Ficus oerstediana (Miq.) Miq., Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugduno-Batavi

Pederneiras, Leandro Cardoso, Romaniuc-Neto, Sergio & Mansano, Vidal De Freitas, 2018, Nomenclatural revision of Ficus sect. Americanae (Moraceae): typification of Ficus americana and allied species, Phytotaxa 361 (2), pp. 244-250 : 248-249

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/phytotaxa.361.2.9
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9D4387D5-FF80-DB3A-C7DD-F955FBA0FDB6
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Ficus oerstediana (Miq.) Miq., Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugduno-Batavi
status

Treatment

Ficus oerstediana (Miq.) Miq., Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugduno-Batavi View in CoL 3: 299. 1867

≡ Urostigma oerstedianum Miq., Bot. Voy. Herald [Seemann] 5: 196, t. 36. 1854.

Lectotype (designated here):— PANAMA. Chiriquí, Chiriquí Volcano, Seemann 1158 ( BM!).

Nomenclatural notes:— The protologue does not state the herbarium where the type of F. oerstediana was deposited. Hemsley (1883) cited the specimen Seemann 1158 (K) as the type; however, this collection has not been found again. Berg (2007b) cited Seemann 1158 (BM) as the holotype; however, this cannot be considered a lectotypification because it was published after 2001 and the “designated here” or a similar phrase was not used ( Turland et al. 2018, Art. 7.11). Here, we designate Seemann 1158 (BM) as the lectotype because it is the only known collection.

Taxonomical notes:— The currently accepted name for this taxon is Ficus americana subsp. americana .

Ficus prinoides Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd., Sp. Pl. View in CoL , ed. 4 [Willdenow] 4(2): 1149. 1806, non Cham. & Schltdl., Linnaea 6: 357. 1831

≡ Urostigma prinoides Miq., London J. Bot. View in CoL 6: 540. 1847.

Lectotype (first step, designated by Dugand 1943; second step, designated here): — COLOMBIA. Tolima, Honda , June 1801, Humboldt 1696 (P-756633!; isolectotype: P-669791!).

Nomenclatural notes:— The protologue does not state the herbarium where the type of F. prinoides was deposited. Dugand (1943) was the first one to suggest the specimen was at Paris (P); however, there are two preparations of the same collection in this herbarium. It is not clearly indicated in their labels whether they are part of a single specimen, and thus these are considered to be two duplicates ( Turland et al. 2018, Art. 8.3). Here, we chose Humboldt 1696 (P-756633) as lectotype because it is a more complete specimen with branches, leaves, stipules, peduncles, and syconia.

Taxonomical notes:— The currently accepted name for this taxon is Ficus pallida .