Luehea uniflora Saint-Hilaire (1828: 290)

Gerace, Samuele, Bovini, Massimo G., Peruzzi, Lorenzo & Baumgratz, José Fernando A., 2022, Typification of names in the neotropical genus Luehea (Malvaceae: Grewioideae), Phytotaxa 542 (2), pp. 180-188 : 185

Luehea uniflora Saint-Hilaire (1828: 290) .

Type:— BRAZIL. Rio de Janeiro: “prope Cabam ”, Saint-Hilaire s.n. (lectotype [as ‘holotype’], first-step designated by Cunha (1985: 10); second-step lectotype, designated here, P! [ P00604308 ] ; isolectotypes MPU! [ MPU017178 ]; P! [ P00604307 ]). [= Luehea candicans Mart. ]

Saint-Hilaire (1828) did not mention any specimen in the protologue of L. uniflora , but three of his original specimens with the name L. uniflora are in P and in MPU herbaria, where his collections are kept ( Stafleu & Cowan 1976 –1988: 1064). The specimens found in P present the data that contradict those cited in the protologue. In P00604308, an original label by Saint-Hilaire is found with the inscription “ Luhea uniflora + ” without the locality, together with another label with Claussen’s calligraphy and the erroneous travel period of Saint-Hilaire (1816–1821 instead of 1816–1822). In P00604307, an original label by Saint-Hilaire is found with “ 1 Luhea uniflora + ”, but with a sentence added later by another author (different spelling) and with the erroneous travel period as above. Based on this evidence, we do not consider the locality (Minas Gerais) reported on to these specimens as reliable and attribute them instead to the same collection as that reported in the protologue (Rio de Janeiro), as duplicates of the original material. Cunha (1985) indicated the specimen in P as the ‘holotype’, without having seen it and specifying its identification number. However, this designation should be corrected as a first-step typification (Art. 9.17 of the ICN). In accordance with Arts. 9.3 and 9.4 of the ICN, we designated herein specimen P00604308 as the second-step lectotype of L. uniflora by choosing the most representative specimen according to the protologue’s description.

Saint-Hilaire (1828: 291) reports that L. uniflora and L. candicans are related, but the short description of Martius (1826: 102) does not allow for any certainty. After analyzing both the Martius material for L. candicans and the Saint-Hilaire material for L. uniflora, Schumann (1886: 154) concluded that both belong to the same species. However, L. uniflora was wrongly chosen by Schumann (1886) as the putatively correct name, as he himself reported as follows: “… itaque nomen ab St-Hilaire speciei impositum praetuli, neque vereor ne contra leges prioritatis peccaverim ”. Subsequently, Burret (1926: 826), in the light of Schumann’s analysis, recognized the priority of L. candicans and considered L. uniflora as a synonym, as also confirmed by Cunha (1985) and this report.