Introduction

para1The name Phanera macrostachya Benth., despite the lack of a diagnosis or description, was validly published by Bentham (Reference Bentham and Miquel1852) by reference to ‘Bauhinia scandens Roxb. non Linn.’ which indirectly referred to the previously and effectively published description by Roxburgh (Reference Roxburgh1832) (Art. 38.13–14 and Art. 41 Note 3 in McNeill et al., Reference McNeill, Barrie, Buck, Demoulin, Greuter and Hawksworth2012). Bentham realised that Roxburgh had misapplied the binomial Bauhinia scandens to a taxon that should have been described as a new species. Thus he provided a new name, Phanera macrostachya. He also cited ‘B. macrostachya Wall. Cat. n. 5774’ but validated the name solely by reference to B. scandens Roxb. non L. and thus only the material used by Roxburgh qualifies as original material (Art. 9.3 and Art. 7.7 in McNeill et al., Reference McNeill, Barrie, Buck, Demoulin, Greuter and Hawksworth2012). Thothathri (Reference Thothathri1965), incorrectly, did not consider Phanera macrostachya Benth. to be validly published because it was not accompanied by a description.

Roxburgh (1832: 2: 326) cited this species as ‘B. scandens. Willd. 2. 58’, a reference to Bauhinia scandens L. in Willd., Sp. Pl. 2: 58 (1799). He wrote ‘Gunda-gilla the vernacular name in Silhet, where it is indigenous in the forests of that province, running up, and over trees of the first magnitude. Flowering in April and the seed ripening in October’. He also cited the pre-Linnaean ‘Folium linguæ. Rumph. Amb. 5. p. 1. t. 1’, which is now considered to be Phanera lingua (DC.) Miq. (see de Wit, Reference Wit1956 and Larsen & Larsen, Reference Larsen, Larsen, Kalkman, Kirkup, Nooteboom, Stevens and Wilde1996, although in the latter publication it was included in Bauhinia). However, the description provided by Roxburgh (Reference Roxburgh1832) does not include the morphological features of Folium linguae Rumph.

Wallich (1831–1832), being aware that Roxburgh had misidentified this material, provided a new name, Bauhinia macrostachya Wall., for his catalogue no. 5774 and cited ‘Bauh. scandens Roxb. [illegible] haud Linn.’. Under 5774 Wallich cited two specimens: ‘a a Sillet FD’ and ‘B Bauhinia scandens H. Ham. e Sivapur’. Mabberley (Reference Mabberley and Manilal1980), in a list of the validly published names in Wallich’s catalogue, stated ‘I have been unable to date the parts of the Catalogue dealing with nos. 4878–7683 (1831–1832) with any accuracy, so that there is a handful of names, fewer than a score in number, which may be validly published if those parts were brought out after the relevant volumes of the second edition (Jan., Sept., 1832) of Flora Indica’. The exact publication date of Wallich’s 5774, therefore, is not known with any accuracy. On the other hand the valid date of publication of the second edition of Roxburgh’s Flora Indica is 14 January 1832 (Mabberley, Reference Mabberley1977). If Wallich (1831–1832) was published after Roxburgh (Reference Roxburgh1832) then Bauhinia macrostachya Wall. would have been validly published by reference back to the description provided by Roxburgh. However, in the absence of any evidence to support this it should be assumed that Bauhinia macrostachya Wall. is a nomen nudum.

Macbride (Reference Macbride1919) published a new name, Bauhinia wallichii J.F.Macbr., for B. macrostachya ‘Wall. ex Baker in Hook.’ (Baker, Reference Baker and Hooker1878) because B. macrostachya (Benth.) Baker is a later homonym of B. macrostachya Benth. (Bentham, Reference Bentham1840), a quite different taxon. Although Macbride (Reference Macbride1919) had overlooked the fact that the combination Bauhinia macrostachya for this taxon had already been published earlier, confusingly also by Bentham (Reference Bentham, Bentham and Hooker1865), B. wallichii J.F.Macbr. remains the correct name for this taxon in the genus Bauhinia.

Larsen & Larsen (Reference Larsen, Larsen, Aubréville and Leroy1980) cited the type of Bauhinia wallichii J.F.Macbr. as ‘Wallich 5774 A, Inde (holo-, K)’. There are two relevant specimens at K which have been annotated by the Larsens. The first, K000496948, has their determinavit slip with the name ‘Bauhinia wallichii Macbride’. The second, K000496949, bearing the stamp HERBARIUM BENTHAMIANUM 1854, also has their determinavit slip with the name ‘Bauhinia wallichii Macbride’ and an additional annotation of ‘ISOTYPE’ on the determination slip. Larsen & Larsen (Reference Larsen, Larsen, Aubréville and Leroy1980) suggested that K000496949 is an isotype but they did not indicate a specimen they considered to be the holotype.

Under his catalogue no. 5774 Wallich (1831–1832) cited the specimen from Sillet as: ‘a a Sillet FD’. FD is the name of the collector, i.e. Francis de Silva (V. Sampath Kumar and D. J. Nicholas Hind, pers. comm., 2013). This specimen could not have been seen by Roxburgh because Francis de Silva collected specimens for Wallich sometime after 1815 and, therefore, after Roxburgh left India in 1813 and after his death in 1815 (M. F. Watson, pers. comm., 2013). Previously I too have incorrectly cited Wallich 5774A as the type (Bandyopadhyay, Reference Bandyopadhyay2001).

I have been unable to locate any herbarium material that Roxburgh used for his concept of Bauhinia scandens despite an exhaustive search. The Roxburgh drawing of Bauhinia scandens, no. 2238 at K, shows a flowering specimen and a separately drawn dehisced pod with a mature seed. The drawing at CAL is also the same but with only the outline of the pod and the seed. According to Sealy (1956) the drawings at K can be connected with certainty to Roxburgh’s descriptions. Therefore, in the absence of specimens I am lectotypifying the name Phanera macrostachya Benth. with the Roxburgh drawing 2238 at K.