Euphorbia conspicua N.E.Br.

Figueiredo, Estrela & Smith, Gideon F., 2020, Typification of Euphorbia candelabrum (Euphorbiaceae) and associated names, Phytotaxa 447 (3), pp. 216-220 : 217

Typification of Euphorbia conspicua N.E.Br.

Contrary to the statement of Bruyns & Berry (2019: 833), there is no holotype for the name E. conspicua . The Code clearly states that ‘A holotype of a name of a species or infraspecific taxon is the one specimen or illustration (but see Art. 40.4) either (a) indicated by the author(s) as the nomenclatural type or (b) used by the author(s) when no type was indicated.’ ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 9.1). When Brown (1912: 600) described E. conspicua he did not indicate a holotype. Brown (1912) cited an illustration in Monteiro (1876: 13) and a single collection number, Welwitsch 641, but that number consists of at least five specimens that are found at: BM (BM000911284), COI (COI00096924), G (G00018242), K (K000253152), and LISU (LISU223726). As Welwitsch grouped distinct collections of the same taxon under a single number, specimens with the same number are not necessarily duplicates (see for example Albuquerque et al. 2009 and Smith & Figueiredo 2020). The specimen at LISU (LISU223726) is the neotype of the name E. candelabrum Welw. ; it was designated by Leach (1981: 484). Leach (1981) simultaneously designated the same specimen as ‘type’ [here corrected to lectotype ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 9.2)] for the name E. conspicua , so making the two names homotypic. Therefore, if the name E. candelabrum is considered to have been validly published by Welwitsch, the name E. conspicua will be nomenclaturally superfluous and illegitimate ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 52.1).