Triplaris auriculata Meisner. According 1856

Triplaris auriculata Meisn. (1856: 174–175) Type (designated here):— MEXICO. (fruits) Pavon s.n. (lectotype: NY [NY 324203, digital image!], isolectotype: NY 324202 [digital image!]). Type (designated here):— PERU. (fruits) Ruíz and Pavón 33-99 (epitype: MA [MA 811362, digital image!], isoepitypes: F [F-042727 F, digital image!] and MA [MA 811362, digital image!]). Notes:— The protologue includes the citation of locality and collector (“In Novâ-Granatâ? Et Mexico (Pavon! In herb. Shuttlew.). T. Americana Pavon! mss.” And, at the end of the description “(v.s. in h. Shuttlew.)”. Therefore, Meisner had seen at least a specimen collected by Pavon and identified by him as “ T. americana ” and included in Shuttleworth’s collection. Brandbyge (1986) suggested a MA specimen (Ruíz and Pavón 33-99) as the type, but he did not give a formal designation. Moreveor, Brandbyge (1986) also mentioned a second specimen at MA (Sessé and Mociño 4787) as a possible type. However, since those collectors were not cited in the protologue by Meisner (1856: 174–175), this sheet cannot be considered as part of the original type material. Standley (1936) in his treatment of Polygonaceae for Macbride’s Flora of Peru also indicated an MA specimen collected by Ruíz and Pavón (33-99) as the most likely candidate for the type. We found a duplicate of Ruíz and Pavón 33-99 at F (F V 0042727 F), which has been annotated by Brandbyge as a possible type of Triplaris auriculata. The difficulty with this specimen is that its locality (“in vice-regno Peruviano et Chilensi”) does not fit that given in the protologue: Colombia or Mexico (even if we understand all those names in their broad, historical senses). Standley (1936) seems to think the Mexican locality information in the protologue is incorrect as Ruíz and Pavón 33-99 does not look like any Triplaris he has ever seen from Mexico (an opinion confirmed in Standley 1937). Also relevant is the fact that Ruíz and Pavón did not collect in Mexico. Brandbyge (1986) does not comment on the discrepancy of locality. MA has a collection of specimens that are classified as original material (MA 811362, MA 811363, MA 811364). All three of these specimens are part of the Ruíz and Pavón herbarium, were originally determined to be Triplaris americana, were seen by Brandbyge, and annotated by him as Triplaris cumingiana. Brandbyge did not leave any indication that he thought they were type material for T. auriculata. Two of the specimens (MA 811362, MA 811364) present the proper collection number (33-99). All three specimens present a collection locality at variance with the protologue (MA 811362 and MA 811364 give “Herbarium Peruvianum”, and MA 811363 gives both “in vice-regno Peruviano et Chilensi” and “Huayaquil” [likely an orthographic variant of Guayaquil]). Finally, there are two specimens at NY (NY 324202 and NY 324203) that are the most likely candidates as types. Both specimens bear labels reporting protologue information: NY 324203 with “Fragm. Specim. Pavon! in hb. Shttl.” with no locality or date, and NY 324202 with ’ Triplaris Americana de Mexico’ herb. Pavon! In hb. Shuttl.”. Unfortunately, both these specimens are fragments of fruits that only tenuously morphologically match Meisner’s description. Because the NY specimens can be most closely linked to the protologue, we here designate NY 324203 as the lectotype of Triplaris auriculata, and NY 324203 as the isolectotype.Yet, because these specimens are not systematically useful, we follow ICBN (Art. 9.9) and also designate an epitype. We select MA 811362 as the epitype, for three reasons. First, MA 811362 is well-preserved, Second, MA 811362 fits the description as given in the protologue. Third, Ruíz and Pavón 33-99 has a long history of being considered type material for T. auriculata. Thus, its selection as epitype serves to reduce confusion (Preamble ICBN). F-V0042727 F and MA 811362 are isoepitypes.