Piper sylvaticum Roxb. Hort. Bengal.

Mukherjee, Prasanta Kumar, 2018, Nomenclatural notes on Piper Linn. (Piperaceae) from India II, Phytotaxa 338 (1), pp. 17-32 : 29

21. Piper sylvaticum Roxb. Hort. Bengal. 4. 1814, nom . nud.;. Fl. Ind. 1: 158. 1820.

Type:— INDIA: mountains on the northwest border of Bengal’ Roxburgh s. n. (?) (lectotype designated here Icones Roxburghianae Ineditae, Plate 2168 K image!; isolectotype Plate 2168 A CAL!) .

Homotypic synonym: Chavica sylvatica (Roxb.) Miq. (1843: 248) .

Distribution:— INDIA: West Bengal, Sikkim.

Note: — Piper sylvaticum was described from the northwest border of Bengal. Hu (1999: 13) expressed some doubts about the identity of this species and the application of the name as it had not been adequately typified. Forman (1997) did not record Roxburgh’s collection of P. sylvaticum in any of the European herbaria. However, not every species described by Roxburgh has an associated dried specimen. Roxburgh (1814: 4) listed P. silvaticum growing at the Calcutta Botanic Garden sourced from R. Smith. A pencilled sketch of a leaf was illustrated in his Icones as drawing (Plate!) no. 2168/a with the name in this incorrect spelling, and it is shown along with no. 2167b, identified as P. betle . The drawing (Plate!) at K (no. 2168) shows a completely different plant with male inflorescences; it is on the same sheet as Plate 2169, which is P. peepuloides . Piper betle at K is Plate 2167 and is a copy of the one at CAL The pencilled sketch of the leaf in Plate 2168/a is without a separate name. Plate 2168 at K matches the description of this species and has been copied and described by Wight in his Icones (1853: t. 1930). Evidently, the plates in the two copies of Roxburgh’s Icones differ amongst themselves. Hooker (1886: 84) mentioned Wallich 6653A & B as representative specimens, both of which are present at K (000545992 and 000545993), respectively. These are doubtfully placed under Piper sylvaticum Roxb. One of the Wallich specimens at CAL (Accn. no. 379120) has the annotation Piper sylvaticum . These specimens at K and CAL are in vegetative state only, so identity and provenance of these are doubtful. In such a situation, the only available original material (c.f. Art. 9. and 40.4; Mc Neill et al. 2012) for Piper sylvaticum that can be considered for typification are the copies of drawings in Roxburgh’s Icones (unpublished), which are available both at CAL and K. The drawing, as is known, was based on a plant from Calcutta. In these circumstances, the Plate at K, showing a complete plant, is designated here as the lectotype of P. sylvaticum . However, none of the plates, either at K or CAL, show much detail of the nature of the bract, which is essential to determine its placement under Chavica of Miquel (1943: 248). Miquel expressed doubts about its conspecificity to Chavica sarmentosa Miq. (1843: 242) , which is a completely different species. This can be verified from the Roxburgh specimen at BM and his Icones no. 1519 at K. Gilbert & Xia (1999: 195) correctly observed that Long (1984: 348) erroneously considered P. sylvaticum as synonymous to P. thomsonii (C. DC.) Hook. f. (1886: 87) and Hu (1999: 13) characterised P. thomsonii properly to eliminate the confusion about its identity. J. D. Hooker (1886: 84) recognised P. sylvaticum as a distinct species “something like P. attenuatum with more the habit of P. longum ”. Similarity in foliage of P. sylvaticum to Piper attenuatum is very remarkable. While P. attenuatum has a female spike longer than the leaves and decurrent bracts, those of this species are shorter than the leaves and the bracts are supposedly rounded, peltate. D. G. Long (1984: 348) incorrectly referred P. dekkoanum C. DC. (1925: 206) as a synonym of P. sylvaticum .