Cordia ecalyculata Vell., Fl. Flumin.

Turner, Ian M., 2022, FROM ACACIA TO ZIZIPHUS: PLANT NAMES COMMEMORATING THE BOTANIST WILLIAM ROXBURGH, Edinburgh Journal of Botany 79 (1911), pp. 1-102 : 38-39

Cordia ecalyculata Vell., Fl. Flumin. 96 (1829). – Type: [unpublished illustration] Flora

Fluminensis Icones fundamentales t. II prancha 149 [mss1198651_152] (lectotype Biblioteca Nacional ( Brazil), designated here) .

Cordia roxburghii C.B.Clarke, Fl. Brit. India 4(10): 138 (1883). – Lithocardium roxburghii (C.B.Clarke) Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 977 (1891). – Type : Ceylon, W. Roxburgh s.n. (holotype K [ K000998066 ]).

Clarke described Cordia roxburghii based on a specimen from Roxburgh’s herbarium that came from Sri Lanka. It turns out that this was a species introduced from Brazil. Sánchez de Stapf & dos Santos Silva (2013) designated Vellozo’s published plate as type of Cordia ecalyculata Vell. , but this was published after the description, so it cannot stand as original material. However, the original illustration on which the plate was based is extant in the collection of the National Library of Brazil and is here designated as lectotype.

Crateva adansonii subsp. odora (Buch.-Ham.) Jacobs , Blumea 12: 198 (1964). – Crateva odora Buch. - Ham., Trans. Linn. Soc. London 15: 118 (1827). – Type : India, Dhorhora, 12 iv 1811, F. Buchan-Hamilton s.n. [ EIC 6972 B] (lectotype K-W [ K001126438 ], designated by Jacobs, Blumea 12: 198 [1964]; isolectotype E [ E00314062 ]).

Crateva roxburghii R.Br. in Denham & Clapperton, Narr. Travels Africa 224 (1826). – Crateva religiosa var. roxburghii (R.Br.) Hook.f. & Thomson, Fl. Brit. India 1(1): 172 (1872). – Type: W. Roxburgh s.n. (lectotype BM [ BM010772234 ], designated here).

Robert Brown (1826) coined the name Crateva roxburghii for what he referred to as the

‘most general species of India’. Brown equated the species with Capparis trifoliata of Roxburgh, which he knew from Roxburgh’s unpublished manuscript, although Brown excluded Niirvala of Rheede’s Hortus Malabaricus that Roxburgh cited as a synonym. As Roxburgh’s description was unpublished, it cannot validate Crateva roxburghii . Brown also stated that ‘I have little doubt of its being also the plant described as C. Tapia , by Vahl, (symb. 3. p. 61)’. Brown continued in his commentary on Vahl: ‘his specific character well according with it [ Crateva roxburghii ], and not applying, as far as relates to the petals, to any known species of America.’ Vahl’s petal character for his Crateva tapia was ‘petalis ovatosubrotundis obtusis’, so in effect Brown was providing a diagnosis for Crateva roxburghii against American species of the genus based on petal shape, which validates the name in combination with Vahl’s published description. Neither Vahl nor Brown cited any specimens, but Brown appears to imply that he had seen specimens. There are specimens in BM labelled by Roxburgh as Capparis trifoliata that would have been available to Brown before 1826, although nothing is labelled as Crateva roxburghii by Brown. I select one of these as lectotype for Crateva roxburghii . The specimen is one of Crateva adansonii subsp. odora (Buch.-Ham.) Jacobs.