Piper suipigua Buch.
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/phytotaxa.338.1.2 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13719151 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4012878C-FF89-7465-6DF2-861CFEA9FE02 |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Piper suipigua Buch. |
| status |
|
20. Piper suipigua Buch. View in CoL -Ham ex D. Don Prodr. Fl. Nepal. 20. 1825.
Type:— NEPAL. Hamilton s.n. (holotype BM000950698 image!; isotype G-DC G00206597 image!) .
Piper nepalense Miq. Syst. Piperac. 318, 1844.
Type :— NEPAL. Nepal, Piper peepuloides Wallich 6650 B (lectotype designated here U1476540 image!; isolectotype K000794463 image!, G00206597 image!, CAL!) .
Piper nepalense var. parvifolium C. DC. Prodr. 16: 358. 1869 syn. nov.
Type:— INDIA. Meghalaya, Khasia , 4000ft. J. D. H. & T. T. (holotype G-DC G0026596 image! –lower plant; isotypes G-DC G00206595 image!, CAL!; syntypes P iper 20, Sikkim, J. D. H. s. n. G-DC G00206594 image!) .
Piper gamblei C. DC. (1925: 208) syn. nov.
Type :— INDIA: Darjeeling, 7000ft. J. S. Gamble 8364 (holotype CAL!; isotype K00794451 image!) .
Piper gammiei C. DC. (1925: 202) syn. nov.
Type:— INDIA: Assam, Makum Dihing river, G. A. Gammie 5 (holotype CAL!).
Piper sikkimense C. DC. (1925: 199) syn. nov.
Type:— INDIA: Sikkim, Unknown Collector s. n. (holotype CAL!; isolectotype CAL!) .
Piper subrigidilimbum C. DC. (1925: 201) syn. nov.
Type :— INDIA, Lebong , Darjeeling, 5000ft. J. S. Gamble 9692 (holotype CAL!; isotype K000794450 image!) .
Distribution:— INDIA: West Bengal, Sikkim, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Manipur; NEPAL; BHUTAN; CHINA.
Note:— This species is the most common one in Nepal, Sikkim, and Meghalaya. Wallich 6650B at U (1476540) is designated here as the lectotype of P. nepalense because this particular sheet bears Miquel’s annotation with the mention of the name Piper peepuloides Roxb. and Miquel worked principally on specimens at U. Specimens at K and G-DC have annotations in Miquel’s handwriting, yet the name Piper peepuloides is missing in these. The type of Piper nepalense var. crassifolium C. DC. (1868: 358) could not be traced. It appears to be not much different, yet it is excluded from consideration here. The original material of Piper nepalense var. parvifolium shows very strong nerves but otherwise it is the same as P. suipigua . Most of the other synonyms included here follow Long (1984: 350) except P. japvonum , which is considered presently as a distinct species. Piper glabramentum is considered in this study as a synonym of P. rhytidocarpum . Piper gamblei C. DC. forma b C. DC. (1925: 208) and Piper gamblei C. DC. forma c C. DC. (1925: 208) cannot be considered valid names, but the material cited for the two as present at CAL is similar to P. suipigua .
| B |
Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Zentraleinrichtung der Freien Universitaet |
| CAL |
Botanical Survey of India |
| J |
University of the Witwatersrand |
| H |
University of Helsinki |
| T |
Tavera, Department of Geology and Geophysics |
| P |
Museum National d' Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN) - Vascular Plants |
| S |
Department of Botany, Swedish Museum of Natural History |
| G |
Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève |
| A |
Harvard University - Arnold Arboretum |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.