Piper wightii Miq., London J. Bot.

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

24. Piper wightii Miq., London J. Bot. 5: 552. 1846.

Type:— INDIA, Peninsula Ind. Orientalis, Herb. Wight Prop. Wight 2691/6 (lectotype E00313794 image!; isolectotype Nagapatam, Wight 6 U1476590 image!, syntypes E00313791 image!; Peninsula Ind. Orientalis, Courtallum, Wight 2691 E00313802 image!, U1476593 image!)

Piper wightiana Wight Icon 6: t 939. 1853 nom . invalid.

Distribution:— INDIA: Tamilnadu.

Note: Remarks by Hooker (1886: 242) about Wight and Arnott’s specimens are very pertinent. A number of specimens collected by Wight with varying numbers or even under the same number under the name Piper wightii are available at U and E. Images of these specimens have been checked. F. A. W. Miquel’s annotations as ‘ Piper wightii n. sp. ’ are found on two specimens, one each at U and E, but with slight differences in numbering and labelling but essentially having the number Wight 6. Both are equally good specimens matching the description by Miquel. Of these Wight n. 2691/6, E (00313794) is designated here as the lectotype, and Wight 6 is selected as the isolectotype. Miquel cited two localities in Peninsular India, Nagapatam and Courtallum. Hence, Wight’s Specimens from Peninsular India, Courtallum, mentioned by Wight (1853) and matching the description are recognised here as syntypes.

A number of Wight’s specimens at E often have different plants stored under that name. Some of them match with P. argyrophyllum Miq. , P. hymenophyllum , or P. hookeri Miq. besides P. wightii itself as correctly noted by Hooker (loc. cit.). Gamble incorrectly identified several of them as P. attenuatum . Wight’s specimens at K are excluded from consideration of typification as only one of them has the mention of locality as Coonoor and this has not been mentioned by Miquel. The name P. wightiana ascribed to Wight (Pl. 1939 of Wight’s Icon) was an error by his (1853:4) own admission. Miquel (1856: 553) suggested forma glabrior for specimens from Dindigul and Courtallum, having glabrous 5-nerved leaves, without formally publishing the combination.