Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T10:29:55.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THREE NEW COMBINATIONS IN EUMACHIA (RUBIACEAE–PALICOUREEAE) FROM SOUTHEAST ASIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2018

I. M. Turner
I. M. Turner*
Affiliation:
Singapore Botanical Liaison Officer, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AE, England, UK. E-mail: i.turner@kew.org Herbarium, Singapore Botanic Gardens, National Parks Board, 1 Cluny Road, Singapore 259569.

Abstract

For 185 years, the genus Eumachia (Rubiaceae) was considered to include one species from Tonga. Since 2015, 94 more names have been added to it, expanding Eumachia into a pantropical genus of shrubby plants, most of whose members were originally described in Psychotria. Four Psychotria species from Southeast Asia that were identified as potentially belonging in Margaritopsis (now a synonym of Eumachia) have not yet had combinations made in Eumachia. They are considered here, and new combinations are made for Psychotria extensa Miq., P. montana Blume and P. rostrata Blume. The fourth name, Psychotria expansa Blume, is considered a synonym. The identities of Chassalia sangiana Miq. and Psychotria rhodocarpa Teijsm. & Binn. are also discussed. Lectotypes are designated for several names.

Keywords

IndonesialectotypeMargaritopsisPsychotria

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Edinburgh Journal of Botany , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 23 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (2018) 

Introduction

Based on morphological and molecular data, Andersson (Reference Andersson2001) expanded the small and rather obscure Caribbean Rubiaceae genus Margaritopsis C.Wright to a pantropical taxon including the genera Chazaliella E.M.A.Petit & Verdc., Chytropsia Bremek. and Readea Gillespie. Most of the species involved had originally been described in Psychotria L. Barrabé et al. (Reference Barrabé, Buerki, Mouly, Davis, Munzinger and Maggia2012) investigated further and argued that a group of 47 species from the Asia-Pacific region belonged in Margaritopsis, which had then been moved from the tribe Psychotrieae to the tribe Palicoureeae. Barrabé et al. (Reference Barrabé, Buerki, Mouly, Davis, Munzinger and Maggia2012) did not make combinations in Margaritopsis for the members of what they referred to as clade G. Subsequently, it became apparent that Eumachia DC. was the earliest name available for the genus. Taylor et al. (Reference Taylor, Razafimandimbison, Barrabé, Jardim and Barbosa2017) then published many new combinations in Eumachia for the species previously assigned to Margaritopsis.

Barrabé et al. (Reference Barrabé, Buerki, Mouly, Davis, Munzinger and Maggia2012) included eight species of Psychotria from Mainland Asia and West Malesia within clade G. Taylor et al. (Reference Taylor, Razafimandimbison, Barrabé, Jardim and Barbosa2017) provided combinations for four of these in Eumachia, leaving Psychotria expansa Blume, P. extensa Miq., P. montana Blume and P. rostrata Blume untransferred. They said that they were unable to resolve the application of these names. All four names are based on collections made on Java. Two of them have been widely used, namely Psychotria montana, which is known from India to Malesia (Craib, Reference Craib1934; Backer & Bakhuizen van den Brink, Reference Backer and Bakhuizen van den Brink1965; Deb & Gangopadhyay, Reference Deb and Gangopadhyay1989; Wong, Reference Wong and Ng1989), and P. rostrata, which has a more limited range, occurring from Thailand to Sumatra and Java (Craib, Reference Craib1934; Backer & Bakhuizen van den Brink, Reference Backer and Bakhuizen van den Brink1965; Wong, Reference Wong and Ng1989). Valeton (Reference Valeton1909) considered Psychotria montana a montane species and P. expansa a lowland one, but subsequent authors have considered P. expansa a synonym of P. montana (Backer & Bakhuizen van den Brink, Reference Backer and Bakhuizen van den Brink1965; Sohmer, Reference Sohmer1988). I see no reason to separate the two entities again. Psychotria extensa is more poorly known but was recognised by Backer & Bakhuizen van den Brink (Reference Backer and Bakhuizen van den Brink1965). It appears to be very close to Psychotria leptothyrsa Miq., which Backer & Bakhuizen van den Brink (Reference Backer and Bakhuizen van den Brink1965) cited as a synonym. I refrain from uniting them here, but the relationship between the two taxa clearly deserves more attention, as Psychotria leptothyrsa (now Eumachia leptothyrsa (Miq.) Barrabé & al.) occurs widely from the Lesser Sunda Islands to the South Pacific (Sohmer, Reference Sohmer1988).

Combinations in Eumachia are therefore required for Psychotria extensa, P. montana and P. rostrata. These are made here.

New Combinations

Eumachia extensa (Miq.) I.M.Turner, comb. nov. – Psychotria extensa Miq., Fl. Ned. Ind. 2: 288 (1857). – Uragoga extensa (Miq.) Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 960 (1891). – Type: Java, T. Horsfield Rub. 32 (holo K [K000777206], possible iso K [K000777205]).

Miquel was sent a set of specimens by Thomas Horsfield for his work on the flora of the Netherlands East Indies (Stafleu, Reference Stafleu and van Steenis1978). This set must have been eventually returned to Horsfield, with Miquel retaining fragments of some of them that are now in U. After Horsfield's death in 1859, a set of his herbarium specimens was given by the East India Company to the Linnean Society (van Steenis-Kruseman, Reference van Steenis-Kruseman1950). In turn, this set was transferred to Kew in 1913 as an appendage to the Wallich Herbarium (van Steenis-Kruseman, Reference van Steenis-Kruseman1950). Apparently the Horsfield collections were then distributed among the Kew general herbarium. There was already a set of Horsfield collections at Kew that had been purchased in 1859 and incorporated into William Hooker's herbarium. These sets of Horsfield specimens, at least as far as the Rubiaceae are concerned, are numbered by taxon, so it cannot be assumed that specimens under the same number are true duplicates. The set from the Linnean Society at Kew includes annotations by Miquel and bibliographic notes made when accessioned by the Linnean Society. In cases in which there are no fragments in U, the Kew specimens annotated by Miquel should be considered as holotypes for names published by Miquel solely based on a single Horsfield collection. Psychotria extensa provides such an example.

Eumachia montana (Blume) I.M.Turner, comb. nov. – Psychotria montana Blume, Catalogus 54 (Reference Blume1823). – Chassalia montana (Blume) Miq., Fl. Ned. Ind. 2: 281 (1857), as ‘Chasalia’. – Uragoga montana (Blume) Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 961 (1891). – Type: Java, ?Megamendung, C.L. Blume s.n. (lecto L [L0001196], designated here, specifically excluding the shoot mounted on the lower left of the sheet).

Psychotria expansa Blume, Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind.: 963 (1826). – Chassalia expansa (Blume) Miq., Fl. Ned. Ind. 2: 280 (1857), as ‘Chasalia’. – Type: Java, C.L. Blume s.n. (lecto L [L0001195], designated by Sohmer [Reference Sohmer1988: 320]).

Psychotria umbellata Korth., Ned. Kruidk. Arch. 2(2): 245 (1851), nom. illeg., non Thonning (1827), nec Vellozo (1829). – Uragoga acutifolia Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 954 (1891). – Type: Sumatra, P.W. Korthals s.n. (lecto L [matrix barcode L.2952601], designated here).

Psychotria bantamensis Miq., Fl. Ned. Ind. 2: 288 (1857). – Type: Java, zuidkust van Bantam, F.W. Junghuhn s.n. (lecto L [L0281706], designated here).

Psychotria viridissima Kurz, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt. 2, Nat. Hist. 41: 315 (1872). – Type: Myanmar, Burma, Pegu, Toukyeghat, Chymenah evergreen forest, S. Kurz s.n. (lecto K [K000031773], designated here; isolecto CAL).

Psychotria montana var. tabacifolia Hook.f., Fl. Brit. India 3: 174 (1880). – Type: Singapore, 1822, N. Wallich s.n. [EIC 8334] (lecto K-W [K001125265], designated here).

Psychotria montana var. leiopyrena Valeton, Icon. Bogor. 3: 191 (1908). – Type: Java, Mt Oengaran, S.H. Koorders 25966 (syn (n.v.)), S.H. Koorders 31650 (syn (n.v.)), S.H. Koorders 34822 (syn (n.v.)), S.H. Koorders 34823 (syn. (n.v.)).

Sohmer (Reference Sohmer1988: 320) designated a lectotype for Psychotria montana Blume. However, he cited the place of publication as Blume's Bijdragen (Blume, Reference Blume1825–Reference Blume1826). This was not the earliest publication of the name by Blume – it appeared in his Catalogus (Blume, Reference Blume1823), a listing of the plants growing in the Bogor Botanic Gardens. The name was validated in the Catalogus by a brief footnote that provided a description. There were no specimens cited. The sheet that Sohmer selected as lectotype has an original label in Blume's hand, including the species name. This has three dates on it, 1816, 1821 and April 1825, with no obvious sign of them having been written at different times. The first date is crossed out. There are two fertile shoots mounted on the sheet, which may therefore represent separate gatherings, although there is no way to tell if this is the case, or which shoot is from which date. Additionally, as the species name was first validly published in 1823, a specimen collected in 1825 would be too late to be original material. In the interests of continuity, I here lectotypify Psychotria montana Blume (Reference Blume1823) to the upper of the two shoots mounted on the sheet, assuming that it was collected in 1821.

Eumachia rostrata (Blume) I.M.Turner, comb. nov. – Psychotria rostrata Blume, Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind.: 961 (1826). – Chassalia rostrata (Blume) Miq., Fl. Ned. Ind. 2: 281 (1857). – Uragoga rostrata (Blume) Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 1: 300 (1891). – Type: Java, C.L. Blume s.n. (lecto L [matrix barcode L.2944787], designated here).

Polyozus acuminata Blume, Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind.: 948 (1826). – Type: Java, C.L. Blume s.n. (lecto L [matrix barcode L.2944703], designated here).

Polyozus latifolia Blume, Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind.: 948 (1826). – Chassalia rostrata var. latifolia (Blume) Miq., Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugduno-Batavi 4: 203 (1869). – Type: Java, C.L. Blume 1646 (lecto L [matrix barcode L.2944716], designated here, restricted to the large-leaved shoot, the apex of which reaches highest on the sheet).

Psychotria tetrandra Blume, Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind.: 961 (1826). – Type: Java, Gunong Seribu, C.L. Blume s.n. (lecto L [matrix barcode L.2944702], designated here).

The Identities of Chassalia sangiana Miq. and Psychotria rhodocarpa Teijsm. & Binn.

Miquel described a Rubiaceae species from a collection made by Teijsmann on the island of Pulau Sangiang in the Sunda Straits, between Java and Sumatra. He called the species Chassalia sangiana. Bremekamp (Reference Bremekamp1937) effectively lectotypified Miquel's name to a specimen in U. Bremekamp noted that the type specimen actually represented Pavetta sylvatica Blume, making Chassalia sangiana a synonym of this. Merrill (Reference Merrill1954) was clearly unaware of Bremekamp's publication, and apparently working on specimens named in L, transferred Chassalia sangiana to Psychotria and included Psychotria rhodocarpa Teijsm. & Binn. as a synonym. Merrill compounded his errors, as the combination Psychotria sangiana had already been made by Teijsmann & Binnendijk (Reference Teijsmann and Binnendijk1866). Psychotria rhodocarpa does not belong in Pavetta but is a true Eumachia. There are Teijsmann specimens in K, L and NY that came from Hasskarl, who was sent material by Teijsmann. They are very similar to the type material of Psychotria horsfieldiana Miq., which has already been transferred to Eumachia, and here I reduce P. rhodocarpa to synonymy of it.

Pavetta sylvatica Blume, Bijdr. Fl. Ned. Ind.: 953 (1826). – Type: Java, Gunong Seribu, C.L. Blume 843 (lecto L, designated by Bremekamp [Reference Bremekamp1934: 86]).

Chassalia sangiana Miq., Fl. Ned. Ind., Eerste Bijv.: 546 (1861), as ‘Chasalia’. – Psychotria sangiana (Miq.) Teijsm. & Binn., Cat. Hort. Bot. Bogor. (Teijsmann & Binnendijk) 111 (Reference Teijsmann and Binnendijk1866). – Chassalia curviflora var. grandifolia Miq., Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugduno-Batavi 4: 203 (1869). – Type: Java, Poeloe Sangian [Pulau Sangiang], J.E. Teijsmann s.n. [H.B. 2978] (lecto U [U0006140], designated by Bremekamp [Reference Bremekamp1937: 115]).

Eumachia horsfieldiana (Miq.) Barrabé & al., Candollea 72: 310 (2017). – Psychotria horsfieldiana Miq., Fl. Ned. Ind. 2: 285 (1857). – Type: Java, T. Horsfield Rub. 36 (holo K [K000777198]; possible iso K [K000777198]).

Psychotria rhodocarpa Teijsm. & Binn., Natuurk. Tijdschr. Ned.-Indië 27: 30 (1864). – Type: Sumatra, J.E. Teijsmann s.n. (lecto L [matrix barcode L.2944636], designated here; possible isolecto K [K000777183], NY [NY00133002]).

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Nicolien Sol of the Naturalis Biodiversity Center, who sent me images of type specimens from L. Two reviewers provided constructive criticisms of the manuscript.

References

Andersson, L. (2001). Margaritopsis (Rubiaceae, Psychotrieae) is a pantropical genus. Syst. & Geogr. Pl. 71(1): 73–85.Google Scholar
Backer, C. A. & Bakhuizen van den Brink, R. C. (1965). Flora of Java, vol. II. Groningen: N. V. P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Barrabé, L., Buerki, S., Mouly, A., Davis, A. P., Munzinger, J. & Maggia, L. (2012). Delimitation of the genus Margaritopsis (Rubiaceae) in the Asian, Australasian and Pacific region, based on molecular phylogenetic inference and morphology. Taxon 61(6): 1251–1268.Google Scholar
Blume, C. L. (1823). Catalogus van eenige der merkwaardigste zoo in- als uitheemse gewassen, te vinden in ʻs Lands Plantentuin te Buitenzorg. Batavia.Google Scholar
Blume, C. L. (1825–1826). Bijdragen tot de flora van Nederlandsch Indië. Batavia: Lands Drukkerij.Google Scholar
Bremekamp, C. E. B. (1934). A monograph of the genus Pavetta L. Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 37: 1–208.Google Scholar
Bremekamp, C. E. B. (1937). Notes on the Rubiaceae of tropical Asia. Blumea suppl. 1: 112–122.Google Scholar
Craib, W. G. (1934). Flora Siamensis Enumeratio, vol. II, part 2. Bangkok: Siam Society.Google Scholar
Deb, D. B. & Gangopadhyay, M. G. (1989). Taxonomic revision of the genus Psychotria (Rubiaceae) in India. J. Econ. Taxon. Bot., Addit. Ser. 7: 1–166.Google Scholar
Merrill, E. D. (1954). Miscellaneous Malaysian notes. J. Arnold Arbor. 35(2): 134–156.Google Scholar
Sohmer, S. H. (1988). The nonclimbing species of the genus Psychotria (Rubiaceae) in New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago. Bishop Mus. Bull. Bot. 1: 1–339.Google Scholar
Stafleu, F. A. (1978). Dedication. In: van Steenis, C. G. G. J. (ed.) Flora Malesiana, vol. 8, pp. (7)–(16). Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. M., Razafimandimbison, S. G., Barrabé, L., Jardim, J. G. & Barbosa, M. R. V. (2017). Eumachia expanded, a pantropical genus distinct from Psychotria (Rubiaceae, Palicoureeae). Candollea 72(2): 289–318.Google Scholar
Teijsmann, J. E. & Binnendijk, S. (1866). Catalogus plantarum quae in Horto botanico bogoriensi coluntur. Batavia: ter Lands-Drukkerij.Google Scholar
van Steenis-Kruseman, M. J. (1950). Malaysian Plant Collectors and Collections: Being a Cyclopaedia of Botanical Exploration in Malaysia and a Guide to the Concerned Literature up to the Year 1950. Jakarta: Noordhoff-Kolff.Google Scholar
Valeton, T. (1909). Psychotria expansa Bl. Icones Bogorienses, vol. 3, fasc. 4, t. CCLXXXIV. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wong, K. M. (1989). Rubiaceae. In: Ng, F. S. P. (ed.) Tree Flora of Malaya, vol. 4, pp. 324–425. Petaling Jaya: Longman Malaysia.Google Scholar