Cyathea goudotii Kunze

Janssen, Thomas & Rakotondrainibe, France, 2008, A revision of the indusiate scaly tree ferns (Cyatheaceae, Cyathea subgen. Alsophila sect. Alsophila) in Madagascar, the Comoros and the Seychelles, Adansonia (3) 30 (2), pp. 221-376 : 364-365

Cyathea goudotii Kunze

Botanische Zeitung (Berlin) 2: 283, in obs. (1844);

Moore, Index Filicum : 269 (1884), nomen. — Type: Madagascar, Goudot s.n. (holo-, LZ† in hb. Kunze) .

REMARKS

Cyathea goudotii Kunze is based on a fragmentary differential description comparing a specimen in hb. Kunze (LZ) to Sieber fl. mixt. exs. 304 ( Cyathea borbonica Desv. var. latifolia (Hook.) Bonap. ). Although this description only includes characters of the veins, it must nevertheless be regarded as a valid publication of the name.

Kunze’s herbarium at LZ, including the holotype of C. goudotii , has been destroyed. We located three potential isotype specimens that might serve for lectotypfication. The first, Goudot s.n. (G-DEL!, and filed there as holotype of C. goudotii ), includes the annotation “ Cyathea n. sp. Goudotii Kze et affinitate C. Burkei Hook. sed ad specimina perfectiora desorbenda”, most likely in Kunze’s hand. It contains a leaf apex of Cyathea dregei Kunze.

The second, Goudot s.n. (K!,nr. 27 in hb.T.Moore) has been marked “don de M. Delessert” and is thus most likely from the same collection as the specimen in G-DEL, although it has been determined as C.boivinii var. humblotii and cited as type of C. goudotii by Christensen (1932: 34). Pinnule size, however, points to C. dregei , but determination must remain doubtful for such a fragmentary specimen.

The third, Goudot s.n. (P!, in hb. Luerssen no. 10416), is without doubt a fragment of C. decrescens Mett. ex Kuhn. Luerssen indicates on the envelope containing one pinna with a rachis fragment, that this is the “real” C. goudotii (“Ist die echte C. Goudotii Kze.”). On the specimen it is stated that it has been taken from hb. Kunze and that it has therein been determined as C. decrescens by Mettenius (“ Cyathea Goudotii Kze fragm. origin. hb. Kze. dort von mett. im hb. Kze. als decrescens bezeichnet. Madagascar: Goudot leg.”). Although this is second hand information and no autograph of Kunze is associated to it, this specimen is the most promising candidate for lectotypification.

In summary, bipinnate and tripinnate candidate specimens are available for the lectotypification of C. goudotii Kunze. In his diagnosis, Kunze compares C. goudotii to Sieber fl. mixt. exs. 304, a clearly bipinnate specimen. Kuhn (1868) notes the

similarity of C. goudotii to C. borbonica Desv. , a clearly bipinnate taxon. It is hence likely that the bipinnate specimen in hb. Luerssen is part of the original material of C. goudotii and that Kunze’s autograph became associated with the tripinnate specimen in G-DEL by error.

As this cannot be proven with certainty and as information on the specimen in hb. Luerssen is from second hand, we claim this case to be unsolvable with the evidence currently at hand and leave it to the judgment of future monographers whether the name C. goudotii Kunze can be lectotypified and replace the widely used name C. decrescens Mett. ex Kuhn.