Euonymus acutangulus Wight (1840: 178)

Mondal, Ajay & Murugan, C., 2024, Taxonomic Note and Neotypification of Euonymus acutangulus Wight. (Celastraceae: Celastroideae), Phytotaxa 675 (2), pp. 185-190 : 186-189

Euonymus acutangulus Wight (1840: 178)

Neotype (designated here): India: Courg [presently Kodaku, Karnataka], Apr. 1838, Gough s.n. ( K000669154 , digital image!).

= Euonymus angulatus Wight (1846 : t. 1053).

Lectotype (designated here): India: Sisparah [Sispara, Tamil Nadu, India], no date, no collector ( MH00001896 !); isolectotype: India: Sisparah [Sispara, Tamil Nadu, India], no date, no collector ( K000669156 , digital image!); residual syntypes: India: Nulgherries [Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu India], no date, Gardner s.n. ( K005160670 , digital image!); Nulghe [Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu India], 1847, Gardner s.n. ( K005160669 , digital image!).

= Euonymus pterocladus Hohen. ex M.A. Lawson (1875: 610)

Lectotype (designated here): India: Nilagiri (Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu), no date, Hohenacker 1545 ( P00268765 , digital image!); isolectotypes: Nilagiri ( Nilgiris , Tamil Nadu), no date, Hohenacker 1545 ( K000669155 , digital image!); Nilagiri ( Nilgiris , Tamil Nadu), no date, Hohenacker 1545 ( FI006630 , digital Image!)

Notes: In the protologue of E. acutangulus, Wight cited a collection made by Gough from ‘Neilgherries’ (presently known as Nilgiris, India). However, our attempts to locate any original material from ‘Neilgherries’ were unsuccessful. Instead, we found a single herbarium sheet (K000669154) collected by George Stephens Gough from ‘Courg’ (now Kodagu, India). The left side of this sheet displays a handwritten label that states, ‘No. 53 in Pls St to L.S.’, alongside the taxon name ‘ Euonymus acutangulus GSG & RW in litts.’ with the collection date noted as ‘Apl 38’ (April 1838). The annotation ‘No 53 in Pls St to L.S.’ indicates ‘specimen number 53 in plants sent to the Linnean Society’, while ‘in litts’ signifies that Wight communicated the identification to G.S. Gough via corresponded.

The sheet (K000669154) cannot be considered as original material due to the inconsistency between the location cited in the protologue and the actual collection location. Moreover, it cannot be regarded as uncited original material, as there is no evidence (such as annotations, drawings, etc.) to indicate that Wight consulted this sheet, aside from the fact that it shares the same collector (G.S. Gough). Following communications (press. comm. 2024) with K and LINN, as well as consultation at MH and CAL, we were unable to locate any additional material of E. acutangulus collected by G.S. Gough.

Considering that, except collections of Carl Linnaeus and James Edward Smith, all other specimens at LINN were sold at auction in 1863, it is highly probable that no duplicates are extant. Moreover, Present Book 4, Part 2 (Linnean Society Library and Archives) clearly states that G.S. Gough sent specimens of 100 phanerogams species collected from the ‘Neelgherries’ and ‘Courg’ during 1838 to the Linnean Society. Unfortunately, Gough’s collections were not itemized in the auction catalogue created for the Linnean Society, London, leaving us with no means of tracing where the purchased lots were allocated. Additionally, we have contacted BM and E (press. comm., 2024), where some of G.S. Gough’s collections are believed to be housed. However, no further specimens were traced out.

Hence, due to the unavailability of any material from Nilgiris and considering only one material collected by G.S. Gough from ‘Courg’ i.e., K000669154 ( Fig. 1 ) is designated here as the Neotype of Euonymus acutangulus Wight , according to Art. 9.8 and 9.13 ( Turland et al., 2018), as it is found to be the most suitable specimen to stabilize the application of the name.

A search for original material of Euonymus angulatus at A, BR, CAL, GH, E, K, MH, NY, P & S yielded two sheets: one at Kew (K000669156) and the other at MH (MH00001896). The sheet at K, collected from ‘Sisparah’, bears the label ‘HERB. R. WIGHT PROP’. The herbarium sheet housed at MH i.e., MH00001896, is a duplicate of K000669156. The name of the taxon along with the locality i.e., Euonymus angulatus , ‘Sisparah’, is inscribed in pencil at the bottom of these sheets which closely resembles Wight’s handwriting. Two additional sheets housed at K (K005160669 & K005160670) bear the name ‘ Euonymus angulatus ’, collected from ‘Nulghe’, ‘Nulgherries’ (presently all location can be attributed to Nilgiris), and all of them annotated by George Gardner. Initially, Wight received several collections from Ceylon, contributed by Gardner, Walker, and Thwaites. Gardner’s connection with Wight was particularly strong; he visited Coimbatore and Ooty between January and April 1845 to retrieve Ceylon specimens that Wight had borrowed with the intention of publishing a new edition of Moon’s Cat. Pl. Ceylon. During this visit, Wight allowed Gardner to take numerous duplicates from his herbarium, primarily specimens from the Nilgiris, which Gardner later sent to Bentham and W.J. Hooker at Kew. These duplicates largely consist of material described by Wight in the latter part of Icones Plantarum Indiae Orientalis ( Noltie 2005). Although the sheet with barcode K005160669 bears annotation ‘Gardner 1847’, there should be no confusion regarding it as original material, as the binomial inscription perfectly matches Wight’s handwriting, probably in later period of time the annotation i.e., ‘Gardner 1847’ was added by Gardner. In this context K005160669 & K005160670 are considered as an original material and should be treated as a residual syntypes.

Additional material of E. angulatus , apparently collected by Wight himself, is held in K (K000669157 & K000669158), GH (GH0049786) and S (S11-16555). All of these specimens bear printed labels reading ‘Peninsula Indiae Orientalis’ and are annotated as ‘no 443’. As Wight did not cite the number 443 in the protologue for E. angulatus , these are not considered to be original material of this name.

After a comprehensive examination of all syntypes, MH00001896 ( Fig. 2) has been selected as the lectotype for E. angulatus in accordance with Art. 9.12 ( Turland et al., 2018), as it is found to be the most suitable specimen to stabilize the application of the name. This selection is supported by the presence of both flowering and fruiting structures on the MH sheet, providing comprehensive morphological information crucial for confirming its identity.

E. pterocladus Hohen. ex M.A. Lawson was published based on a single gathering made by Rudolf Friedrich Hohenacker from ‘Nilagiri’ (Now Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu, India). Four sheets considered to be original material of this name have been located: one at K (K000669155), two at P (P00268764 and P00268765) and one at FI (FI006630). All of these sheets appear to comprise material from a single gathering, and are therefore treated as syntypes. All sheets bear the number ‘1545’, and are annotated ‘Pl. Ind. Or’, and ‘Nilagiri’, and the annotation matches Hohenacker’s handwriting observed on various other collections made by him.

After considering the available syntypes, P00268765 ( Fig. 3 ) with Hohenacker’s annotation is designated here as the lectotype of E. pterocladus following ICN Art. 9.12 ( Turland et al., 2018), as it is the most suitable specimen to stabilize the application the name.

Figures

FIGURE 1. a. Neotype of Euonymus acutangulus Wight [© Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew].

FIGURE 3. Lectotype of Euonymus pterocladus Hohen. ex M.A. Lawson. [©Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (France)]