Erythrina variegata Linnaeus (1754: 10)

Ohi-Toma, Tetsuo, Watanabe-Toma, Kana & Murata, Jin, 2015, Typification of Angiospermae described from the Bonin Islands 2: Archichlamydeae, Phytotaxa 227 (1), pp. 35-44 : 36

Erythrina variegata Linnaeus (1754: 10)

Type (lectotype designated by Merrill 1917: 276):—[icon] “ Gelala Alba ” in Rumphius, Herb. Amboin. 2: 234, t.77 (1741).

= Erythrina boninensis Tuyama (1935: 373)

Type (lectotype, designated here):— JAPAN. Bonin: Chichijima, Omura, 14 April 1934, Z. Toyosima s.n. ( TI [21506]!, isolectotypes TI [21503]!, TI [21504]!, TI [21505]!).

Additional specimens examined:— JAPAN. Bonin : Chichijima, Omura, 24 June 1932, T. Tuyama s.n. (syntype, TI [21507]!) ; Bonin : Hahajima, Okimura, 2 August 1905, H. Hattori s.n. (paratype, TI [02112]!) ; Bonin : Hahajima, Okimura, 27 June 1920, T. Nakai s.n. (paratype, TI [02110]!, TI [02111]!) .

Distribution:— Japan (the Bonin Islands and the Ryukyu Islands, indigenous or naturalized), originating in India and the Malay Peninsula.

Notes:—In the protologue of Erythrina boninensis, Tuyama (1935) simultaneously indicated two specimens in TI as the type, “ Z. Toyosima, Apr. 14. 1934 –Typus floris” and “ T. Tuyama, Jun. 24. 1932 —Typus folii,” which are therefore syntypes (Art. 9.5 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012). He also cited two additional specimens without designating them as a type, so they are paratypes (see Art. 9.6 Note 5 Ex. 6 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012). In TI, we found four duplicates of Toyosima’s specimen with flowers, and one sheet of Tuyama’s specimen without flowers. Of them, one sheet (Z. Toyoshima, s.n., TI [21504]) was affixed with an annotation label of “ holotype of E. boninensis Tuyama , by B. A. Krukoff (1971).” However, Krukoff (1972: 136) mentioned that Tuyama’s specimen has flowers, and he recognized “ Takasi Tuyama s.n. (TI) April 14, 1934, from the Island of Bonin, Chichijima, Omura” as the holotype. Later, Krukoff (1974: 432) indicated “Island of Bonin: Chichijima, Omura, Takasi Tuyama s.n. (TI– holotype of E. boninensis ).” Krukoff’s recognition for the holotype status is clearly his mistake, because the two specimens cited in the protologue should be treated as the syntypes (Art. 9.5.). However, his description of the content of the specimens (with flowers or not) and the label information (collector and date) were confused between the two syntypes. Thus, Krukoff’s recognition is regarded as an error to be corrected in lectotypification. Toyoda (1981) indicated Toyosima’s specimen (Z. Toyosima s.n., 1934, without locality information) as the type, but he did not consider its duplicates. Of the duplicates, we designated the specimen with Tuyama’s handwriting of “Typus floris” (TI [21506]), which is the same as the photo in the protologue, as the lectotype.