Kalanchoe beharensis Drake

Smith, Gideon F. & Figueiredo, Estrela, 2022, Nomenclatural and taxonomic notes on the names published in Kalanchoe (Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae) by Drake del Castillo in 1903, Phytotaxa 547 (2), pp. 158-166 : 160-163

2. Kalanchoe beharensis Drake del Castillo (1903: 41) ( Fig. 2 )

Type:— MADAGASCAR. Southeastern Madagascar. Anosy Region. Behara , 8 juillet [July] 1901, G. Grandidier s.n. (lectotype , Herb. P barcode P00374194 ! and Herb. P barcode P00374195 ! [Images available at: http://coldb.mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00374194 (inflorescence) and http://coldb.mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00374195 (leaves in envelopes and inflorescence)]; consisting of two sheets interpreted as holotype by Boiteau & Allorge-Boiteau (1995: 154), here corrected to lectotype.

Homotypic synonym:— Kalanchoe vantieghemii Hamet (1906: 110 , as ‘ Van Tieghemi ’). Type :— MADAGASCAR. Southeastern Madagascar. Anosy Region. Behara, 8 juillet [July] 1901, G. Grandidier s.n. (lectotype, Herb. P barcode P00374194 ! and Herb. P barcode P00374195 ! [Images available at: http://coldb.mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00374194 (inflorescence) and http://coldb. mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00374195 (leaves in envelopes and inflorescence)]; lectotype, here designated.

Taxonomic note:— Kalanchoe beharensis is an accepted species.

Nomenclature notes:—The only material Drake del Castillo (1903: 41) cited in the protologue of the name K. beharensis , “Behara (8 juillet 1901)”, was a collection without a number made by Guillaume Grandidier on 8 July 1901 in southeastern Madagascar. Further, when publishing the name K. beharensis, Drake del Castillo (1903: 41) described the leaves as “carnosis magnis (10–20 centim.) late ovatis lanceolatis glabris” [English: “fleshy, large (10–20 cm), broadly ovate, lanceolate, glabrous”]. The leaves being described as both “broadly ovate” and as “lanceolate” seem to present a morphological conflict (further discussed below). Critically, although horticultural selections of the species do have glabrous leaves, for example cultivated material known under the designation ‘ K. beharensis var. subnuda ’ or under the monikers K. ‘Subnuda’ and K. ‘Baby’s Bottom’, the leaves of K. beharensis are most often variously and very densely tomentose, not glabrous, giving them a distinctly felt-like texture ( Smith et al. 2021).

Then, three years after K. beharensis was described by Drake del Castillo (1903: 41), Hamet (1906: 110) published the name K. vantieghemii , as ‘ Van Tieghemi ’, based on “ Madagascar: Behara, 6 à [to] 8 juillet 1901 (Grandidier fils). Dans l’herbier Drake del Castillo.” This was, presumably, at least partly, the same material that Drake del Castillo cited in the protologue of the name K. beharensis , but with the date in July 1901 when Grandidier made the collection extended to “6 à [to] 8”, not only “8”. He might therefore have had material collected on 6 and 7 as well as on 8 July 1901 at his disposal. The large herbarium of Drake del Castillo was bequeathed to the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle after his death in 1904. Hamet, who was 16 years old when he described K. vantieghemii , was to become the global expert on Kalanchoe in the 20 th century ( Smith 2020).

In contrast to Drake del Castillo’s statement that the leaves of K. beharensis were glabrous (Drake del Castillo 1903: 41), Hamet (1906: 109) noted that: “Cette espèce [ K. vantieghemii ] appartient au groupe malgache fort remarquable constitué par le Kalanchoe eriophylla et le K. tomentosa groupe caractérisé par la présence, sur toutes les parties des espèces qui le composent, de poils très serrés formant une sorte de velours.” [English: “This species [ K. vantieghemii ] belongs to the very remarkable Malagasy group, comprising the Kalanchoe eriophylla and K. tomentosa group, which is characterised by the presence, on all the plant parts of the species, of very dense hairs forming a sort of velvet.”] Regarding the leaves he though stated in the Latin description of K. vantieghemii that they are “ignota”, i.e., “unknown”. Two years later, Hamet (1908a: 29) explained that he did not describe the leaves of K. vantieghemii in 1906, because even though Drake del Castillo (1903) described K. beharensis as having “broadly ovate, lanceolate, glabrous” leaves, the leaf fragments that were part of the Grandidier’s unnumbered collection from Behara appeared to have a different shape and there were doubts if they belonged to the same material as that from which the inflorescence and flowers were obtained and described. This, then, was the reason put forward by Hamet as to why he opted to not consider the leaf material in his description. However, a further two years later Hamet (1910c: 194) revisited the material and concluded that the leaf remains attached to Grandidier s.n. “Behara (8 juillet 1901)” belonged to three taxa (an admixture, therefore), with these being: (1) K. verticillata Scott Elliot (1891: 14) [i.e., K. tubiflora ( Harvey 1862: 380) Hamet (1912: 44) , see Figueiredo & Smith 2017: 717)]; (2) K. grandidieri Baillon (1888 : t. 57); and (3) K. beharensis , and he was then able to describe the leaves of the latter. It is noteworthy that the natural geographical distribution ranges of both K. tubiflora and K. grandidieri overlap with that of K. beharensis , which could have given rise to the admixture. To maintain the interpretation of the name K. vantieghemii as a homotypic synonym of K. beharensis , as has been done consistently in the literature, we here lectotypify it on the same two-sheet specimen on which the name K. beharensis is lectotypified (see above), which agrees with the views of Hamet (1908a: 30).

Apart from the morphological conflict in the description of K. beharensis , a further complication in interpreting the nomenclature of K. beharensis , is that, as noted above, Drake del Castillo (1903: 41), when publishing the name K. beharensis , only stated: “Behara (8 juillet 1901)” where he cited material in the protologue of the name. Two further voucher specimens cited under other species names treated by Drake del Castillo (1903: 42–43), but not originally described by him, were identified in an identical way, i.e., as “Behara (8 juillet 1901)”. Apart from “Behara (8 juillet 1901)” referring to material today interpreted as being of K. beharensis (1.1 and 1.2, below), this specimen citation, “Behara (8 juillet 1901)”, was done in exactly the same way under two other species names (2 and 3, below):

1. Kalanchoe beharensis , a single specimen mounted on two sheets, i.e., as more than one preparation ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 8.3):

1.1 Herb. P [barcode P 00374194! http://coldb.mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00374194 (inflorescence)];

1.2 Herb. P [barcode P 00374195! http://coldb.mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00374195 (leaves in envelopes and inflorescence)];

2. “(?)” K. miniata Hils. & Bojer ex Tulasne (1857: 149) (see Drake del Castillo 1903: 42; Herb. P [specimen not accessible online; possibly a voucher to record the unlikely natural presence of K. miniata at Behara]); and

3. Euphorbia stenoclada Baillon (1887: 672) (see Drake del Castillo 1903: 43; Herb. P [barcode P 00226016! http://coldb.mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00226016].

The effect of at least three Kalanchoe sheets, numbers 1.1, 1.2, and 2, above, and, for that matter, a fourth one of a Euphorbia , having been cited and identified in exactly the same way, i.e., as [G. Grandidier s.n.] “Behara (8 juillet 1901)” by Drake del Castillo (1903: 41) was that considerable confusion was caused and contributed to Hamet (1906) redescribing, as K. vantieghemii , material of what today is known as K. beharensis .

While we accept that the type of the name K. beharensis consists of two specimens (see below), we do not interpret this as the holotype, given that four specimens representing three species were cited with identical information. Rather, we interpret “Behara (8 juillet 1901)” represented by Herb. P [barcode P00374194 ] and Herb. P [barcode P00374195 ] as original material that qualify for designation as lectotype. We here affect this lectotypification.

The type of the name K. beharensis consists of two preparations, in this case two herbarium sheets, i.e., Herb. P [barcode P00374194] and Herb. P [barcode P00374195], which together constitute one specimen ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 8.3). One of the sheets [P barcode P00374194] has an inflorescence mounted on it and the second sheet [P barcode P00374195] has an inflorescence and separate leaf fragments kept in two envelopes attached to it. The former specimen has an original label stating, inter alia, “feuilles à la page suivante”, i.e., “leaves on the next page”. Some collections of Grandidier have printed labels [not to be confused with original labels] that are horizontal-rectangular with a narrowlined, black box inset a few millimetres from the edge, and with the words “Mission Grandidier. 1901” printed at the top and “ Madagascar ” at the bottom (see for example bottom left corner of P00226016, the specimen of E. stenoclada ). Nevertheless, the majority of the specimens we examined only have handwritten labels attached to them. Although the specimen P00374194 lacks a printed label, the original label written in pencil is in the same handwriting as that which appears on other specimens collected by Grandidier and on the printed labels (see for example P00226016). The two sheets P00374194 and P00374195 therefore represent a single gathering and the two sheets have “a single, original label in common” ( Turland et al. 2018: Art. 8.3). It is further assumed that the foreign leaf material [that gave rise to the admixture] noticed and mentioned by Hamet (1910b: 194) has since been removed from the envelopes attached to the sheet with barcode P00374195.

We therefore concur with Boiteau & Allorge-Boiteau (1995: 154) where they stated that the type of the name K. beharensis is “Grandidier Guillaume s. no, Behara, 8.7.1901 (fl.) holotype P, 2 parts”, but we correct “ holotype ” to “ lectotype ”. This lectotypification maintains the current wide application of the name K. beharensis to an arborescent, felt-leaved species from Madagascar.

Figures

FIGURE 2. Kalanchoe beharensis is one of the few truly arborescent species of Kalanchoe. Photograph: Gideon F. Smith.