Piper tumidonodosum P. K. Mukh., 2017

Mukherjee, Prasanta Kumar, 2017, Nomenclatural notes on Piper Linn. (Piperaceae) from India, Phytotaxa 289 (2), pp. 188-192 : 189-190

3. Piper tumidonodosum P. K. Mukh. , nom. nov.

Piper lonchites Miq. (1844: 331) nom. illeg., non Schult. (1822: 241),

Type: (lectotype designated here):— MALAYSIA: Penang, G. Porter in Wallich 6644 B ( K, K000794896 right hand specimen only, image) ; isolectotypes: K K000820949 image, CAL! Accn. no. 379394, G G00206582 !, image ; G G00206592 !, image ; GZU 000256205 !, 000256204!, 000256203!, images ; P P02025509 !, image, partly as to left hand specimen ).

Distribution: INDIA: Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur; MALAYSIA.

Note: Schultes (1822) used the name Piper lonchites as a replacement name for Piper lanceolatum Roxb. (1820: 162) because Roxburgh’s name was a later homonym of Piper lanceolatum Ruiz & Pav. (1798: 36) . Naturally, it is typified by the type of Roxburgh’s name (Art. 7.4), which was based on a specimen from the Moluccas Islands and likely been collected by Roxburgh. Miquel (1844: 331) used the name Piper lonchites Schult. to describe a species form Penang, based on Wallich 6644B, and explicitly mentioned exclusion of Piper lanceolatum Roxb. By doing so, Miquel created a later homonym of Piper lonchites Schult. (Art. 53.1). The illustration included by Miquel (1845: t. 57) has similarity with the collections from Penang by G. Porter in Wallich 6644 B (K x 2, CAL!, G x 2, GZU x 3 and P. Piper lanceolatum Roxb. (1820) was transferred by Miquel (1843: 264) to Chavica lanceolata (Roxb.) Miq. , and to Piper boehmeriifolium γ tenuifolium by C. DC. (1869: 49). Miquel (1844) stated that the authentic Roxburgh specimen at herbarium Delessert (G) is different from Wallich 6644B the type of the taxon named by him as P. lonchites . A specimen at the Delessert Herbarium (G00386439!), doubtfully identified as a Roxburgh collection, is heterogeneous. M. G. Gilbert in 1996 annotated the lower specimen (marked ‘A’) as P. boehmeriifolium ? and the upper one (marked ‘B’) as P. arborescens Roxb. Both plants are very different from the taxon described by Miquel. Piper arborescens Roxb. was included by Hooker (1886:96) as an undeterminable species and was excluded by him. Ascription of Miquel as the author of P. lonchites was done by C. de Candolle (1869: 358) where he made no reference to Schulte’s name. The name P. lonchites Schult. has consistently been used with the incorrectly applied citation of authority in different taxonomic treatments, such as Miquel (1844), Hooker (1886), and Gajurel et al. (2008). A new (replacement) name, Piper tumidonodosum P. K. Mukh. is proposed here for P. lonchites Miq. The specific epithet refers to the swollen nodes of the taxon. ‘Penang, G. Porter in Wallich 6644B ’ (K, K000794896)—the right hand specimen only, is designated here as the lectotype as it has both male and female twigs mounted together, bears Wallich’ s label data and Miquel’s annotation. The initial report of P. lonchites Miq. from India (Nungba, Manipur!) was made by C. de Candolle (1912: 520). Subsequently, Gajurel et al. (2002: 110 & 2008: 36–38) reported Piper lonchites Schult. from Arunachal Pradesh. Gajurel et al. (2008) noted that it is a lesser known species from India. In 1914, C. de Candolle apparently had some misgivings about the identity of P. lonchites Miq. in relation to P. khasianum C. DC. (1869: 349) , where he recognized P. khasianum as forma ‘ c’ of P. lonchites (an invalid name). However, in 1910 he annotated two sheets (Khasia, 4000ft, Hook. f et Thoms. 5; Ind. Or.) at CAL as ‘ P. khasianum = P. lonchites ’. Male spikes on these specimens are very long and flexuous which is contrary to descriptions for either of the species. Gajurel et al. (2002) distinguished the two species on the basis of habit: P. lonchites Miq. is an erect shrub and P. khasianum is a climber. Furthermore, P. khasianum possesses leaves that are falcately curved at the apex and the fruits are small and globose ( Hooker 1886: 90). The nodes in P. lonchites Miq. are markedly swollen.

Hooker (1886) commented that Wallich 6644B contains three species. A check was made of these specimens at different herbaria and they appear to represent a heterogeneous assemblage of several species. Those syntypes that do not conform to the description and the illustration provided by Miquel (1843; 1845) are listed below for exclusion ( Table 1).