taxonID	type	description	language	source
B97BDB27FF9ED44FFE972C4E11910AEC.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE MATERIAL. — Malaysia • Perak, Gunong Batu Pateh; s. d.; 4500 ft; L. Wray 403; lectotype (here designated): CAL [CAL 0000007333]! (Fig. 1); • same data; isolectotypes: BM [BM 000839132] digital image!, K [K 000669643] digital image! NOTES King (1896) described Euonymus wrayi based on two distinct gatherings: Wray 403 and Ridley 2652. According to Stafleu & Cowan (1979), King’s primary set or types are preserved at CAL and K. During our search for original material across various herbaria, we located a total of seven sheets that qualify as syntypes under Art. 9.6 (Turland et al. 2025). These include one sheet at K (K 000669643), one at L (L 0015179), one at SING (SING 0056441), two at BM (BM 000839108, BM 000839132), and two at CAL (CAL 0000007333, CAL 0000007334). The sheets with barcodes BM 000839132, CAL 0000007333 and K 000669643 correspond to Wray 403, collected from Gunong Batu Pateh, Perak, at an elevation of 4500 ft by L. Wray. In contrast, BM 000839108, CAL 0000007334 (Fig. 2), L 0015179 and SING 0056441 represent collection of Ridley 2652, gathered from Kota Glanggi, Pahang in 1891. In the protologue, King (1896) described the leaves as having “ main nerves less prominent ” and the flowers as pentamerous. However, the Ridley 2652 collection deviates from this description, exhibiting tetramerous flowers and leaves with prominent midvein in the leaves. These discrepancies indicate that Ridley 2652 represents a taxonomically distinct entity and is a heterogeneous mixture, as not conforming to the diagnostic characters of E. wrayi. Therefore, Ridley 2652 (BM 000839108, CAL 0000007334, L 0015179 and SING 0056441) should be excluded while typifying E. wrayi King. Therefore, in accordance with Article 9.19 (c) (Turland et al. 2025), only collection of Wray with field number 403 (BM 000839132, CAL 0000007333 andK 000669643) is considered as the sole gathering eligible for lectotypification. However, Ding Hou (1962: 257), while describing Glyptopetalum zeylanicum var. brevipedicellatum, designated a sheet of the Ridley 2652 collection at SING (SING 0056441) as the holotype. Furthermore, Ding Hou (1962: 258), while describing the variety brevipedicellatum, noted in his comments that “ King cited the type (Ridley 2652) under Euonymus wrayi, but his description of the 5 - merous flowers of that species does not correspond to Ridley’s specimen, which possesses 4 - merous flowers. ” As the sheets bearing barcodes BM 000839132, CAL 0000007333 and K 000669643 belong to Wray 403 collection, herein represent syntypes available for lectotypification. Among these, CAL 0000007333 is designated here as the lectotype in accordance with Art. 9.3, 9.11, and 9.12 (Turland et al. 2025) as it is found to be the most suitable specimen to stabilize the application of the name. This selection is supported by the presence of a pencil inscription on CAL 0000007333 reading “ Euonymus sp 4; not at Kew in Euon … ”, which closely matches King’s facsimiles. This inscription provides strong evidence that King consulted this sheet. Additionally, the sheet is well-preserved, displaying both flowers and fruits, further supporting its suitability as the lectotype.	en	Mondal, Ajay, Savinov, I. A., Murugan, C., Rajkumar, S. D. (2026): Typification of two names in the genera Euonymus L. and Glyptopetalum Thwaites and the correct taxonomic position of Hippocratea angulata Griff. (Celastraceae). Adansonia (3) 48 (3): 13-20, DOI: 10.5252/adansonia2026v48a3
B97BDB27FF9ED44AFC742D0F10C50F8E.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE MATERIAL. — India • Kerala, Wynad (now Wayanad); I. 1868; R. H. Beddome s. n.; lectotype (here designated): K [K 000669666], digital image! (Fig. 3) • Kerala, Wynaad (now Wayanad); 1869; R. H. Beddome s. n.; residual syntype: MH [MH 00186959!].	en	Mondal, Ajay, Savinov, I. A., Murugan, C., Rajkumar, S. D. (2026): Typification of two names in the genera Euonymus L. and Glyptopetalum Thwaites and the correct taxonomic position of Hippocratea angulata Griff. (Celastraceae). Adansonia (3) 48 (3): 13-20, DOI: 10.5252/adansonia2026v48a3
B97BDB27FF9ED44AFC742D0F10C50F8E.taxon	discussion	NOTES There appears to be some inconsistency in the publication date of the protologue for G. grandiflorum Bedd. For instance, the World Flora Online (WFO) cites it as “ Icon. Pl. Ind. Or. 1: 21. 1871 ”, while Ramamurthy (2000) provides the citation as “ Ic. PI. Ind. Orient. 21. t. 102. 1874. ” Similarly, Savinov (2014) cited it as “ Icon. Pl. Ind. Or. 1: 21. 1871 ”, whereas Ramamurthy (2020) cited it as “ lcon. Pl. Ind. Or. 21, f. 102. 1874 ”. During our research, we noted that Beddome enlisted G. grandiflorum in two of his publications: Icones Plantarum Indiae Orientalis [Beddome 1870] and Flora Sylvatica Southern India (& Forest Manual Botany) [Beddome 1871]. Stafleu & Cowan (1976) cited 1874 as the publication year for Icones Plantarum Indiae Orientalis; however, this is incorrect, as the work was published in 15 parts, with the final part issued in 1874. Specifically, the name G. grandiflorum was published on page 21 and plate 102, which belong to the part 6 of Icones Plantarum Indiae Orientalis, and the actual publication date of part 6 was Nov. 1870 vel ante (Turner 2012). In the protologue, as a type locality Beddome (1870) mentioned, “ In the Wynad in moist woods at Devala, elevation 2 000 - 2 800 feet ”. In our search for original material, we inquired at BM, CAL and K, where Beddome’s types are known to be preserved, as documented by Stafleu & Cowan (1976). We initially located four sheets of Beddome’s collections that can be considered as syntypes under Art. 9.6 (Turland et al. 2025), including one at K (K 000669666) and three at MH (MH 000001902, MH 00001903 and MH 00186959). The sheet housed at K (K 000669666) is likely a communicated specimen, as indicated by the herbarium label inscription: “ com: Capt. Beddome; recv. 1 / 68 ” [Communicated by Captain R. H. Beddome, received in January 1868]. According to the field ticket, the specimen was collected from “ Wynad (now Wayanad, Kerala) ” at an elevation of 2000 ft, which matches the protologue details precisely. Since the specimen was communicated in 1868, it was undoubtedly collected prior to the publication of the name. This sheet was later studied by J. S. Gamble, who illustrated the cotyledons and single seed with an aril. The specimen is in excellent condition, moreover, the anonymous inscription, “ ovules solitaria …, ” strongly supports and aligns with the generic characteristics of the taxon. MH houses a total of three sheets in its general herbarium and within the type collections. Among these, the sheet bearing the barcode MH 00186959 is stored in the general herbarium of MH. This specimen was collected by R. H. Beddome from “ Wynaad ” (now Wayanad, Kerala) in 1869 and represents in flowering phenological stage. In the type section, two additional sheets labelled with barcodes MH 000001902 and MH 00001903 are present. Neither of these sheets includes a collection date nor the name of the collector. However, both are annotated with the location “ Wynad (now Wayanad, Kerala) (2400 elevation) ”, and the handwriting of these annotations closely matches that of Beddome, as observed in other herbarium sheets housed at MH. Despite this, the absence of a collection date disqualifies these sheets from being considered original. The primary reason for not considering these two sheets (MH 000001902 and MH 00001903) as original material is that MH houses other collections, such as the sheet with barcode MH 00186948, which was collected by Beddome from the Wayanad region in 1871, i. e., after the publication of the name. Given this, we, as authors, cannot confidently ascertain whether MH 000001902 and MH 00001903 were collected prior to 1870 or not, a critical factor in determining their status as original material. Therefore, only the sheet with barcodes K 000669666 and MH 00186959 is considered here as original material for the name G. grandiflorum under Art. 9.4 (Turland et al. 2025). After considering all the available syntypes, K 000669666 (Fig. 3) is designated here as the lectotype of G. grandiflorum Bedd., according to Art. 9.3, 9.11, and 9.12 (Turland et al. 2025), as it is found to be the most suitable specimen to stabilize the application of the name and it helps to confirm its taxonomic identity. Dissected fruit parts and an illustration are also attached in this sheet. However, it is important to note that the material used by Gamble for these was not part of the original collection but derived from Wedderburn’s specimens collected at Devala, Wayanad. Accordingly, these should not be regarded as original material for the name G. grandiflorum. Alongside, MH 00186959 is considered as the residual syntype for the name G. grandiflorum Bedd.	en	Mondal, Ajay, Savinov, I. A., Murugan, C., Rajkumar, S. D. (2026): Typification of two names in the genera Euonymus L. and Glyptopetalum Thwaites and the correct taxonomic position of Hippocratea angulata Griff. (Celastraceae). Adansonia (3) 48 (3): 13-20, DOI: 10.5252/adansonia2026v48a3
B97BDB27FF9BD444FC3C2EC811680E73.taxon	materials_examined	TYPE MATERIAL. — Myanmar • “ Loonkaram ”, Griffith [Kew Distrib. No. 1977]; [K 000669604], upper two fragments; lectotype designated by Kumar et al. 2021, digital image!]; cited original material: [icon] Griffith, Icones plantarum asiaticarum 4: t. 581; 1854 • Uncited original material: Myanmar, Near S. mines, Griffith [Kew Distrib. No. 1977]; [K 000669603] digital image!	en	Mondal, Ajay, Savinov, I. A., Murugan, C., Rajkumar, S. D. (2026): Typification of two names in the genera Euonymus L. and Glyptopetalum Thwaites and the correct taxonomic position of Hippocratea angulata Griff. (Celastraceae). Adansonia (3) 48 (3): 13-20, DOI: 10.5252/adansonia2026v48a3
B97BDB27FF9BD444FC3C2EC811680E73.taxon	discussion	NOTES Griffith (1854 a, b) described Hippocratea angulata based on specimens collected from “ Loonkaram Kha ” and “ Delvi Nempean ”, and these locations are now in Myanmar. Griffith also cited an illustration published in Icon. Pl. Asiat. vol. 4: plate 581. Later, Kurz (1870: 73) recognized that Griffith’s taxonomic judgment was erroneous and determined that the correct placement of the species should have been within the genus Euonymus. Consequently, he transferred the species to Euonymus and provided a replacement name, E. griffithii, due to the prior existence of E. angulatus Wight (1846: t. 1053). This treatment was widely adopted in several taxonomic works, viz., M. A. Lawson in Hooker’s Fl. Brit. India 1: 611. 1875; S. Kurz in Forest Fl. Burma 1: 249.1877. A century later, Chakrabarty & Gangopadhyay (1990: 129) published a new combination in the genus Glyptopetalum as Glyptopetalum angulatum (Griff.) Chakrab. & M. Gangop., based on Hippocratea angulata Griff. Thwaites (1856: 267) established Glyptopetalum as a novel genus within the family Celastraceae. In the protologue, Thwaites (1856) emphasized that Glyptopetalum is a distinctly defined genus and exhibits a close affinity with Euonymus L. Nevertheless, Glyptopetalum can be differentiated from the latter by its significantly larger anthers, ovary and glandular disc, as well as its key diagnostic feature: a single pendulous ovule in each locule. As delineated by Savinov (2014: 184), Glyptopetalum is distinguished from Euonymus by its 4 - merous flowers (vs. 4 or 5 - merous), single ovule per locule (vs. two or more per locule), 1 - 4 - celled capsule with a persistent columella, and one large seed per locule covered by an incomplete aril and branched raphe. In contrast, Euonymus has 3 or 4 - 5 - lobed capsules, no columella, two small seeds per locule, and seeds with complete or incomplete aril and unbranched raphe. While consulting the original material, our attention was drawn to the illustration plates provided by Griffith. We have noticed that fig. II of the plate 581 (Griffith 1854 b) shows a sectional view of the ovary. The figure distinctly depicts bilocular structure with one locule containing two ovules, a key diagnostic feature of Euonymus, while the other locule contains a single ovule, a trait occasionally observed in Euonymus (Ma 2001: 7). Figure IV of the plate 581, likely depicts a single pendulous ovule, which, although occasionally seen in Euonymus, is a diagnostic characteristic of Glyptopetalum. Notably, Euonymus is also known to exhibit apotropous and pendulous ovules (Blakelock 1951: 211; Simmons 2004: 45). Here, in case of fig. IV, the raphe is unbranched and, therefore, it again goes well with the character of genus Euonymus (see Savinov 2014: 184 [table]). Figure I depict the plant habit, inflorescence, and sepals. On closer observation, it is clear that the stamens are slightly recurved outwards and originate from the margin of the disc, a combination of traits frequently seen in various species of Euonymus but atypical for Glyptopetalum, where stamens are situated within the disc and never recurved. The plant specimen on the lectotypified sheet, in flowering phenology, exhibits filiform peduncles, a characteristic typical of Euonymus, whereas Glyptopetalum generally possesses stouter peduncles. Upon consideration of the above-mentioned characters adopted from illustrated original material as well as the lectotype, it appears that H. angulata aligns more closely with the typical characteristics of the genus Euonymus. Therefore, we conclude that Kurz’s (1870: 73) taxonomic judgment, which placed H. angulata under the genus Euonymus, was correct. In contrast, the taxonomic judgment of Chakrabarty & Gangopadhyay (1990: 129) in placing H. angulata under the genus Glyptopetalum is not fully supported, as some characters do not precisely match the generic description provided by Thwaites (1856: 267). Consequently, the currently accepted name for this taxon should be Euonymus griffithii Kurz, rather than Glyptopetalum angulatum (Griff.) Chakrab. & M. Gangop. Kumar et al. (2021: 101), during lectotypification of Hippocratea angulata, erroneously cited a sheet from CAL (CAL 0000007347) as uncited original material. However, this specimen belongs to a different species of Euonymus, specifically Euonymus elmeri Merr. Therefore, this material should no longer be considered as relevant or associated with the name H. angulata.	en	Mondal, Ajay, Savinov, I. A., Murugan, C., Rajkumar, S. D. (2026): Typification of two names in the genera Euonymus L. and Glyptopetalum Thwaites and the correct taxonomic position of Hippocratea angulata Griff. (Celastraceae). Adansonia (3) 48 (3): 13-20, DOI: 10.5252/adansonia2026v48a3
