Kalanchoe subg. Kitchingia (Baker) Smith & Figueiredo (2018a: 169)

Smith, Gideon F., 2023, A review of the infrageneric classifications proposed for Kalanchoe (Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae) from the earliest times up to 2000, Phytotaxa 619 (1), pp. 1-38 : 5-9

Kalanchoe subg. Kitchingia (Baker) Smith & Figueiredo (2018a: 169) .

Basionym:— Kitchingia Baker (1881: 268) .

Type:— Kitchingia gracilipes Baker (1881: 268) (lectotype), designated by Smith & Figueiredo (2018a: 169), accepted name Kalanchoe gracilipes (Baker) Baillon (1885: 469) .

Homotypic synonyms:— K. [unranked] Kitchingia (Baker) Baillon (1885: 468) , syn. nov.; Kalanchoe sect. Kitchingia (Baker) Boiteau (1947: 7) , pro parte; Bryophyllum Salisbury (1805 : t. 3) subg. Kitchingia (Baker) Byalt (2008: 462) , pro parte.

Heterotypic synonym:— Kalanchoe subg. Calophygia Descoings (2006a: 24) , pro parte, excl. type.

Designation not validly published:—“ Kalanchoe subg. Kitchingia ” (Baker) Maire (1977: 263), nom. inval. ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 41.5).

Not validly published infrasubgeneric designations applicable to taxa included in K. subg. Kitchingia :—“ Kalanchoe [sect. Kitchingia] subsect. Sylvaticae ” Boiteau (1947: 8) , nom. inval. ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 39.1).

“ Kalanchoe [sect. Kitchingia ] [unranked] Sylvaticae ” Boiteau & Mannoni (1948a: 7), nom. inval. ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 39.1, and see Art. 37.3).

“ Kalanchoe [sect. Kitchingia] subsect. Campanulatae ” Boiteau (1947: 8), nom. inval. ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 39.1).

“ Kalanchoe [sect. Kitchingia ] [unranked] Campanulatae ” Boiteau & Mannoni (1948a: 9), nom. inval. ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 39.1, and see Art. 37.3).

None of the two subsectional ( Boiteau 1947: 8) and two unranked ( Boiteau & Mannoni 1948a: 7, 9) designations, proposed one year apart, was validly published, because, under Turland et al. (2018: Art. 39.1), they lacked a Latin description or diagnosis.

Baillon (1885: 467–468) upheld Bryophyllum as an undifferentiated genus in the Crassulaceae and included the following three species only in the genus: “1. B. pinnatum .”, “2. B. crenatum BAK. ”, and “3. B. proliferum BOWIE ” (see Table 3 row 3 and footnote 2 of that Table for the author attributions of these names). Bryophyllum is here preferentially treated as K. subg. Bryophyllum . Note though that B. crenatum Baker (1883: 139) is an illegitimate later homonym of B. crenatum Blanco (1845: 221) ( Turland et al. (2018: Art. 53.1)

3. The infrageneric classification of Kalanchoe of Raymond-Hamet (1907a, 1908a, b, 1910a, b)

Up to his death, the French botanist Raymond-Hamet (1890–1972) was the undisputed global authority on Kalanchoe (Smith 2020a) . Note that around 1912 Raymond Hamet changed his name to “Raymond-Hamet”, or at least started writing his name in this way when authoring papers, i.e., by hyphenating his given name and surname. In the ‘References’ of this paper his publications are cited under either “Hamet, R.”, or “Raymond-Hamet”, depending on which version of his name he used in the publication referenced. The standardised abbreviation as an author of plant names for both ‘Hamet’ and ‘Raymond-Hamet’ is “Raym.-Hamet” ( Brummitt & Powell 1992: 255, 524, see Smith & Figueiredo 2019b: 119 and Smith et al. 2019a: 36).

In a two-part monograph ( Hamet 1907a: especially pp. 877–879, 1908a: especially pp. 17–42), Raymond-Hamet, proposed 13 unranked and unnamed infrageneric groups for 51 accepted species of Kalanchoe . In one further paper, Hamet (1908b: 256) increased the number of still unnamed groups by one, to 14 (Smith 2020a) ( Table 4 ). Likely after having received feedback from several herbaria that attempted to arrange their Kalanchoe specimens according to Hamet’s two-part monograph ( Hamet 1907a, 1908a), he further refined his work by, inter alia, accepting several additional species, so bringing the total number he recognised by 1910 to just over 60 ( Hamet 1908b, 1910a, b).

Around the time that Hamet worked towards the first two parts of his monograph ( Hamet 1907a, 1908a), he was unaware of or misinterpreted at least some of the species that had been described by Drake del Castillo (1903) a few years earlier, such as K. beharensis Drake del Castillo (1903: 41) and K. linearifolia Drake del Castillo (1903: 41), these being species for which Hamet published the names, K. vantieghemii Hamet (1906: 110) and K. bonnieri Hamet (1907b: 139) , respectively, that were nomenclaturally superfluous ( Smith & Figueiredo 2022b). Ohba (2003: 247) further surmised that the broad circumscriptions followed by Hamet (1907a, 1908a) of some taxa, such as K. laciniata ( Linnaeus 1753: 430) Candolle (1802 : t. 100), caused considerable confusion in the taxonomy of the genus. Still, the monographic work of Hamet was the first modern attempt at a treatment of the genus as a whole and brought together a considerable volume of referenced exsiccata and literature citations in a single work.

Hamet (1908b: 257) provided a “Tableau analytique des groupes du genre KALANCHOE ” [identification key to the groups he recognised in Kalanchoe ] with which to distinguish among the 14 “groupes” he recognised. Nine of these groups were monotypic, with the other five ranging from three to 18 in terms of the number of included species ( Table 4 ). Nowhere did Hamet (1907a, 1908a, b) furnish these infrageneric groups with names—he only numbered them—and, being devoid of names, they obviously do not have any impact on the nomenclature of any infrageneric groups available for, or recognised in, Kalanchoe .

TABLE 4. (Continued)

Based on the rather aberrant morphology (cuneiform-quadrangular, 3-lobed, non-linear) of the nectar scales [squamae] of K. luciae Hamet (1908b: 256) , a species that additionally has soup plate-shaped and -sized leaves and dense-flowered, club-shaped inflorescences, Hamet (1908b: 254, 256–257) placed it in a newly established (but still unnamed) group, group number 14, which he recognised in his classification system.

The aberrant morphology of the nectar scales (but, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, not that of the vegetative and rest of the reproductive morphology, even though K. thyrsiflora Harvey (1862: 380) had been described earlier) had been poorly recorded among Kalanchoe species recognised at the time ( Hamet 1908b: 256). In his monograph of Kalanchoe and subsequent refinements he successively made to it ( Hamet 1907a: 879, 1908a, b), he had placed K. thyrsiflora , a close relative of K. luciae , in a different, numbered but also unnamed group, group number 13. Within two years after having published his two-part monograph ( Hamet 1907a, 1908a), Hamet (1910a, b) refined his classificatory views, and in Hamet (1910a: 20) transferred K. thyrsiflora to his unnamed group 14, where K. luciae had been placed. He again emphasised the importance of the cuneiform-quadrangular, 3-lobed, non-linear squamae of the two species ( Hamet 1910a: 20). This group 14 is today interpreted as K. sect. Raveta in K. subg. Kalanchoe (Smith 2022a, b, c, further discussed under ‘4. The infrageneric classification of Kalanchoe of Raymond-Hamet (1916a) ’, below).

In the second part of his monograph on Kalanchoe , as initially presented, Hamet (1908a:38) listed one nothospecies, K. × kewensis Watson (1902: 338) [see Smith 2022f on K. bentii C.H.Wright ex Hooker (1901 : tab. 7765), one of the parents of the nothospecies] and he additionally treated 10 species as little known ( Hamet 1908a: 39–42). These he therefore did not include, or only doubtfully included (see footnotes to Table 4 ), in his classification system ( Hamet 1907a: 877–879). These species were: (1) K. delagoensis Ecklon & Zeyher (1837: 305) , nom. inval., i.e., K. tubiflora ( Harvey 1862: 380) Hamet (1912a: 44) (see Figueiredo & Smith 2017: 771 and Smith & Figueiredo 2023a); (2) K. elizae Berger (1903: 69) ; (3) K. humilis Britten (1871: 397) (see Smith 2020e: 272–274); (4) K. laxiflora Baker (1887: 472) (see Smith & Figueiredo 2019a: 122); (5) K. luebbertiana Engl. in Engler & Diels (1907: 463) (see Smith & Figueiredo 2017a: 60); (6) K. paniculata Harvey (1862: 380) (see Smith & Figueiredo 2017b: 73); (7) K. porphyrocalyx ( Baker 1883: 142) Baillon (1885: 469) , even though Raymond-Hamet doubtfully, with a question mark, included this species in his “Groupe 1”, (see Hamet 1907a: 877, Smith & Figueiredo 2019c, and Smith & Shtein 2021b: 234); (8) K. robusta Balfour filius (1882: 512); (9) K. schizophylla ( Baker 1884: 340) Baillon (1885: 469) (see Shtein & Smith 2021: 102–103); and (10) K. sulphurea Baker (1887: 471) (see Smith & Shtein 2021b: 234–235). Several of these species, such as K. paniculata and K. humilis , were later shown to be worthy of acceptance, while others have been synonimised, with, for example, K. sulphurea at present being included under K. porphyrocalyx (Smith & Shtein 2021b: 234) .

In the protologue of the basionym of K. tubiflora ( Harvey 1862: 380) Hamet (1912a: 44) , Harvey (1862: 380) cited a single collection (which he presumed was made) by John Forbes (1798–1823) in Delagoa Bay, a region today regarded as the area around Maputo [Bay] in southern Mozambique. Note, however, that the collection could have originated from Madagascar where the expedition during which the specimen was collected did call, and it could have been collected by either Capt. William Fitz William Owen (1774–1857), the fleet commander, or by Forbes, the first of two plant collectors on the expedition ( Figueiredo & Smith 2022: 186). Further, to prevent confusion, note that in 1912, the same year in which Hamet published the new combination K. tubiflora , he also described K. leblanciae Hamet (1912b: 292) from “de la baie Delagoa”, i.e., Delagoa Bay. Unlike the widely naturalised K. tubiflora , K. leblanciae is indeed a southern and south-tropical African endemic that occurs in Mozambique, and in southeastern South Africa, for that matter ( Bandeira et al. 2007: 83, 138 [Plate 77], Smith et al. 2019a: 177–182).

4. The infrageneric classification of Kalanchoe of Raymond-Hamet (1916a)

Less than 10 years after having published his initial, informal classification system based on numbered “Groupe” for Kalanchoe ( Hamet 1907a: 877–879, 1908a, b, 1910a, b), Raymond-Hamet (1916a: 83–84) proposed, but did not validly publish a sectional designation, “Sect. Raveta ”, for his group 14. Raymond-Hamet (1916a: 84) regarded this section as intermediate between Kalanchoe and Cotyledon Linnaeus (1753: 429) , nom. cons., but did not definitely associate the (final) epithet, “ Raveta ”, with either of the genus names. Therefore, under Turland et al. (2018: Art. 35.2), “[ Kalanchoe / Cotyledon ] sect. Raveta ” was not validly published.

When publishing the combination K. [subg. Kalanchoe ] sect. Raveta, Smith (2022a: 210) provided reference to a previously and effectively published description, i.e., that of Raymond-Hamet (1916a: 83–84) ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 38.1(a )). Kalanchoe sect. Raveta was further effectively typified on K. thyrsiflora by Smith (2022a: 210) ( Turland et al. 2018: Articles 40.1 and 40.6) (see also Smith 2022b: 131 and Smith 2022c: 12–13).

Kalanchoe sect. Raveta was therefore validly published as the name of a new taxon by Smith (2022a: 210), i.e., not as a new combination, because the designation “ K. sect. Raveta ” was not validly published by Raymond-Hamet (1916a: 83–84).

The nomenclature of the not validly published “[ Kalanchoe / Cotyledon ] sect. Raveta ” resolves as follows:

Tables

TABLE 4. Infrageneric classification, as unnamed “groupes”, of Kalanchoe according to Hamet (1907a: 877–879, 1908a, b, 1910a, b). The species-rank nomenclature that Hamet used in these publications is deliberately retained. For each group all the species names included by Hamet are listed. “K.” = Kalanchoe.

“Groupe” #	Natural geographical distribution range; number of species [notes]	Species included in the “groupes”
		K. amplexicaulis ( Baker 1883: 142) Baillon (1885: 469) ;
		K. campanulata ( Baker 1881: 269) Baillon (1885: 469) ;
		K. gracilipes ( Baker 1881: 268) Baillon (1885: 469) ; K.
		panduriformis ( Baker 1883: 141) Baillon (1885: 469); K.
1	Madagascar; 9 [including species of K. subg. Kitchingia ]	parviflora Baker (1883: 141) Baillon (1885: 468) ; K. peltata
		( Baker 1883: 140) Baillon (1885: 468); K. porphyrocalyx ?1
		( Baker 1883: 142) Baillon (1885: 469); K. schizophylla ?1
		( Baker 1884: 340) Baillon (1885: 469); K. sulphurea ?1 Baker
		(1887: 471)
2	Madagascar; 1	K. integrifolia Baker (1887: 471)
3	Madagascar; 1	K. pumila Baker (1883: 139)
4	Madagascar; 1	K. synsepala Baker (1882: 110)
5	Comores; 1 [a species included in K. subg. Bryophyllum ]	K. adelae Hamet (1908a: 26)
6	Madagascar; 1	K. trichantha Baker (1883: 140) 2
7	Madagascar; 1	K. pubescens Baker (1887: 470)
		K. eriophylla Hils. & Bojer ex Tulasne (1857: 149) ; K.
8	Madagascar; 3	tomentosa Baker (1882: 110) ; K. beharensis Drake del
		Castillo (1903: 41)
		K. miniata Hils. & Bojer ex Tulasne (1857: 149) ; K. prolifera
		(Bowie ex Hooker 1859: t. 5147) Hamet (1908a: 19); K.
		streptantha Baker (1887: 472); K. vantieghemii Hamet
	Madagascar, Comores; 9 [species included in K. subg.	(1906: 110), as “ Tieghemii ”, i.e., in error without “ van ”.
9	Bryophyllum , three of which, K. pinnata , K. prolifera , and K. tubiflora , as K. verticillata , are widely naturalised	Kalanchoe tieghemii Raym. -Hamet in Raymond-Hamet & Perrier de la Bâthie (1914: 143) was only published several
	in mild climate parts of the world]	years later; K. beauverdii Hamet (1907a: 887) ; K. costantinii
		Hamet (1907a: 889); K. verticillata Scott Elliot (1891: 14) ;
		K. floribunda Tulasne (1857: 150) ; K. pinnata (Lamarck
		1786: 141) Persoon (1805: 446)

......continued on the next page