Leandra cordifolia (Naudin) Cogniaux (1886: 98)

Caddah, Mayara Krasinski & Meirelles, Julia, 2018, Taxonomic notes on Leandra cordifolia (Melastomataceae), Phytotaxa 357 (2), pp. 164-166 : 164-165

1. Leandra cordifolia (Naudin) Cogniaux (1886: 98) . Clidemia cordifolia Naudin (1851: 361) . Oxymeris cordifolia (Naudin) Triana (1871: 90). Type:— BRAZIL. “Province de San-Paolo”, Gaudichaud 796 (Holotype: R;

Isotype: P-00116752!).

Leandra cardiophylla Cogniaux (1886: 99) . Type:— BRAZIL. “ loco haud indicato ”, Sello 144 (Lectotype: P-01903628!, here designated; Isolectotype: US-00120649!). Syn. nov.

Leandra cardiophylla var. integra Hoehne (1922: 109) . Type:— BRAZIL. “Estação Campo Grande, São Paulo, Nov. 1913 ”, Brade 6833 (Holotype: SP-001152!). Syn. nov.

Leandra urbaniana Cogniaux (1886: 148) , not Leandra urbaniana (Alain) Alain (2003:1645) , nom. illeg. Type :— BRAZIL. “Insula S. Catharina ”, D’Urville (Holotype: B, destroyed; Lectotype: BR-0000005192441! - here designated). Syn. nov.

Leandra cordifolia was originally proposed as a Clidemia Don (1823: 284) by Naudin (1851), based on a sample collected by Gaudichaud in the state of São Paulo, southeastern Brazil. After that, it was transferred to Oxymeris Candolle (1828: 190) , as the whole genus was synonymized under it by Triana (1871). Currently, almost all Naudin’s species of Clidemia are circumscribed under Leandra Raddi (1820: 385) , Miconia Ruiz & Pavón (1794: 60) or Ossaea Candolle (1828: 168) . At the time when Oxymeris cordifolia was transferred to Leandra by Cogniaux (1886), he proposed a classification of the 151 known species of Leandra in seven sections, distinguished mainly by inflorescence position and architecture, seed morphology and branches and hypanthium trichomes. Despite the classification, the general circumscription of these sections is considered doubtful and sometimes they seem to overlap ( Camargo et al. 2009). Leandra cordifolia was placed in L. sect. Niangae ( Candolle 1828: 163) Cogniaux (1886: 92), supposedly distinguished from the other sections by the hirsute branches and hypanthium with a constriction at the apex ( Camargo 2009). Inside that section, it was keyed next to L. cardiophylla , because of the long linear-subulate sepals and crenulate-denticulate leaves with cordate base ( Cogniaux 1886). According to this author, they could be set apart from each other by the branches with eglandular trichomes, short petioles, flowers with no bracts and hypanthium almost of the same size of sepals in L. cordifolia vs. branches with glandular trichomes, long petioles, bibracteate flowers and sepals 2–3 times shorter than hypanthium in L. cardiophylla ( Cogniaux 1886) . The image of a type specimen of L. cordifolia at P (acronyms according to Thiers 2018) is currently available under high resolution at the Reflora-Virtual Herbarium (continuously updated) and clearly shows glandular trichomes all over the plant, but several among them without heads, which are frequently caducous (as it is usually the case in recent collections), and this could be the cause of erroneous interpretation on the nature of the trichomes by previous authors. Furthermore, the flowers and fruits are bracteate. No indubitable mature leaf has visible petioles in L. cordifolia type, but regular specimens usually show a great polymorphism in petiole size ( Camargo et al. 2009, Souza & Baumgratz 2009), as well as in sepals size.

According to Flora do Brasil 2020 (under construction), the distribution of both taxa completely overlap through southern and southeastern Brazil. The recognition of a single species under those two names seems to have been previously suspected by Melastomataceae specialists: Wurdack (1962) only described L. cardiophylla in his taxonomic treatment of Melastomataceae of Santa Catarina, an approach possibly followed by Souza and Baumgratz (2009) in the treatment for the state of São Paulo. Camargo and collaborators (2009), instead, adopted the name L. cordifolia , completely omitting the alternative name. However, they described the taxon as having glandular trichomes on vegetative branches and leaf surfaces, bracteate flowers and leaves with short petioles. Curiously, the name L. cardiophylla was rarely used in herbarium plants collected in Santa Catarina, while L. cordifolia was used by some Melastomataceae specialists to identify several materials cited as L. cardiophylla in São Paulo treatment ( Souza & Baumgratz 2009).

Hoehne (1922) proposed Leandra cardiophylla var. integra based on leaf margin, which is a polymorphic character. Nevertheless, both entire and crenulate leaves can be found in the same specimen, as confirmed by us in recent collections in Santa Catarina (Caddah 957, Feldhaus 22 and 23).

Leandra urbaniana was proposed by Cogniaux based on a D’Urville collection from Santa Catarina housed at B, from what only remained an image at F and a fragment at BR. The taxon was classified under Leandra sect. Carassanae ( Triana 1871:90) Cogniaux (1886:110) , which was defined by this author by a set of features that, when isolated, can also be found in other sections. Cogniaux (1886) described L. urbaniana with cordate leaves, glandular trichomes on branches and hypanthium, and entire and ciliate leaves. Besides the original description, Wurdack (1962) made the only taxonomic treatment that mentioned L. urbaniana . According to that author, it could be distinguished from L. cardiophylla by shorter trichomes on stem and entire leaf margins with eglandular cilia. However, he noted that L. urbaniana could be “only varietally distinguished from L. cardiophylla ”. The examination of currently available collections clearly shows that the characters used to apart both taxa are only polymorphisms, sometimes found in a single specimen. Additionally, a close examination of inflorescence architecture reveals short scorpioid distal branches, usually following a dichasial ramification.

Leandra cardiophylla and L. urbaniana are listed as “presumably extinct” in the red list of the state of Santa Catarina ( CONSEMA 2014), which is clearly incorrect, since both are synonyms of L. cordifolia . The constant revision of red lists by taxonomists is essential for an adequate application of the scarce public resources destined to biodiversity conservation worldwide. Leandra cordifolia , following this new circumscription, is not threatened of extinction in that state.

Selected Specimens: — BRAZIL. Paraná: Morretes , 28 February 1985, D. Falkenberg 2233 ( FLOR) ; Ponta Grossa, 11 October 1987, D. Falkenberg & M. L. D. Souza 4433 ( FLOR). Santa Catarina: São Francisco do Sul , Ilha dos Barcos, 29 September 2008, J. Meirelles 228 ( JOI) ; 20 October 2009, F. Woitexem 63 ( JOI) ; 22 December 2016, M. K. Caddah et al. 957 ( FLOR) ; 22 December 2016, Feldhaus Jr., A. 22 ( FLOR) ; A. Feldhaus Jr. 23 ( FLOR) .