Dolichandra coccinea (Vellozo) M.Nascim., Zuntini & J.F.B.Pastore, 2023

Nascimento, Matheus, Zuntini, Alexandre R. & Pastore, José Floriano B., 2023, A new combination in Dolichandra (Bignoniaceae) from Brazil, Phytotaxa 616 (2), pp. 200-204 : 201

Dolichandra coccinea (Vellozo) M.Nascim., Zuntini & J.F.B.Pastore comb. nov.

≡ Bignonia coccinea Vellozo Florae Fluminensis (1829 [1825]: 250), non ‘ Bignonia coccinea (Prush) Steudel’, Nomencl. Bot. (1821: 109), pro syn. ≡ Macfadyena coccinea (Vellozo) Miers, Proc. Hort. Soc. 3 (1863: 200). Protologue: “ Habitat Silvis Mediterraneis ”. Lectotype (designated here):—Icon. ined. “Didyn. Angyosp. BIGNONIA coccinea Tab. 42 ”. Secç„o de Manuscritos, Bibliot. Nac. (Rio de Janeiro), nº. I-17,03, 002; mss1198655_046.

= Dolichandra cynanchoides Chamisso, Linnaea 7: 658. 1832. Lectotype (designated by Fonseca et al. 2017: 10):— BRAZIL. Unknown state, s.d., Sellow F. s.n. (HAL0016196!). syn. nov.

Habitat, distribution and phenology: — Dolichandra coccinea was collected in the southern region in Brazil, also occurring in Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay. The species is distributed in vegetation of Atlantic Forest, usually found between 500 and 800 m alt. The species flowering, generally, from October to April and fruits from November to July ( Fonseca et al. 2017, treated under D. cynanchoides ).

Morphology and ecology: —The comprehensive description of species was provided by Fonseca et al. (2017). The pollination syndrome existing in flowers of Bignoniaceae , is based on different groups of pollinators, among them hummingbirds ( Gentry 1974a; 1974b). Dolichandra coccinea is a species which possibly sees this type of interaction.

Note: —The lectotype was chosen based on the Vellozo’s original material, an unpublished plate kept by Biblioteca Nacional in Rio de Janeiro ( Brazil), following the Pastore et al. (2022) recommendations. In addition, also was published a copy of the plate in Arquivo Nacional Torre do Tombo (Lisboa), at collection “Manuscrito da Livraria”.

Taxonomic Note: — Dolichandra can be easily distinguished from other Bignoniaceae genera by several putative synapomorphies: multiple dissected phloem wedges from the propagation of parenchyma without significance ( Pace 2015), tendrils uncinate or in claw like form, colpate pollen with a psilate exine ( Gentry & Tomb 1979) and fruits with four divisions ( Lohmann & Taylor 2014). The flowers in the genus have corolla yellow or red, tubular or infundibuliform, lobes 5, anthers glabrous, ovary sessile, smooth and outside glabrous to puberulous, ovules in multiple series at placenta. The fruits are elliptic capsules, flattened or inflated with 2 or 4 valves glabrous partially divided longitudinally ( Lohmann & Taylor 2014).

Among the species in the genus, D. coccinea is characterized by: the purplish calyx and red corolla, stipitate ovary, flattened and oblong fruit. A comprehensive description for this species was presented by Fonseca et al. (2017), treated under D. cynanchoides . Gentry (1975) was the first to recognize B. coccinea Vellozo , non B. coccinea Steudel and D. cynanchoides as co-specific, however providing an explanation. The examination of the plate of Bignonia coccinea Vellozo non Bignonia coccinea (Prush) Steudel in conjunction with the protologue reveals several characters that support this affinity, like: persistent bracts; scarlet and spathaceous calyces; creamish corolla (not common, but coinciding with early anthesis ( Palacios et al. 2019); fruits with persistent calyx; and flowering phenology. The only character that differs significantly is the tendrils: while in Dolichandra the tendrils are always trifid and uncinated ( Lohmann & Taylor 2014), they are depicted as simple in the plate, which could be just an overlooked morphology or an artifact during the collection.

Despite Gentry’s (1975) accurate assessment of the identity of Bignonia coccinea Vell. , he opted not to adopt Vellozo’s name, presuming it to be an illegitimate name (later homonym) due to Bignonia coccinea Steudel (1821) . The examination of Steudel’s work, however, reveals that B. coccinea Steudel is not validly published Steudel’s work “ Nomenclator botanicus ” consists in an attempt to list all plant names at his time, not including descriptions, and often inadvertently proposing new names that are listed as synonyms in other species. This is the case of Bignonia coccinea Steudel , a new name proposed based on Bignonia radicans var. coccinea Pursh (1814) . Since Steudel listed the basionym of B. coccinea as a synonym of Bignonia radicans Linnaeus , the name is not accepted by him, hindering it invalid (Turland et al. 2018, Art. 36.1b). Consequently, B. coccinea Vellozo (1829) is legitimate and has priority over Dolicandra cynanchoides .