Pinguicula lignicola Barnhart

Domínguez, Yoannis, 2024, Clarifying the status of Caribbean Pinguicula (Lentibulariaceae) type specimens, Phytotaxa 638 (3), pp. 247-256 : 252

Pinguicula lignicola Barnhart in Britton (1920: 110).

Type (lectotype, designated here):— CUBA. [Prov. Holguín]: on branches of trees, vicinity of Camp San Benito, Oriente , 23 February 1910, J.A. Shafer 4031 (A barcode 00093359!; image of the lectotype: https://s3.amazonaws.com/huhwebimages/B262B8185C5C4B3/ type/full/93359.jpg) .

Note:—The protologue of P. lignicola does explicitly indicate Shafer’s collection on 24 February 1910 as type (Shafer 4031) without flagging it as holotype or citing the herbarium. Barnhart (in Britton 1920) also cited the specimens Shafer 8065 and Ramsden s.n. but did not specify the herbarium housing the material. Casper (2019) cited the “ holotype ” as housed at NY although he did not see it. No Pinguicula specimen collected by Shafer exists in the extant NY collection (Matthew Pace, pers. comm., 15 November 2021). Nonetheless, two Shafer’s specimens that partially match the collections cited in the protologue were traced at A (00093359! and 00093358!). In Shafer 4031 the date appears as 23 February 1910 and in Shafer 8065 it is 24 February 1910 (24–30 in Barnhart’s citation), all other information agrees with the protologue. Moreover, the specimens bear typed labels and are annotated as “type” and “ syntype ” respectively. Shimai (2017) cited Shafer 4031 at A as “ holotype?” but he did not make a decision on the specimen’s type status. Further analyses of these specimens suggest that they could have been the ones used and cited by Barnhart since Shafer 4031 contains three plants with flowers (more suitable as holotype) and Shafer 8065 contains four plants, one of them with undeveloped reproductive structures. Both specimens found at A can be considered original material under Art. 9.4 of the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018); therefore, Shafer 4031 was selected as the lectotype and the citation of the date that appears in the protologue is corrected according to Art. 9.2 of the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018).