Piper wallichii (Miq.) Hand.

Mukherjee, Prasanta Kumar, 2018, Nomenclatural notes on Piper Linn. (Piperaceae) from India II, Phytotaxa 338 (1), pp. 17-32 : 30

23. Piper wallichii (Miq.) Hand. -Mazz. Symb. Sin. 7: 155. 1929.

Basionym:— Chavica wallichii Miq. Syst. Piperac. 254. 1843.

Type:— NEPAL. Nepal, 1821, Wallich 6658 A (lectotype designated K0007944619 image!; isolectotype U1476587 image!, G-DC G00206603 image!, K000794468 image!, CAL!; syntype BANGLADESH, Sylhet Wallich 6658 B CAL!) .

Piper aurantiacum Wall. ex C. DC. Prodr. 16: 357 1869 nom . illegt.

Piper accrescens Van Heurck & Müll. Arg. Piperaceae novae 118. 1871 syn. nov.

Type :— INDIA. India Orientale, Griffith 1203 (holotype BR14904 image!; isotype G-DC G00317397 image!) .

Piper caudilimbum C. DC. Candollea 2: 206. 1925 syn. nov.

Type :— BANGLADESH. East Bengal, Griffith 4417 (lectotype designated here CAL!; isotype K00079442 image!; syntype Assam, Sypuva, Masters s. n. CAL!) .

Distribution:— INDIA: Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur; BANGLADESH, CHINA, NEPAL.

Note:— The specimen at U (U1476587) bearing annotation by Miquel as Chavica wallichii would have been a better choice for the lectotype. Casinir de Candolle (1925: 206) mentioned the Griffith 4417 specimen at CAL as one of the types of P. caudilimbum . As this has a complete plant with mature female spikes and similar in every respect to P. wallichii , it is designated as the lectotype. Leaves are caudate at apex in this species and both the male and female spikes are long and flexuous. While describing P. accrescens, Van Heurck & Müll. Arg. (1870: 118) commented that their species was not much different from P. aurantiacum .