Octomeria chamaeleptotes Reichenbach (1849: 817)

Santos, Thiago Faria Dos, Brito, Antonio Luiz Vieira Toscano De & Smidt, Eric De Camargo, 2022, A new Octomeria (Orchidaceae: Pleurothallidinae) and nomenclatural notes for related Southern Brazilian species, Phytotaxa 572 (3), pp. 275-282 : 280-281

Octomeria chamaeleptotes Reichenbach (1849: 817) .

Type:— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: Serra dos Órgãos , 2 May 1848, Luschnath 680 [lectotype (designated by Santos et al. 2020): W 0022199! ].

= Octomeria chamaeleptotes var. grandiflora Cogniaux (1896: 641) . Type:— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: Teresópolis , January 1888, J. Moura 111 (holotype: HBG 506723 [digital image!]).

= Octomeria sancti-angeli Kraenzlin (1911: 52) . Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul: Colônia Silveira Martins , 1 January 1893, C.A.M. Lindman 1001 (holotype: S R-3773 [digital image!]), syn. nov.

= Octomeria riograndensis Schlechter (1925: 5) . Type:— BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul: Rio Pardo, Fazenda Boa Esperança , March 1921, D. Jürgens 14 (holotype: ICN 014014!), syn. nov.

= Octomeria hatschbachii Schlechter (1926: 45) . Type: — BRAZIL. Paraná: Curitiba, August, A. Hatschbach 90 (holotype: lost).— BRAZIL. Paraná: Lapa , Rio Passa 2, 1 October 1969, Gerdt G. Hatschbach 22305 (neotype: MBM 12757! designated here).

Additional specimens examined: — Bahia: Abaíra, mata do Barbado, 2 January 1992, R.M. Harley, E. Nic Lughadha, W. Ganev & R.F. Queiroz H50630 (HUEFS, K). Minas Gerais: Itamonte. Parque Nacional do Itatiaia, 6 May 2009, F.F.V.A. Barberena 172 (RB). Paraná: Campina Grande do Sul, Sítio do Belizário, 27 Dezember 1966, Gerdt G. Hatschbach 15561 (MBM); Curitiba, 19 October 1928, F.C. Hoehne 23084 (SP); Rio Negro, October 1928, F.C. Hoehne 23537 (SP); São José dos Pinhais, Contenda, 28 February 1967, Gerdt G. Hatschbach 16085 (MBM); Tijucas do Sul, Cangoera, 18 October 2016, T.F. Santos 200 (UPCB). Rio Grande do Sul: Pelotas, Distrito de Rincão da Cruz, 13 September 2018, T. Perleberg 287 (ECT); São Francisco de Paula, J. Klein 57 (UPCB); São José dos Ausentes, Faxinal Preto, March 2014, V. Ariati, 989 (MBM); Santo Inácio, 16 September 2014, E.D. Lozano 2774 (MBM). Santa Catarina: Florianópolis, Morro do Rio Vermelho, 11 September 1965, R.M. Klein 7920 (FLOR).

Taxonomic Remarks: — Octomeria hatschbachii was erroneously typified by Santos et al. (2020). The illustration in the paper edited by Mansfeld and published posthumously for Rudolf Schlechter (1930), has no information that this reproduction belongs to the original material, being invalid for lectotypification ( Meneguzzo et al. 2015). Therefore, due to the morphological resemblance to the taxon described by Schlechter (1926), we designate the collection of Gerdt G. Hatschbach 22305 deposited in the MBM herbarium as the neotype.

While describing O. sancti-angeli, Kraenzlin (1911) compares it with O. tridentata Lindley (1839: 35) , indicating that they could be a variety of the same. O. tridentata occurs in the Caribbean and among the Brazilian species, it is only similar to O. grandiflora Lindley (1842: 64) ( Chiron & Sambin 2016), a plant with large vegetative aspect, flat leaves and bigger floral parts, differing from Kraenzlin’s O. sancti-angeli , for this reason, considering them a variety would be an obvious mistake.

When analysing the type material ( Figure 3A ) and specimens identified as O. sancti-angeli , while comparing them with herbarium collections and type material of O. chamaeleptotes ( Figure 3B ) and its synonyms, it is easy to conclude that these taxa are morphologically very closely related and should be considered the same taxon—such as the presence of cylindrical leaves, flowers with sepals and petals acuminated and obovate lip. Even though in the case of O. chamaeleptotes , the lip format cannot be noted very well in its type due to the bad floral drawing and the low quality of the reproductive material in the exsiccate, the vegetative similarity between this species and O. sanctiangeli is clear. When we compare illustrations and dissected flowers, the similarity also becomes easy to see ( Figure 3 ). Therefore, we have no hesitation in proposing the synonymisation of O. sancti-angeli , sustaining the older name, O. chamaeleptotes .

In the description of Octomeria riograndensis, Schlechter compares it with two other species of the genus, O. wawrae Reichenbach ex Wawra (1888: 156) and O. rodeiensis Barbosa Rodrigues (1877: 105) . However, they can be easily discerned. O. riograndensis is smaller, both in vegetative and reproductive parts. In addition, O. wawrae flowers have much narrower and more accentuated sepals and petals, differing precisely in the characteristics that Schlechter points out as common among them. In comparison to O. rodeiensis , besides the vegetative parts being different, the lip has a centrally fleshy vein which extends from the base beyond the longitudinal calluses, reaching the apex of the lip; this structure is absent in O. riograndensis description or in the type desiccated flowers ( Figure 3D ). Hoehne (1950) mistakenly identified both Octomeria sancti-angeli and Octomeria riograndensis . The material collected by “ Handro s.n. (SP15040)’’ used to characterise O. sancti-angeli is an imprecise identification of O. rubrifolia Barbosa Rodrigues (1877: 31) . The material examined to characterise and illustrate O. riograndensis , “Dutra ex Rambo 66 (SP50351)” is O. chamaeleptotes , this interpretation would not be wrong if Hoehne had considered them the same taxon, proposing to a synonymisation as we present here. The similarity between these two taxa is easy to recognise when we compare the O. riograndensis type, ‘’ Dutra-Jürgens 14 (ICN014014)’’ ( Figure 3D–E ), with O. chamaeleptotes collections. In the same work of Hoehne, a further confusion was the misidentification of another O. riograndensis collection, Gerdt G. Hatschbach 1536 (MBM50033, SP55378) ( Figure 3F ), a plant found by the Brazilian botanist in Campininha County, Paraná State, which we are proposing here as O. imigiae . The morphological difference between O. imigiae with similar species is provided in the identification key.

As explained, when evaluating the vegetative and reproductive morphological characteristics observed in the type of O. riograndensis , the similarity with specimens of O. chamaeleptotes is noticeable ( Figure 3A–E )—the presence of cylindrical and arched leaves, flowers with sepals and petals oblong-lanceolate with apex acuminated, and lip obovate. Therefore, we recognise them as co-specific, proposing their synonymisation and sustaining the oldest name of O. chamaeleptotes .

Figures

FIGURE 3. Collections of Octomeria. A. Holotype of O. sancti-angeli, N.A. Lindman 1001a (S). B. Holotype of O. chamaeleptotes var. grandiflora, B. Luschnath 608 (W). C. Holotype of O. sancti-angeli, Pabst illustration attached to the exsiccate; obovate lip. D. Holotype of O. riograndensis, D. Jürgens 14 (ICN). E. Holotype of O. riograndensis, dissected flowers. F. Paratype of O. imigiae, Gerdt G. Hatschbach 1536 (SP55378).