(3038) Proposal to reject the name <i>Annona sariffa</i> (<i>Annonaceae</i>)

(3038) Annona sariffa Roxb. ex Hensch., Vita Rumphii: 142. Aug 1833 (‘Anona’) [Angiosp.: Annon.], nom. utique rej. prop. Typus: non designatus. Henschel (Vita Rumphii. 1833) validated a number of binomials by associating them with direct citations of descriptions from Herbarium Amboinense of Rumphius. One example is “Anona sariffa Roxb.” for which he cited “Khi. p. 137” (Rumphius, Herb. Amboin. 1: 137. 1741). The denomination first appeared in print as “Annona Surriffa” (Roxburgh, Hort. Bengal.: 43. 1814) but was not validly published as no description, diagnosis or reference to one was presented. However, it is likely Henschel took the name from Buchanan-Hamilton's commentary on Herbarium Amboinense. Buchanan-Hamilton (in Mem. Wern. Nat. Hist. Soc. 5: 352. 1826), under “Fructus chinensis Khi dicta, p. 137”, identified Rumphius's Khi firstly with “Anona fructu rubicundissimo” of Linnaeus and Burman, and secondly, with more certainty, to “Anona sariffa of Dr Roxburgh”. Henschel, by directly linking the Roxburgh name (as amended orthographically by Buchanan-Hamilton) with Rumphius's description, validated the name. Khi, as noted by Merrill (Interpr. Rumph. Herb. Amboin.: 46. 1917), undoubtedly refers to the common persimmon, Diospyros kaki Thunb. (in Nova Acta Regiae Soc. Sci. Upsal, ser. 2, 3: 199 “kaka”, 208. 1780), as grown in southern China, whence came the sugary dried fruits familiar to Rumphius on Ambon in the Moluccas. Merrill (l.c.) considered Annona sariffa to be typified by Rumphius's description. However, descriptions are not considered eligible as types under current rules. There are no indisputable Rumphius herbarium specimens extant, and Rumphius did not illustrate Khi in Herbarium Amboinense. But Rumphius did refer to the work of Piso (Pisonis, Hist. Nat. Brasil. 1648), equating his Araticu with Khi. On p. 70 of Piso's work there is an illustration of Araticu. Henschel did not exclude Piso's element from Annona sariffa, indeed it may well be this element that inclined Buchanan-Hamilton to interpret Khi as an Annona rather than a Diospyros. As the only available original material, Piso's illustration, though poor, seems to be the obligate choice of lectotype for Annona sariffa. Trindade Medeiros & Albuquerque (in J. Ethnobiol. & Ethnomed. 10: Art. 50. 2014) provided an ethnobotanical analysis of food plants listed in Piso's work. They equated Araticu with Annona montana Macfad. (Fl. Jamaica 1: 7. 1837). This raises the possibility that Annona sariffa could replace A. montana as the correct name for a species very widespread in South and Central America and the Caribbean (Tropicos.org lists 31 references, including floras and checklists, using the name, accessed: 24 Apr 2024), that bears edible fruits. As A. sariffa is a name not seriously applied since its first validation, and is surely unknown in the Western Hemisphere, it seems expedient to remove it from the lexicon of usable names by proposing its ultimate rejection. This is done here.