. in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 2: 316. Sep 1879 (Conophallus spectabilis Miq. in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 14: 564. 15 Aug 1856), nom. cons. prop. Neotypus (hic designatus): Netherlands, cult. Leiden Botanic Garden ex Java, Indonesia (L No. 898. 87 213 [barcode L 0041833]). (H) Amorphophallus spectabilis W. Bull, Retail List 72: 15. 1872, nom. rej. prop. Neotypus (hic designatus): England, London, cult. hort. Bull ex Sierra Leone, Jul 1874, Masters (K barcode K000345978). Amorphophallus spectabilis W. Bull (Retail List 72: 15. 1872) was omitted by Engler from his revision of Amorphophallus (Pflanzenr. IV. 23B (Heft 48): 61. 1911). It has been listed as an “unplaced” name in Kew's Plants of the World Online (POWO) (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77235438-1, accessed 25 May 2023), and by Govaerts & Frodin (World Checklist Bibliogr. Araceae: 97. 2002). It is cited in the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) as published in “1862” in Bull's catalogue no. 72 (https://www.ipni.org/n/77235438-1, accessed 25 May 2023), but that date is in error. The plant, under this name, was displayed, evidently in leaf only, by the famous British nurseryman William Bull (1828–1902) at an exhibition in London of the Royal Botanic Society in July 1871, where it received a First Class certificate, as was reported (but without validating description) in various British and German horticultural periodicals (e.g., Hibberd in Fl. World Gard. Guide, ser. 2, 6: 253. 1871; Johnson & Hogg in J. Hort. Cottage Gard. 21: 27. 1871; Moore & Masters in Gard. Chron. 1871: 900. 1871; Otto in Hamburger Garten- Blumenzeitung 27: 571. 1871; Koch in Wochenschr. Gärtnerei Pflanzenk. 14: 290. 1871). The following year, Amorphophallus spectabilis W. Bull was offered for sale, with validating descriptive information (Bull, l.c.). Towards the end of 1872 (December 7th, and hence certainly after the publication of Bull's catalogue for that year), Moore & Masters (in Gard. Chron. 1872: 1619. 1872) briefly described from Bull's nursery three varieties of Corynophallus afzelii Schott (in Oesterr. Bot. Wochenbl. 7: 389. 1857) (now considered a synonym of West African Amorphophallus aphyllus (Hook.) Hutch. in Hutchinson & Dalziel, Fl. W. Trop. Afr. 2: 362. 1936, ≡ Arum aphyllum Hook. in Gray & Dochard, Trav. W. Afr.: 386. 1825 [Ittenbach in Englera 25: 100. 2003]), one bearing the varietal epithet spectabilis. In that article, Moore & Masters, while not alluding directly to Bull's A. spectabilis, stated “Mr. Bull has frequently exhibited this plant during the current season, and from notes taken on those occasions, and subsequently checked in his nursery, we have picked out certain forms which, for garden purposes at least, appear worthy to be ranked as distinct varieties.” The first was var. spectabilis, with “the lower part of the stem puce-coloured, and marked with dark linear oblong spots”. Moore & Masters depicted Corynophallus afzelii, without specifying which variety, based on a flowering plant from Bull's nursery (Moore & Masters, l.c.: fig. 343), and the illustration accords with A. aphyllus. They noted the provenance of Bull's plants as Sierra Leone, a country also home to the closely related and vegetatively very similar A. elliotii Hook. f. (in Bot. Mag. 120: t. 7349. 1894), a well-known name potentially threatened by the earlier A. spectabilis W. Bull. However, it is excluded by Moore & Masters's depiction of an upwardly open spathe limb, characteristic of A. aphyllus, whereas that of A. elliotii is strongly hooded. After the December 1872 article in Gardeners’ chronicle, Bull ceased listing Amorphophallus spectabilis in his catalogues but started offering Corynophallus afzelii [var.] spectabilis (Bull, Retail List 83: 24. 1873, 97: 25. 1875 & 103: 35. 1874–5). His several-lines-long descriptions of A. spectabilis in 1872 and C. afzelii [var.] spectabilis in 1873 are identical. We therefore think the conclusion is inescapable that, even though Moore & Masters did not explicitly link them, C. afzelii var. spectabilis T. Moore & Mast. is to be considered as based on A. spectabilis W. Bull (Art. 44.1; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), and that A. spectabilis W. Bull can thus be placed as a synonym of A. aphyllus. Subsequent to Moore & Masters's (l.c.) recognition of var. spectabilis for garden plants, the varietal epithet was taken up and persisted for a few decades in botanical literature, becoming associated with a range of species names as views changed about what genus and species it pertained to: Amorphophallus has more generic synonyms than any other aroid genus. These several homotypic synonyms of the variety were cited in Ittenbach's (l.c.) valuable revision of Amorphophallus in Africa and Madagascar, the most recent being A. leonensis var. spectabilis (W. Bull) N.E. Br. (in Thiselton-Dyer, Fl. Trop. Afr. 8: 148. 1901), but varieties are no longer recognised within A. aphyllus (Ittenbach, l.c.). Hence the epithet in Bull's and Moore & Masters's senses, at species and varietal level respectively, has fallen into complete disuse. Ittenbach (l.c.) cited as the “holotype” of Corynophallus afzelii var. spectabilis two sheets with fragmentary leaves preserved at Kew by Masters. [Bull's species name was not mentioned.] Specifically, Ittenbach cited the “holotype” as “Sierra Leone. 7. [i.e., July] 1874, Masters sched. 1 & 4 (K!, Blattfieder aus Kultur)”. These specimens, however, not received until 1874, cannot be the holotype, nor can either be considered eligible for selection as lectotype as they clearly cannot be part of the original material on which either the species or varietal name was based in 1872. It should also be noted that the “holotype” was not collected by Masters in Sierra Leone, as the citation implied, but came from Bull's nursery in London. There are in the Kew Herbarium four relevant Masters specimens from Bull's nursery, all leaf fragments and all received in July 1874. They are currently (21 Aug 2023) accessible at https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/912296243, https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/912296244, https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/912296248 and https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/912296261. It does not seem immediately discernible which correspond respectively to “sched. 1 & 4” in Ittenbach's typification, but what is clear is that they are four different specimens, and therefore no two of them can comprise the type of C. afzelii var. spectabilis. One of them (barcode K000345947, labelled “‘Corynophallus elegans’ Dr Masters recd 7/74”) has the narrowest leaflets and is cited (“sched. 2”) by Ittenbach (l.c.) as the “holotype” of C. afzelii var. elegans T. Moore & Mast. A second (barcode K000345945, labelled “‘Corynophallus latifolius’ Dr Masters recd 7/74”) is cited (“sched. 3”) by Ittenbach (l.c.) as the holotype of C. afzelii var. latifolius T. Moore & Mast. The third (barcode K000345946, labelled “‘Corynophallus afzelii maculata [sic]’ Dr Masters recd 7/74” with the [unpublished] final epithet maculata crossed out and the determination “var. spectabilis Mast.” added in N.E. Brown's hand) and fourth (barcode K000345978, labelled “‘Corynophallus spectabilis’ Dr Masters recd 7/74”) we surmise to be those cited (“sched. 1 & 4”) by Ittenbach (l.c.) as the holotype of C. afzelii var. spectabilis, but only the last has an original annotation with the epithet spectabilis. Although we might wish to interpret Ittenbach's holotype citations for the first two varieties as implicit neotypifications, with their designation as holotypes a correctable error (Art. 9.10), this is not possible owing to Art. 7.11. For the same reason, and the fact that Ittenbach's (l.c.) designation involved more than one specimen considered by Masters to represent different taxa and thus more than one gathering (Art. 9.17), we cannot apply this correction for var. spectabilis either. By excluding the specimen K000345946 from Ittenbach's designation, and considering Bull's Amorphophallus spectabilis as homotypic to Moore & Masters's C. afzelii var. spectabilis, we designate K000345978 as neotype for the species (see above). Amorphophallus spectabilis (Miq.) Engl. is a name in current use for a large Amorphophallus species endemic to West Java. Engler (in Candolle & Candolle, Monogr. Phan. 2: 316. 1879) combined Miquel's Conophallus spectabilis in Amorphophallus unaware of, or not acknowledging, Bull's earlier A. spectabilis. Amorphophallus spectabilis (Miq.) Engl. is thus illegitimate, as noted years ago by Hetterscheid & Ittenbach (in Aroideana 19: 11. 1996) and later by Yuzammi (in Reinwardtia 13: 8. 2009). Hetterscheid & Ittenbach (l.c.) had characterised the name as having been proposed for conservation, and it is listed as a conserved name in Govaerts & Frodin (l.c.: 93). It also appears online as “conserved”, e.g. in POWO (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:84445-1, accessed 25 Jul 2023), and the Naturalis Bioportal (https://bioportal.naturalis.nl/en/taxon/amorphophallus_spectabilis, accessed 30 Jul 2023). However, there has been no proposal to conserve A. spectabilis (Miq.) Engl. published in Taxon, nor is there any such entry in the Code Appendices (https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/codes-proposals/, accessed 25 Jul 2023). Steps to typify Amorphophallus spectabilis (Miq.) Engl. have been taken (Yuzammi, l.c.), but were ineffective. In the protologue of Conophallus spectabilis published in August 1856, Miquel (in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 14: 564. 1856) gave the provenance as Java with no collection cited. Very shortly thereafter, in December of the same year, Miquel (Fl. Ned. Ind. 3(2): 200. 1856) again indicated the species was Javan and cited “(Herb. Hort. L.B. [Lugduno-Batavi])”. We take this to signify that the type specimen designated here (see above), annotated with the name in Miquel's hand, but which lacks any more precise locality and any indication of the collector or date of collection, was probably taken from a plant originally from Java but cultivated in the Leiden Botanic Garden. Although there is good reason to think that the said specimen, previously indicated (but not explicitly designated as required under Art. 7.11) as the lectotype by Yuzammi (l.c.), would have been part of the original material, that cannot strictly be demonstrated, with no potential type element having been cited in the protologue, nor date on Miquel's annotation, and so, while following Yuzammi's suggested typification, we amend the designation to neotype here. The neotype consists of a bloom only, though the protologue also includes description of part of a leaf. A fragmentary leaf specimen from Java, but with no more precise locality, date or collector, annotated “Conophallus spectabilis Miq.” in Miquel's handwriting, was deposited in the Utrecht herbarium (U, now merged with L; barcode U.1093669, https://bioportal.naturalis.nl/en/multimedia/U.1093669_1496969572). The leaf description in the protologue corresponds so closely with this specimen that it can be concluded with confidence that this is indeed what Miquel described. However, it was immediately excluded by us from consideration as a potential type by virtue of it being part of a leaf blade of Tacca leontopetaloides (L.) Kuntze (Dioscoreaceae). The name Amorphophallus spectabilis (Miq.) Engl. has been in use since it was created, e.g., Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 1: 738. 1891; Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 23C (Heft 48): 109. 1911; Koorders, Exkurs.-Fl. Java 1: 258. 1911; Van Alderwerelt van Rosenburgh in Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg, ser. 3, 1: 364. 1918; Backer in Trop. Natuur 3: 11. 1914, 9: 19. 1920; Backer & Bakhuizen, Fl. Java 3: 112. 1963; Hegnauer, Chemotaxon. Pfl. 2: 91. 1963; Hay & al. in Blumea Suppl. 8: 30. 1995; Yuzammi, l.c.; and Yuzammi & al., Amorphophallus Indonesia: 145. 2017. As Amorphophallus spectabilis W. Bull is a species name with a very short period of use (1871–1872 only), (and the associated varietal epithet has also long gone out of use), we propose that A. spectabilis (Miq.) Engl. is conserved against it. We see no negative impact of the proposal's acceptance, while its rejection would necessitate a disruptive change to a long-established name for the Javan plant. AH, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2884-6430 WH, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7839-4201 We thank David Mabberley for his guidance, and John Wiersema and John McNeill for their generous editorial and technical improvements.