(3042–3043) Proposals to conserve the names <i>Ficus wassa</i> against <i>F. teregam</i> and <i>F. botryocarpa</i> against <i>F. peru‐teregam</i> (<i>Moraceae</i>)

(3042) Ficus wassa Roxb., Fl. Ind., ed. 1832, 3: 539. Oct–Dec 1832 [Angiosp.: Mor.], nom. cons. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): “Ind. Orient.”, Roxburgh (G barcode G00369442). (=) Ficus teregam Pennant, View Malay. Isl. [Outlin. Globe 4]: 313. 1800, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon in] Rumphius, Herb. Amboin. 3: t. XCIV. 1743. (3043) Ficus botryocarpa Miq. in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugduno-Batavi 3: 233. 1867 [Angiosp.: Mor.], nom. cons. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): [Sulawesi], Menado, Likoepang, Teijsmann (H.B. 5261) (U barcode U 0004579). (=) Ficus peru-teregam Pennant, View Malay. Isl. [Outlin. Globe 4]: 313. 1800, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): [icon in] Rumphius, Herb. Amboin. 3: t. XCV. 1743. Merrill (in J. Arnold Arbor. 29: 186–192. 1948) pointed out that Thomas Pennant had validated a few species names in his Outlines of the Globe. These included two names in the genus Ficus validated by citation of descriptions in Rumphius's Herbarium Amboinense (Herb. Amboin. 3: 150–153. 1743), edited by J. Burman. One of Pennant's Ficus names was published in trinomial form – “Ficus peru teregam”. In discussing this and other “two-word binomials” Merrill (l.c.: 188) argued that “clearly these were all proposed as binomials” and accepted them as such. As Merrill noted, these two Pennant Ficus names were taken from Burman's added notes to Herbarium Amboinense resulting from comparisons with Hortus Malabaricus (Van Reede tot Draakestein, Hort. Malab. 3: t. 60, t. 61. 1682), but as Pennant only made direct reference to Herbarium Amboinense the validating descriptions and associated types must be taken from the work of Rumphius rather than that of Rheede (ICN Art. 7.8; Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018). Hortus Malabaricus refers to “Perin Teregam” in the text but on the plate is it given as “Perim-teregam”. Obviously an error crept in when Burman and later Pennant published the first word as “peru”, but clearly considering the transliterated Malayalam name for the plant as a single hyphenated word was not alien to Rheede. I therefore follow ICN Art. 23.1 and accept Pennant's name with a hyphenated epithet as Ficus peru-teregam. There are plates associated with both of the Rumphius elements cited by Pennant for these two Ficus species and, in the absence of any verifiable Rumphius herbarium specimens, these are the obligate choices as lectotypes for Pennant's names. Subsequent workers on the genus Ficus in the Asia-Pacific region seem to have overlooked Merrill's (and Pennant's) publication. As Merrill (l.c.: 189) indicated, Ficus teregam is the earliest valid name for F. wassa Roxb. (Fl. Ind., ed. 1832, 3: 539. 1832). Merrill (l.c.) referred to F. conora King (in J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, Pt. 2, Nat. Hist. 56: 62. 1887) as being replaced by F. peru-teregam, but F. botryocarpa Miq. (in Ann. Mus. Bot. Lugduno-Batavi 3: 233. 1867) is now generally considered the correct name for King's species. Pennant's Ambon fig is most likely to represent F. botryocarpa subsp. subalbidoramea (Elmer) C.C. Berg (in Blumea 49: 172. 2004). These two species of Ficus occur in eastern Indonesia and Papua New Guinea with Ficus wassa extending to the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu and F. botryocarpa also in the Philippines (Berg & Corner, Fl. Males., ser. I, 17(2): 260–262, 404–407. 2005). There seems little to be gained from taking up Pennant's names for these species now. The names in use are well established (Hancock & Henderson, Fl. Solomon Islands: 76. 1988; Sidiyasa & al., Tree Fl. Indon.: Check List Maluku: 79, 85, 1989; Keßler & al. in Blumea Suppl. 14: 89. 2002; Cámara-Leret & al. in Nature 584: 579–583. 2020) with notable use of F. wassa in the ecological literature and F. botryocarpa in phytochemistry and medical research (Google Scholar search for the binomials; accessed 5 Jun 2024). Additionally, the current infraspecific classification of F. botryocarpa first proposed by Berg (l.c.) would require new combinations for the three subspecies recognised if the rules of priority were to be followed. As Pennant's two names for fig species seem not to have been used by anyone other than Merrill (l.c.) and de Wit (Rumphius Memorial Vol.: 374. 1959) since their first publication more than 200 years ago, I here propose that the names in current use are conserved against the earlier names.