Crotalaria grandiflora Bentham (1839: 429)

Flores, Andréia Silva, Rockinger, Alexander, Rodrigues, Rodrigo Schütz & Tozzi, Ana Maria Goulart De Azevedo, 2016, Lectotypifications and taxonomic changes in Brazilian Crotalaria L. (Leguminosae), Phytotaxa 267 (4), pp. 296-300 : 296-297

Crotalaria grandiflora Bentham (1839: 429) .

Crotalaria acutiflora var. grandiflora (Benth.) Bentham (1859: 23) .

Type:— BRAZIL. “Near Cercado”, s.d., J. B. E. Pohl 1124 (holotype W 0052805!).

Crotalaria divaricata Bentham (1839: 429) , syn. nov.

Type :— BRAZIL. “Rio Reazon”, s.d., J. B. E. Pohl s.n. (holotype K000500583 !; isotypes FV0077377!, NY00006683 !) .

Crotalaria acutiflora Bentham (1843: 482) .

Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. “Chapada Santa Cruz”, 1836, J. B. E. Pohl s.n. ( K000500593 !).

Lectotype image: http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/ K000500593 .

In the protologue of Crotalaria acutiflora, Bentham (1843) mentioned material collected by Pohl and Vauthier in Brazil as “ C. breviflora, Benth. in Herb. Mus. Vind. MS. non DC.”. While the material of Vauthier could not be found, the Pohl material in K and W was analyzed. Windler assigned the material W0052804 as lectotype of C. acutiflora . We disagree with this choice, however, as this material comprises two specimens mounted on one sheet, stating three collection numbers (“2898, 1125 and 1123”), and three locations (“ Chapada S. Cruz, Megaponte & S. Luzia ”). This makes the mutual assignment of specimens, collection numbers, and locations impossible. On the other hand, the material in the K herbarium (K000500593) is unambiguous by stating only one location and collection number. In addition, it carries Bentham’s handwriting and, in agreement with the protologue, was labeled “ C. breviflora Herb. Mus. Vin. ”. Thus, we hereby designate this material as lectotype.

Windler & Skinner (1982) considered Crotalaria acutiflora and C. grandiflora as a single taxon, while Bentham (1859) had treated C. grandiflora as a variety of C. acutiflora , and considered C. divaricata as a distinct species. His distinction was based on vegetative pubescence, being sericeous in C. acutiflora and tomentose in C. divaricata . Studying the type material led us to the conclusion that the different types of pubescence are not sufficiently distinguishable to segregate two different taxa. We therefore synonymize C. divaricata under C. grandiflora .