Aspidosperma triternatum Rojas Acosta

Castello, Ana Carolina Devides, Pereira, Andreza Stephanie De Souza, Shimizu, Gustavo Hiroaki, Zuntini, Alexandre Rizzo, Simões, André Olmos & Koch, Ingrid, 2022, Taxonomy and nomenclature of Aspidosperma (Apocynaceae), Phytotaxa 571 (3), pp. 239-277 : 270

Aspidosperma triternatum Rojas Acosta , Essai d’une Therapeutique Vegetale de Corrientes: 21. 1913.

Neotype (designated here): — ARGENTINA. Corrientes: San Luis del Palmar, El Pontón , 13 Jan 1975, T.M. Pedersen 10862 ( MBM [No. 45298 !]; isoneotypes: A [barcode 02178704 image!], C [No. L6/84/No146 image!], CTES, L [QR code L2694246 image!, QR code L2694247 image!], LL [barcode 00528391 image!], MO [barcode MO-2958828], P [barcode P04204789 image!, barcode P04204790 image!], WAG [QR code WAG1482575 image!]) .

= Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco subsp. brevifolium Hassl. in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 12(325/330): 261. 1913. Holotype:— PARAGUAY. [Concepción]: Pr. Concepción, Dec, E. Hassler 12003 (G (mounted on three herbarium sheets) [barcode G00108812 image!]).

= Aspidosperma chakense Speg. in Physis (Buenos Aires) 3(15): 333. 1917. Syntype [perhaps holotype]:— ARGENTINA. Formosa: Pilcomayo, s.d., C.L. Spegazzini s.n. [C.L. Spegazzini [12567]] (LP [barcode 002815 image!]).

= Aspidosperma horcokebracho Speg. in Physis (Buenos Aires) 3(15): 335. 1917, nom. illeg. hom., non Aspidosperma horkokebracho Speg. (= Schinopsis Engl. ) in Speg. & Girola, Cat. Descr. Maderas: 380. 1910. Lectotype (designated by Ezcurra in Darwiniana 23(2–4): 465. 1981):— ARGENTINA. [Jujuy]: Sierra de Sta Bárbara, 1905–1909, C.L. Spegazzini s.n. [C.L. Spegazzini [1602]] (LP [barcode 002813 image!]).

= Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco var. ellipticum Markgr. in Notizbl.Bot. Gart. Berlin-Dahlem 12(113): 300.1935. Lectotype (designated here): — PARAGUAY. [Villa Hayes]: Estancia Loma-Porá (Chaco), Montes Ribereños (Espinillar), Dec 1916, T. Rojas 2073 [pro parte [flowering branch]] [Herb. Osten 14268] (SI [barcode 046802 image!]; isolectotype: SI [barcode 046858 image!]).

“ Aspidosperma chakensis ” Speg. , orth. var.

Notes — Rojas-Acosta (1913) did not explicitly indicate any gathering in the protologue of A. triternatum . Thus, we understand that this name has no nomenclatural type attached to it. According to the ICN article 9.13 ( Turland et al. 2018): “If no original material is extant or as long as it is missing, a neotype may be selected.”. Therefore, we elected a specimen with follicles as the neotype of A. triternatum (MBM No. 45298) (ICN article 9.13; Turland et al. 2018).

Regarding A. quebracho-blanco var. ellipticum , we could not locate the specimen indicated in the protologue by Markgraf (1935b) from Cornelio Osten’s personal herbarium (Rojas 2073), because it was not transferred to the herbarium MVM like many other sheets from his herbarium (M. Valdivia, personal information). However, we found duplicates from this gathering. They present the same information cited in the protologue of A. quebracho-blanco var. ellipticum on locality, collection date, and collector, though the collecting number was applied for two different gatherings, corresponding to specimens with follicles (“Puerto Casado”) and flowers (“Estancia Loma-Porá”). Since the collection of the flowering specimens was the one mentioned by Markgraf (1935b), we chose it as the lectotype collection of A. quebracho-blanco var. ellipticum (ICN article 9.3; Turland et al. 2018).

Finally, Spegazzini (1917) used a hyphen to separate the epithet in A. horcokebracho (“ A. horco-kebracho ”). Since the epithet’s two words did not stand independently, coming from the name of a locality, we performed the deletion of the hyphen according to the ICN article 60.11 ( Turland et al. 2018).