Canarium fugax Daly, Raharim. & Federman, nom. nov.

Ξ Canarium laxiflorum Daly, Raharim. & Federman in Adansonia ser. 3, 37: 316. 2015 [nom. illeg.] [non C. laxiflorum Decne.].

Typus: MADAGASCAR. Prov. Toamasina: S du Campement de Tampolo, 17°17’S 49°25’E, 21.X.2001, Rabevohitra, Breteler & Aridy 3985 (holo-: P [P00501630]!; iso-: TEF!) .

Etymology. – The new epithet refers to the species’ fugacious stipules and inconspicuous (“shy”) inflorescence bracts.

Observations. – Canarium laxiflorum was published by Decaisne in 1834 based on material collected in Timor, but he did not cite specific specimens in his work. There are two specimens from Timor in P [P00337578, P00337579] cited as Riedlé & Guichenot s.n. by Leenhouts (1959: 391) and designated by him as the neotype and an isoneotype respectively of Amyris oleosa Lam. (= Canarium oleosum (Lam.) Engl.). There is a duplicate specimen in G [G00236833] also annotated as an isoneotype of C. oleosum, but on the same specimen there is also an unattributed annotation as an isotype of C. laxiflorum . An on-line search of the BR herbarium did not turn up any of the names involved.

Authorship of C. laxiflorum has alternatively been attributed to “Zipp. ex Blume” published in Blume (1850) in various online databases, e.g.: IPNI (http://www.ipni.org), TROPICOS (http://www.tropicos.org) and SONNERAT (http://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/p/item/ search/form). In that publication, however, Blume was not publishing C. laxiflorum but rather transferring it to Pimela Lour. Moreover, he made it clear that he was referring to material annotated in the herbarium of Alexander Zippelius (1797-1828) and not the Canarium laxiflorum of Decaisne.

In summary, although the location of the type of C. laxiflorum Decne. is in doubt, the name is taken and C. laxiflorum Daly, Raharim. & Federman must be treated as a later homonym.