Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco Schltdl. in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 19(21): [137]. 1861.

≡ Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco subsp. quebraco-blanco . ≡ Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco var. quebraco-blanco . ≡ Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco f. quebraco-blanco . ≡ Macaglia quebracho-blanco (Schltdl.) A.Lyons, Pl. Nam., ed. 2: 286. 1907.

Lectotype (designated here): —Tab. 5B, illustration: Schltdl., Bot. Zeitung, 1861. Epitype (designated here): — ARGENTINA. Corrientes: Esquina, 47 km W de Sauce, Ruta 126, 23 Out 1977, O. Ahumada et al. 1475 (MBM [No. 55705!]; isoepitypes: CTES, MO [barcode MO-2958772], RBR [barcode RBR00002131 image!]) .

= Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco var. pendulum Speg. in Speg. & Girola, Cat. Descr. Maderas: 391. 1910. Neotype (designated here): — ARGENTINA. Santiago del Estero: Río Hondo, La Puerta, Ruta Nac. 9, 42 km W de Santiago del Estero, 21 Aug 1971, A. Krapovickas 19603 (F [barcode V0421371 F image!]; isoneotypes: IAC [No. 22547!], LL [barcode 00522884 image!], SI [barcode 094161 image!]).

= Aspidosperma quebrachoideum Rojas Acosta, Essai d’une Therapeutique Vegetale de Corrientes: 21. 1913. Neotype (designated here): — ARGENTINA. Corrientes: Empedrado, Puente Dercabezado, 23 Jul 1954, T.M. Pedersen 2748 (US [barcode 03230109 image!]; isoneotypes: C [No. L6 /84/No93 image!], CTES, U [QR code U.1078817 image!]).

= Aspidosperma crotalorum Speg. in Physis (Buenos Aires) 3(15): 334. 1917. ≡ Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco f. spegazzinianum Markgr. in Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin-Dahlem 13(119): 467. 1937. Syntype [perhaps holotype]:— ARGENTINA. Formosa: Monte Yponá, Jan 1887, C.L. Spegazzini s.n. [C.L. Spegazzini [1601]] (LP (mounted on four herbarium sheets) [barcode 002808 image!, barcode 002809 image!, barcode 002810 image!, barcode 002811 image!]).

= Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco f. malmeanum Markgr. in Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin-Dahlem 13(119): 467. 1937. Syntype [perhaps holotype]:— PARAGUAY. [Concepción]: Colonia Risso, pr. Río Apa, 8 Oct 1893, G.O.A. Malme s.n. (S [No. S12-16372 image!]).

“ Aspidosperma quebracho ” Schltdl. in Griseb., Plantae Lorentzianae: 155. 1874, orth. var.

“ Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco f. schlechtendalianum ” Markgr. in Notizbl. Bot. Gart. Berlin-Dahlem 13(119): 467. 1937, a designation not validly published.

“ Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco f. tendalianum ” Markgr., mss. in sched.

“ Macaglia quebracho ” (Schltdl.) Kuntze, Rev. Gen. 2: 416. 1891, a combination not validly published.

Notes —Schlechtendal (1861) indicated a gathering from Argentina by Burmeister for A. quebracho-blanco . However, since the plate presented in its protologue is the only extant element of the original material, we elected it as the lectotype of A. quebracho-blanco . In addition, in order to facilitate the species identification, once the lectotype only presents follicles and seeds, we selected a specimen with leaves, flowers, and follicles as the epitype of A. quebrachoblanco (MBM No. 55705) (ICN article 9.9; Turland et al. 2018). Thus, the lectotype presented here supersedes the neotype designated by Morales (2010).

Also, since Spegazzini & Girola (1910) did not explicitly indicate any gathering in the protologue of A. quebrachoblanco var. pendulum, we understand that this name has no nomenclatural type attached to it. According to the ICN article 9.13 (Turland et al. 2018): “If no original material is extant or as long as it is missing, a neotype may be selected.”. Therefore, we elected a specimen with follicles as the neotype of A. quebracho-blanco var. pendulum (F barcode V0421371F) (ICN article 9.13; Turland et al. 2018). Rojas-Acosta (1913) also did not explicitly indicate any gathering in the protologue of A. quebrachoideum, so, we followed the same criterion to select the neotype of A. quebrachoideum (US barcode 03230109) (ICN article 9.13; Turland et al. 2018).

Lastly, according to the ICN article 26.2 (Turland et al. 2018), infraspecific designations (e.g., “ A. quebrachoblanco f. schlechtendalianum ”) that were intended to include the type of the species to which they were assigned (e.g., A. quebracho-blanco) were not validly published whenever the intraspecific epithets were not the same as the specific.