Barleria strigosa Willdenow (1800: 379)

Patil, Suraj S., Deshmukh, Pradip V. & Lekhak, Manoj M., 2022, Typification of some names in Indian Barleria L. (Acanthaceae), Phytotaxa 547 (3), pp. 285-294 : 293

Barleria strigosa Willdenow (1800: 379)

Type (lectotype designated here):— INDIA ORIENTALIS, s.d. (B-W 11664 -02 0!). Fig. 6 . Residual syntype:—B-W barcode B-W11664 -01 0 !

≡ Barleria caerulea Roxburgh (1832: 39) , nom. illeg. [nom. superfl.].

= Barleria polytricha Wallich (1830b: 72)

Type (lectotype designated here):— MYANMAR. “Meaong ripae Irawaddi”, 1826, Wallich (Cat. no. 7143A) (K001126778!). Fig. 7 . Residual syntype:—K barcode K001126779!

= Barleria hirsuta Nees (1832: 91) , nom. illeg. (non Jacq. 1767).

Type (lectotype designated here):—“Prome mont.”, 1826, Wallich 130 (GZU GZU000249406!). Residual syntypes:—Wallich Cat. no. 7142A (K barcode K001126776!); 7142B (K barcode K001126777!).

Notes: Willdenow (1800) published B. strigosa with a diagnostic phrase name “ B inermis , foliis oblongis subtus petiolis ramisque strigosis, bracteis ciliatis ” and provided its origin as “Habitat in India orientali” and “v.s.” (vidi siccas), indicating that he had seen at least one herbarium specimen. There are two specimens in B-W (B-W 11664 -01 0 and B-W 11664 -02 0). Both specimens are in good condition bearing leaves, inflorescence and flowers. Willdenow’s protologue of B. strigosa matches with the morphology of both specimens and they can be considered original material. Here, we designate the specimen (B-W 11664 -02 0) as lectotype, which is well mounted on herbarium sheet and depicts flower structure clearly. Curiously, Shendage & Yadav (2010: 107) indicated “Wall., Numer. List No. 2509g (CAL)” as “type”, but this gathering, from cultivation in the Calcutta Botanic Garden, was almost certainly unavailable to Willdenow in 1800.

Wallich (1830) described B. polytricha based on two syntype gatherings, one raised in the Calcutta Botanical Garden from seed he collected below Prome along the Irawaddi [Ayeyarwady] River (Wallich’s Cat. no. 7143A: K001126778) and another collected by William Gomez in Tavoy (Wallich’s Cat. no. 7143B: K001126779). The K specimen of 7143A bears an original label indicating Meaong (now Myanmar), whereas that of 7143B lacks locality information. Here, we designate the specimen bearing Wallich’s Catalogue no. 7143A (K001126778) as lectotype. Again, Shendage & Yadav (2010: 107) indicated “Wall., Numer. List No. 7143a (CAL)” as “type”, but this has no standing (Art. 7.11).

Nees (1832) described B. hirsuta based on two syntype gatherings, one from Prome and another from Tong Dong, both from Myanmar. We found that the name B. hirsuta Nees is a later homonym of B. hirsuta Jacq. and hence, an illegitimate name. In search of the original material, we found three specimens collected by Wallich. Two are housed at K, i.e. from Prome (Wallich’s Cat. no. 7142A: K001126776) and Tong Dong (Wallich’s Cat. no. 7142B: K001126777). The third one from Prome Mont is at GZU (Wallich’s no. 130: GZU000249406). Here, we designate the specimen from GZU (GZU000249406) as lectotype.

Figures

FIGURE 6. Lectotype of Barleria strigosa (B-W 11664 -02 0) [Reproduced with kind permission of the Willdenow Herbarium in Berlin (B-W).].

FIGURE 7. Lectotype of Barleria polytricha (K001126778) [Reproduced with kind permission of the Board of Trustees, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.].