Piper silletianum P. K. Mukh., 2017

Mukherjee, Prasanta Kumar, 2017, Nomenclatural notes on Piper Linn. (Piperaceae) from India, Phytotaxa 289 (2), pp. 188-192 : 188-189

2. Piper silletianum P. K. Mukh. , nom. nov.

Piper auriculatum (Miq.) C. DC. (1869: 372) nom. illeg. [ Chavica auriculata Miq. (1843: 269) ], non Piper auriculatum Bl. (1826: 171) .

Type (lectotype designated here):— BANGLADESH: Sillet, Wallich 6652 B ( K K000794401 image) ; isolectotype: ( K 001134421 right hand specimen only, image), ( CAL!, Accn no. 379322, lower left hand specimen), CAL! Accn. no. 379323 ; syntypes: Wallich 6650 E ( GZU 00256226 image), ( CAL!, Accn. no. 379119 left hand specimen only). Piper betle auct ., non Linn. C. DC. (1869: 359) Distribution : BANGLADESH: Sylhet (Sillet) .

Note: Miquel (1843) described Chavica auriculata based on a specimen from Sillet, now in Bangladesh, listed as Wallich 6652 B under the name Piper betle , and another one from an unspecified locality listed under Wallich 6650 E reportedly mixed with Piper peepuloides Roxb. Wallich 6652 B at K ( K 000794401) has the annotation as P. betle by Miquel with reference to his “ Systema “ p. 228. There is another specimen at K ( K 001124421, right hand one only) being mixed with P. hamiltonii on the left ( K 001124420). The specimen at CAL is a mixed one bearing the same number. The material on left lower section is similar to Wallich 6652 B at K and has a label of the same number. The material on the right is P. hamiltonii C. DC. , a species also reported from the same locality. Wallich 6650 E is available at GZU and CAL. The material at CAL is mixed with P. retrofractum Vahl on the left and not P. peepuloides . The GZU specimen is free of any mixture. Leaves in Chavica auriculata differ from those of P. betle in being ovate with a rounded base and profoundly unequally auricled with the lower lobe somewhat confluent with the petiole; the male spikes are much shorter than the leaves. Both K and CAL specimens show characters that fit the genus Piper . Chavica Miq. is considered as a part (section) by Hooker (1886: 83)) of Piper . However, a combination involving Miquel’s epithet within Piper would create an illegitimate later homonym of Piper auriculatum Bl. (1826) , which is based on a collection from Bantam (Banten) in Indonesia. An illustration of a leaf (1826: t. 8) provided in Blume (1826) shows a completely different form and venation pattern than that of Chavica auriculata . Therefore, Piper silletianum P. K. Mukh. is proposed here as a replacement name for Chavica auriculata . The specific epithet is coined after the type locality. C. de Candolle (1869: 359) considered the taxon as synonymous to Piper betle Linn. Hooker (1886) omitted the species in his treatment of the Piperaceae of British India. The specimen at K ( K 000794401) is designated here as the lectotype as it is not a mixed one, and was seen by Miquel. This is evident by having an annotation by him as P. betle , a name of previous identification referred to in the protologue.