Eumachia inaequifolia (Müll. Arg.) C.M. Taylor & J.G. Jardim 2017

Taylor, Charlotte M., Razafimandimbison, Sylvain G., Barrabé, Laure, Jardim, Jomar G. & Barbosa, Maria Regina V., 2017, Eumachia expanded, a pantropical genus distinct from Psychotria (Rubiaceae, Palicoureeae), Candollea 72 (2), pp. 289-318 : 305

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.15553/c2017v722a6
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6080666
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D98799-A471-FFB7-FF7E-FB11FA1BFD63
treatment provided by	Carolina
scientific name	Eumachia inaequifolia (Müll. Arg.) C.M. Taylor & J.G. Jardim
status	comb. nov.

Treatment

36. Eumachia inaequifolia (Müll. Arg.) C.M. Taylor & J.G. Jardim View in CoL , comb. nov.

Ξ Psychotria inaequifolia Müll. Arg. in Flora 53: 550, 553. 1876 View in CoL . Ξ Uragoga inaequifolia (Müll. Arg.) Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. View in CoL 2: 959. 1891.

Lectotypus (designated here): BRAZIL. Bahia: prope Ilhéus, IV-V.1822, Riedel 768 ( BR [ BR0000008259912 ]!; isolecto-: F-617744 !, G [ G00300843 ]!, K [ K000015626 ] image seen) .

Notes. – This species is found in Bahia and Minas Gerais in eastern Brazil. The identity of Psychotria inaequifolia has been unclear for some time, but it has now been documented by several good collections. These collections show the characteristic flattened ridged internodes, bilobed stipules with glandular lobes and the basal portion becoming hard and yellowed, and red fruits of Eumachia . This species is additionally characterized by its leaves with reticulated higher-order venation that is raised on the lower surface; shortly pedunculate, subcapitate to shortly corymbiform inflorescences; sessile flowers; short corollas with tubes 1.5-3 mm long; somewhat large fruits for this genus, 5-8 × 5-6 mm; and an unusual blackened drying color.

In the protologue of Psychotria inaequifolia, MÜLLER (1876) cited the collector and number of the type specimen without a place of deposit following his standard practice. Two specimens of the type collection are annotated with this name in Müller’s handwriting. The specimen in Müller’s herbarium at G is fragmentary, and labelled with the locality, collector, number, and identification all written by Müller. The specimen at BR is originally from the Martius herbarium, and is a compete specimen with an original Riedel label with locality and date information and an annotation in Müller’s handwriting. It is not clear which material Müller used for the description of this species, and presumably he saw both specimens. The BR specimen is more complete and has more complete data and is here designated as the lectotype to avoid future confusion.