Commelina rufipes Seub. var. rufipes, in Martius Fl. Bras. 3(1): 265. 1855.

Pellegrini, Marco Octavio de Oliveira & Forzza, Rafaela Campostrini, 2017, Synopsis of Commelina L. (Commelinaceae) in the state of Rio de Janeiro, reveals a new white-flowered species endemic to Brazil, PhytoKeys 78, pp. 59-81 : 66

6b. Commelina rufipes Seub. var. rufipes, in Martius Fl. Bras. 3(1): 265. 1855. Fig. 1I-J

Lectotype

(designated here). BRAZIL. São Paulo: s.loc., 1817, C.F.P. Martius 76 (M barcode M0210921!). Epitype (designated here). BRAZIL. São Paulo: Bertioga, estrada Bertioga/ São Sebastião, bairro São Rafael, 25 Oct 2007, R.C. Forzza et al. 4823 (RB barcode RB00515585!)

Selected specimens seen.

BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: Duque de Caxias, Reserva da Petrobrás, trilha para a barragem, 28 August 1997, J.A. Lira Neto et al. 696 (RB). Magé, 1 November 1983, R.R. Guedes et al. 537 (RB). Sapucaia, estrada que liga Sapucaia das Terras Frias até o Rio Vermelho, 13 March 1981, M.G.A. Lobo 223 (RB). Silva Jardim, Reserva Biológica de Poço das Antas, Juturnaíba, trilha Rodolfo Norte, caminho para a Pelonha, 18 August 1995, J.M.A. Braga et al. 2735 (RB). Teresópolis, Parque Nacional da Serra dos Órgãos, trilha para a Pedra do Sino, da entrada até a primeira cachoeira, 14 Jul 2011, J.A. Lombardi 8616 (HRCB, UPCB)

Nomenclatural notes.

When describing C. rufipes , Seubert (1855) only mentions that his new species was based on a Martius specimen, at M. After searching the M collection, we found just two specimens from this collector - Martius 76 (M0210921) and Martius 77 (M0210920). Since the specimen Martius 76 was clearly annotated in Seubert’s handwriting it is the obvious choice for a lectotype. Nonetheless, Seubert’s original description makes it clear that all available specimens had few if any flowers, which matches the specimens found by us at M. This has caused great taxonomic problems over the years, with this name being ascribed to a number of different genera (i.e. Athyrocarpus Schltdl., Commelina , Commelinopsis Pichon, and Phaeosphaerion Hassk.), and as either accepted or as a synonym by different authors (Faden & Hunt 1987). Thus, in accordance to the Code ( McNeill et al., 2012, Art. 9.8), we also designate a well-preserved flowering specimen as an epitype, to avoid further taxonomic and nomenclatural problems.

Taxonomical notes.

Apart from the obvious difference in indumenta, the leaves of C. rufipes var. rufipes tend to be thinner (lanceolate to elliptic-lanceolate), with a cuneate base and acute apex, while the leaves of C. rufipes var. glabrata tend to be wider (ovate-elliptic to ovate), with a round to obtuse base and acuminate apex.

Figures

Figure 1. Commelina in the state of Rio de Janeiro. A C. benghalensis L. B C. diffusa Burm. f. C-D C. erecta L.: C detail of the inflorescence showing aborted upper cincinnus D flower E-F C. obliqua Vahl: E detail of the inflorescence showing the two developed cincinni F flower G C. rufipes var. glabrata (D. R. Hunt) Faden & D. R. Hunt H-I C. rufipes var. rufipes Seub.: H detail of the leaf-sheaths, showing the hirsute rusty hairs I mature fruits. G by Flora Virtual Estacion Biologica El Verde group, remaining field photos by M. O. O. Pellegrini.