Podocarpus latifolius Wallich (1830: 26

Khuraijam, Jibankumar Singh & Wiersema, John H., 2022, Typification of three names of Asian conifers, Phytotaxa 550 (3), pp. 295-300 : 299

Podocarpus latifolius Wallich (1830: 26 , t. 30) non (Thunb.) R.Br. ex Mirbel (1825: 75);

≡ Podocarpus wallichianus Presl (1846: 540) . ≡ Nageia wallichiana (C.Presl) Kuntze (1891: 800)

[ Podocarpaceae ].

Lectotype (designated here):— INDIA. “montibus Pundua”, F. De Silva [Wallich’s Cat. no. 6050] (K barcode K000553406 [image!]); Isolectotypes:A barcode A00022519 [image!], BR barcode BR0000013469092 [image!], E barcode E00127472 [image!], P barcodes P00748865 & P00748866 [images!], CAL barcodes CAL0000074778, CAL0000074779, CAL0000074780 [images!].

Note: The name Nageia wallichiana (C.Presl) Kuntze was based on Podocarpus wallichianus C.Presl , a replacement name for P. latifolius Wall. (non (Thunb.) R.Br. ex Mirb.). In the protologue, Wallich (1830: 26) mentioned that he received dried specimens as well as fresh plants, and indicated its discovery by Francis De Silva from “montibus Pundua”, which according to Clarke (1913: 261) would be in Khasia (present-day Meghalaya, see https://stories. rbge.org.uk/archives/5029). When Wallich (1828–1849) drew up his Numerical list of dried specimens in East India Company’s Museum for distribution, he listed this collection (p. 207): “ Podocarpus latifolia Wall., Mt. Sillet FD ” as no. 6050, the number under which it was to be distributed.

Collections bearing this catalogue number exist in E, K, and P. Laubenfels (1969: 349) listed “Wallich 6050” as the type. While not indicating a herbarium of deposit for the holotype, he cited an isotype at A (A00022519) and annotated another at BR (BR0000013469092) similarly. Farjon (2010, 2017) mentioned the specimen from the Herb. Wallich in the Kew Herbarium (K) as the holotype. However, Wallich (1830) did not clarify that he used only this single specimen when preparing the account of this species ( Turland et al., 2018, Art. 9.1, Note 1). As Wallich likely consulted more than one specimen, we consider K000553406 as a syntype and select it as lectotype. Farjon correctly excluded the specimen K001122895 that also contains this catalogue number from the original material. It was collected from “Tavoy” (now in Myanmar) and this locality was not mentioned in the protologue ( Wallich 1830: 26).