Comolia latifolia (Aubl.) Cogniaux (1885: 433)

Silva, Diego Nunes Da, Rocha, Maria José Reis Da, Maia, Vítor Hugo, Guimarães, Elsie Franklin & Guimarães, Paulo José Fernandes, 2021, Checklist, typifications, and nomenclatural notes on Comolia (Melastomataceae, Marcetieae), Phytotaxa 497 (3), pp. 247-262 : 251

3. Comolia latifolia (Aubl.) Cogniaux (1885: 433) . ≡ Rhexia latifolia Aublet (1775: 336) , non Rhexia latifolia Bush (1911: 167) . ≡ Arthrostemma aubletii De Candolle (1828: 137) . ≡ Tetrameris aubletii (DC.) Naudin (1850: 127) . ≡ Comolia aubletii (DC.) Triana (1872: 37) . Type:—[ FRENCH GUIANA]. in iifdem pratis [in pratis arenoʃis territorii Aroura, propè pr ӕdium Domini Le Grand] [in protologue of Rhexia villosa Aubl. ] (lectotype, designated here: original illustration published in Hist. Pl. Guiane 3: pl. 129, fig. 2. 1775a; at The Natural History Museum).

Notes:— Comolia latifolia has Rhexia latifolia Aubl as its basionym.When elaborating the treatment of Melastomataceae, De Candolle (1828) subordinated Rhexia latifolia under Arthrostemma Pav. ex Don , but applied the name A. aubletii , because the epithet “ latifolium ” was already pre-occupied in the name Arthrostemma latifolium Don (1823: 299) .

While describing Tetrameris Naudin, Naudin (1850) transferred A. aubletii to this genus, using the same epithet as De Candolle (1828), and established the new combination T. aubletii (DC.) Naudin. According to Article 11.4 of the ICN, Naudin (1850) should have used the epithet “ latifolia ” in such combination due to its priority, since Arthostemma latifolium was not combined in Tetrameris . Triana (1872) also used the epithet “ aubletii ” when he transferred T. aubletii to Comolia . Like Naudin (1850), Triana (1872) should have used the epithet “ latifolia ” in its new combination for the same reason as their predecessor, since this epithet could be used in Comolia , according to Article 11.4 of the ICN.

Finally, when elaborating his treatment in Flora brasiliensis, Cogniaux (1885) made the correct combination of Rhexia latifolia Aubl. as Comolia latifolia (Aubl.) Cogn. , according to Article 11.4 of the ICN. However, the original material of this species has not been located ( Cogniaux 1885; Howard 1983; Wurdack 1993), but was likely sent to BM, as was the case with the original material of Rhexia villosa Aubl. [collected in the same location by Jean Baptiste Christophe Fusée Aublet (1720–1778) and described in the same treatment]. Thus far, the collection has not been found in the herbaria consulted, so we cannot comment on its whereabouts (e.g., if it was lost, destroyed or destined for another institution that was not consulted). Thus, the illustration (see Aublet 1775a) mentioned in the protologue of Rhexia latifolia (Aublet 1775) is designated as the lectotype of this name ( Figure 3 ), according to Article 9.11 of the ICN.

The fact that the original material has not yet been located has raised some questions about the true identity of this taxon ( Cogniaux 1885; Wurdack 1993). Cogniaux (1885) commented in Latin “ Species dubia, mihi non visa ” – in English “ Doubtful species, I have not seen ” –, while Wurdack (1993) also considered this species as doubtful. In agreement with the previous treatments, we consider this species as doubtful.

Figures

FIGURE 3. Reproduction of the original illustration of Comolia latifolia (Aubl.) Cogn. (inside the red square), published in Aublet (1775a, pl. 129, fig. 2).