Schaefferia argentinensis Spegazzini (1917: 345)

Biral, Leonardo, 2017, Typification of species names of Schaefferia (Celastraceae) from Argentina, Phytotaxa 309 (3), pp. 295-296 : 295-296

Schaefferia argentinensis Spegazzini (1917: 345) . Type:— ARGENTINA. Tucumán: alredores de Tucumán, 9–15

April 1906, Spegazzini s.n. (neotype LP! [003087], designated here).

= Schaefferia uruguayensis Spegazzini (1917: 346) . Type:— URUGUAY. Artigas: Cuareim, 15 October 1902, Berro 3142 (lectotype, LP! [010725], designated here, isolectotypes, MFVA! [four sheets with no registration number]).

= Schaefferia diemonis Herter (1940:155 , f. 17 in 153).Type:— URUGUAY. Salto: Uferwald des Uruguay [“in silva riparia fluminis Uruguay, prope las Isletas”], December 1924, Schroeder Herb. Osten 18038 (lectotype, US! [catalog number 1441422, barcode0094814], designated here, isolectotypes, BA [n.v.], BAF [n.v.], LP! [previously LPS], B [destroyed]).

When Schaefferia argentinensis was described, Carlo L. Spegazzini stated in his comments that he had brought one living specimen from Colonia Resistencia to cultivation in La Plata in 1886, but it was a male individual and he could not identify it properly at that moment. In 1906, Spegazzini found female specimens in Salta, brought them to cultivation, and posteriorly could identify the species (the first record of Schaefferia for Argentina) ( Spegazzini 1917). However, he did not cite any nomenclatural type when published the taxon. Spegazzini just declared that the new species grew in woods near Resistencia and in Salta province, in the Santa Cornelia hills of the Sierra of Santa Barbara. Lourteig & O’Donell (1955), when they revised the Argentinian Celastraceae , did not cite any collection as type and indicated that the taxon was described based on cultivated material and collections from Salta and Chaco provinces. They also did not cite any Spegazzini’s collection for this species, even though they had checked both LP and LPS herbaria. LP herbarium is the institution where Spegazzini’s original collection is housed nowadays, once his collection of vascular plants deposited originally in LPS was incorporated to LP ( Katinas et al. 2000).

It is not clear if Schaefferia argentinensis was described based just on living specimen(s) or if there are types deposited in herbaria. Additionally, no material deposited in LP that could be associated with the protologue was located (L. Katinas, pers. comm.). Katinas et al. (2004) have reported a similar situation for several Cactaceae species described by Spegazzini, in which it was necessary to elect neotypes because of the lack of original materials. Gutiérrez et al. (2002) also reported 16 Fabaceae taxa described by Spegazzini that did not have their types located in LP. Based on the arguments above, which include the probable lack of types and the possibility of having been used just cultivated material for description, and also given the necessity of typification for this species, a neotype is elected here. The collection chosen for this is derived from Spegazzini’s original material collected in Tucuman province and shows the main characters attributed to this species.

The collection indicated as type of Schaefferia uruguayensis has different collector numbers in LP and MFVA. The material deposited in LP indicates Berro 3142, while four sheets in MFVA bear on their labels the designation of Berro 4142. However, all other data from the labels match up together, including the collection date and locality. It is most likely that the correct number of the collector should be 4142 (from Berro’s original collection) and someone may have made a mistake when dealing with the exsiccata deposited in LP. Since the handwriting (in black ink) for the label’s information (including both the numbers 3142 and 4142) is the same from Berro’s materials in LP and MFVA, it is possible that a misunderstanding occurred before the material had been sent to LP. However, the real reason for this supposed ambiguity has not been made clear yet. Since the specimen deposited in LP is the most representative and unique with Spegazzini’s verification on the label, it is elected here as the lectotype of S. uruguayensis .

The holotype of Schaefferia diemonis was indicated as having been deposited in B ( Herter 1940), but Celastraceae collections were considered destroyed during the Second World War ( Hiepko 1987). Thus, the election of a lectotype is required. The isotype deposited in the US, that constitutes a representative material with fruits and has an indication of examination by Spegazzini on the label, is elected here as the lectotype. The isolectotypes deposited in BA and BAF were not seen, but are cited because both were indicated as types by Lourteig & O’Donell (1955).