Graffenrieda cucullata (Triana) Williams (1963: 563)

Murillo-Serna, Jhon S., Michelangeli, Fabián A. & Alzate-Guarín, Fernando, 2019, Typification of some names of Graffenrieda (Melastomataceae: Merianieae), Phytotaxa 391 (2), pp. 131-137 : 133-134

Graffenrieda cucullata (Triana) Williams (1963: 563)

≡ Calyptrella cucullata Triana (1871: 72) ≡ Melastoma cucullata Pavón ex D. Don (1823: 317) nom. herb., nom. nud. ≡ Conostegia cucullata Don (1823: 317) nom. nud. Type (lectotype, designated here):— COLOMBIA. “prope Tuquerres”, s.d., Triana s.n. (BM001008002!, remanescent syntypes:—

ECUADOR. “ad pedem Chimborazo ”, s.d., R. Spruce s.n. K000006322 [digital image!], possible remanescent syntypes:— PERU.

“prope Tarapoto Peruviae orientalis”, s.d. R. Spruce 4899, G00319915 (2 sheets) [digital image!], K000006324 [digital image!],

K000006325 [digital image!], NY 2060341!, P04887725 [digital image!], Lechler 3237, BR000000562893 [digital image!]).

Notes: The taxonomic history of this species is complicated and is worth summarizing here. The first mention of this taxon was made by Don (1823) in the description of Conostegia ( Don 1823: 284) , listing it as one of the species of this genus and quoting a Pavón manuscript under the name Melastoma cucullata . However, there is not a description of the species, so both names should be considered as nomina nuda. Later, Triana (1871) made the combination in Calyptrella citing Don’s work, again without providing a description. However, this same publication contains a drawing of a floral bud, as well as details of the anthers, fruit and seed. Therefore, this drawing with analysis replaces a written description prior to 1908, according to Art. 38 of the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018), effectively validating this species. This was also the opinion of Wurdack (1980) when analyzing the history of this species, thus, Triana must be considered the author of this species.

Five collections from different locations are mentioned by Triana (1871) (Pavon s.n., Tehler 3237, Spruce 4879, Spruce s.n., Triana s.n.). Since this is the valid description of the species, all these specimens should be considered as syntypes, and not only the Pavón specimen mentioned by Don (1828). Duplicates of these Spruce’s collections are deposited in G-DC, K, MPU, NY and P, specimens of Triana’s in BM and P. The specimen cited as Tehler 3237 in the protologue ( Triana 1871) is presumably an error since it has not been located, but there is a specimen Lechler 3237 in BR, which coincides with the description of the species and it has the same collection number. We therefore consider that it could constitute a remnant syntype.

Another collection cited in the protologue is Spruce 4879, which corresponds to a Fabaceae . Several Spruce’s specimens in G-DC, K, NY and P have the number 4899, which was not cited in the protologue and whose locality is “prope Tarapoto Peruviae orientalis” as mentioned by Triana (1871) for Spruce 4879. Additionally, specimens in K of Spruce 4899 are annotated as C. cucullata . There is also a specimen of Spruce s.n. from Ecuador that probably corresponds to the one cited as those of Chimborazo deposited in K. Finally, duplicates of Spruce 4329 in MPU and K are undoubtedly G. cucullata , but these were not cited by Triana (1871) and do not constitute syntypes. Triana (1871) mentions Melastoma cucullata as a secondary quotation, referencing the work of Don (1823). A specimen of Triana s.n. is deposited in BM and marked with the locality “Tuquerres”, as mentioned in the protologue; it is annotated as “ Calyptrella ampla ”, a name that was never published and which is consistent with the description and locations cited for Calyptrella cucullata .

Macbride (1941) treated this species as Calyptrella cucullata (Pav.) Triana , possibly unaware of the issues mentioned above. Moreover, he mentions “Ruiz & Pavón, type— Junin: La Merced, 5596”. We believe that this should not be considered an inadvertent lectotypification because Ruiz & Pavón’s specimen mentioned by Triana (1871) lacks a number. Triana (1871) routinely cited numbers when present in the herbarium specimens. We have not been able to locate the specimen cited by Macbride (1941), but in any event, since it was not cited by Triana (1871), it can’t be considered original material, and thus can’t be used as a lectotype.

Lastly, there is a specimen of Ruiz & Pavón s.n. at MA ( MA 813777) annotated as Calyptrella cucullata by Margraf. We can’t ascertain whether or not this is the specimen cited by Triana (1871) as it does not have his annotation, but more importantly this specimen corresponds morphologically to Graffenrieda galeottii ( Naudin 1852: 115) Williams (1963: 563) .

Considering all the above arguments, the most conservative option is to designate the specimen collected by Triana as a lectotype, because it is the only one that was certainly studied by the author; Spruce 4899 and Lechler 3237 are designated as possible remnant syntypes.