Euploca humistrata (Cham.) J.I.M.Melo & Semir, 2009

Feuillet, Christian, 2016, Two new combinations in Euploca Nutt. (Heliotropiaceae, Boraginales) and a conspectus of the species of the Guiana Shield area, PhytoKeys 61, pp. 101-124 : 106

Euploca humistrata (Cham.) J.I.M.Melo & Semir, 2009 Fig. 1

Euploca humistrata (Cham.) J.I.M.Melo & Semir, Kew Bull. 64(2): 288. 2009

Heliotropium humistratum Cham., Linnaea 4: 462. 1829.

Euploca humistrata Type [fide Förther 1998: 200]: Brazil. Minas Gerais: Faz de Piedade, 1818, Sellow s.n. (holotype LE n.v.; isotypes B† [fragment GH n.v.; photo F-17325, GH, NY, US], G-DC!, HAL n.v. [scan!], K!).

Schleidenia humistrata (Cham.) Fresen., Fl. Bras. 8(1): 34. 1857. Type: Based on Heliotropium humistratum Cham.

Type.

Based on Heliotropium humistratum Cham.

Distribution.

Prostrate herbs. Stems villose, trichomes hyaline, somewhat ferruginous around the nodes. Leaves: petiole short; lamina lanceolate, 0.5-0.8 × 0.15-0.2 cm, apex acute, base attenuate, margin entire, both surfaces villose. Inflorescence: solitary, supra-axillary flowers, on 1-1.5 mm long pedicel. Flowers: calyx as long as the corolla tube, lobes, 2.2-2.7 mm long at anthesis, puberulent on both sides; corolla tube yellow with white lobes, outside strigose, inside pubescent, tube more or less cylindric, lobes ovate with narrow sinuses, about 1 mm long; stamens sessile, anther with a small appendage; ovary ca. 0.3 mm diam., globose, glabrous; style lacking; stigma sessile, widely conical. Fruit on 1.2-2 mm long pedicel, subglobose, 1.5 mm diam., glabrous, rostrate; nutlets about 1.2 mm long.

Distribution.

Guyana; previously only known from a few localities outside the Guiana Shield, Brazil ( Ceará, Goiás, Minas Gerais), Venezuela (Apure). In our area it is known only by GUYANA, Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo, W of the Kanuku Mtns, savanna near Mountain Point, 27 Feb-5 Mar 1985, fl, C. Feuillet 1632 (CAY).

Notes.

Melo and Semir (2009: 288) cited the type as " Oliveira 239 (holotype BHCB!; isotype BHMH!)". This is obviously a misunderstanding. Melo and Semir (2010: 117) cited the holotype, Sellow s.n., as being at GH. In fact at GH is a fragment of the isotype, now destroyed, that was at B. Förther (1998: 200) cites the holotype at LE.