Agarista revoluta ( Sprengel 1821: 131 ) Hooker ex Niedendzu (1889: 236)

Dalastra, Claudenice Hilda & Heiden, Gustavo, 2023, Typifications and nomenclatural notes on Agarista (Ericaceae, Vaccinioideae, Lyonieae), Phytotaxa 618 (1), pp. 1-17 : 11-13

9. Agarista revoluta ( Sprengel 1821: 131) Hooker ex Niedendzu (1889: 236)

≡ Andromeda revoluta Sprengel (1821: 131)

≡ Leucothoë revoluta (Sprengel) Candolle (1839: 604)

≡ Agarista sprengelii G.Don (1834: 837) , nom. super.

≡ Leucothoë revoluta var. sellowii Meisner (1863: 160) , nom. super.

Type:— BRAZIL. “In Brasilia” [Rio de Janeiro: restinga de Cabo Frio], F. Sellow s.n. (lectotype G00352014 , image!, here designated; isolectotypes: B100191422 , image!, BM000993648 , image!, BR0000005055265 , image!, E00326870 , images!, F0055225 !, G00352013 , image!, G00352015 , image!, G00352016 , image!, G00323839 , image!; HAL0106209 , image!, HBG515545 , image!, K000494425 , image!, K000494427 , image!, L0006651 , image!, M0173299 , image!, P00604188 , image!, W 0059345 , image!; the former lectotype B †, designated by Sleumer 1959: 452) .

Note:— Sprengel (1821: 131) described Agarista revoluta based in the collection Sellow s.n, collected “In Brasilia”, with no date or location indicated. Friederich Sellow dispatched his collections to the Royal Botanical Garden at Scĥneberg, now part of B ( Urban 1893, Moraes 2020, Carvalho et al. 2022) and the specimens used to describe this new species through his collections were probably deposited in B, but this information cannot be confirmed. The protologue did not cite a single type specimen which based the species description or specified the herbarium of deposit. Potential syntypes include 18 sheets (B100191422, BM000993648, BR0000005055265, E00326870, F0055225F, G00352013, G00352014, G00352015, G00352016, G00323839, HAL0106209, HBG515545 [fragment], K000494425, K000494427, L0006651, M0173299, P00604188, W 0059345).

A first lectotypification was made by Judd (1984), indicating the sheet from B (100191422) as lectotype, probably due to this material being in the same herbaria as the holotype destroyed. On the other hand, Moraes (2011) indicated the choice of this material from B as arguable. According to him, it is an herbarium specimen from the Herbarium Baschant that was incorporated in B in April 1959, much later than the publication of the name ( Hiepko 1980), bearing label conflicting information that states “ Ericac. / Leucothoë revoluta DC. / ( bahiensis DC. )/ Bahia / Sellow”, without any evidence that it could be a duplicate of the collection analyzed by Sprengel. Moraes (2011), furthermore, inferred that the three branches mounted together in the sheet in B seem to belong to different collections, being the fruiting branch on the left side probably from HAL and the other two of unknown provenance (additional information see [ Moraes 2011]).

We analyzed and confirmed the comments made by Moraes (2011) and chose a new lectotypification instead of a second-step lectotypification because the material deposited in B comprises three branches mounted together in the sheet, probably belonging to different collections, and the provenance of each branch on the sheet could not be inferred with certainty. Therefore, we herein designated the specimen G00352014 as a new lectotype, following Art. 9.17, ICN ( Turland et al. 2018) and Prado & Moran (2022). We chose that specimen because it is well preserved and conserves important features as inflorescences, flowers, and leaves. Although fruits are not available on this sheet, they can be visualized in the isosyntypes.

We infer that the sheet in B comprises, at least, two different collections. One corresponding to the specimen of Agarista revoluta collected by Sellow and the other one probably corresponding to a fragment from Blanchet 1680 of Leucothoë bahiensis , a heterotypic synonym of A. revoluta . These inferences are based on the morphological similarity of the fragments in B with the type material and protologue of L. bahiensis and the additional information indicated on the label, such as the location in Bahia. Thus, it is necessary to identify separately the individual fragments in B, indicating the origin of each one.

Additionally, the specimens from K are mounted together with other collections. The specimen K000494425 is mounted together with Riedel 494 ( K000494424 ) on the same sheet. The specimen K000494427 is mounted together with A. St. Hilaire s.n. ( K000494428 ) and Gomes s.n. ( K000494429 ). There is another material at MEL from Wied, but there is not enough information to confirm if it is a syntype.