Eurya acuminata DC., Mém. Soc. Phys. Hist. Nat.

Turner, Ian M., 2022, FROM ACACIA TO ZIZIPHUS: PLANT NAMES COMMEMORATING THE BOTANIST WILLIAM ROXBURGH, Edinburgh Journal of Botany 79 (1911), pp. 1-102 : 48

Eurya acuminata DC., Mém. Soc. Phys. Hist. Nat. Genève 1: 418 (1822). – Type: Nepal, 1821,

N. Wallich s.n. [ EIC 1464.1 ] (lectotype K-W [ K001113152 ], designated at the first step by Wadhwa, Rev. Handb. Fl. Ceylon 10: 398 [1996] and at the second step here; isolectotype G-DC [ G00209697 ]) .

Eurya roxburghii Wall. ex Blume, Mus. Bot. 2: 113 (1856 [‘1852’]). – Type: Anon s.n. [ EIC 1463 ] (lectotype L [ L0012348 ], designated here).

Blume was the first to validate Wallich’s Eurya roxburghii . A specimen in L is here designated as lectotype. As it is not clear from the specimen which of the collections included under Wallich’s number 1463 it represents, it is not possible to confirm any isolectotypes. The typification of Eurya acuminata DC. is contentious. Wadhwa (1996) effectively selected a Wallich specimen from Nepal included under catalogue number 1464 in K. It is not possible that de Candolle could have seen this specimen when describing the species, as it would have been in India at that time. He had a specimen in Geneva that Wallich sent to him directly. It bears the collecting information of Nepal, 1821, that is given for 1464.1 in the Wallich Catalogue. It is difficult to disprove duplicate status of the Prodromus Herbarium and East India Company specimens, so therefore I accept Wadhwa’s as a first-step lectotypification as there is more than one sheet present in K. Further complication is added by the mixed nature of the collection, which also includes material of Eurya cerasifolia (D.Don) Kobuski. I therefore select, at the second step, the material on a sheet in K-W mounted on the left and referred to by the cited barcode.