Triplaris caracasana var. vargasii Meisn. 1856

Triplaris caracasana Cham. (1833: 137–138) var. vargasii Meisn. (1856: 172) Type (designated here):—[VENEZUELA. Caracas], (fr), Bredemeyer 325 (lectotype: W [W 75177, digital image!]; isolectotype: W [W 75180, digital image!]). Syntype:— VENEZUELA. Caracas, (fr), Vargas 33 (NY [NY 324250, NY 324252, digital image!]). Notes:— Meisner (1856) cites two specimens in the protologue: “ Vargas, no. 33! in herb. DC., Bredemey. n. 325! in herb. Jacq.”. According to HUH-IB (2022), these specimens should be kept at G and W, respectively. We traced two Bredemeyer specimens (no. 325) at W (W 75177 and W 75180) plus two further Bredemeyer unnumbered specimens (W 75178 and W 75179). Based on annotation labels, these two unnumbered specimens were considered types by Brandbyge. These four sheets all bear an original label that reads “HERBAR. JACQUIN FIL., Triplaris caracasana Cham. ”. Of these four specimens, two are males (W 75179 and W 75180) and two are females (W 75177 and W 75178). Given that Triplaris is dioecious (see Brandbyge 1986, Koenemann 2022), it is plausible that the numbered and unnumbered specimens represent paired collections from different trees, and it is possible that the two pairs (Bredemeyer 325 and Bredemeyer s.n.) are duplicate sets of the same collecting event. The NYBG database metadata gives the location of Vargas 33 as " Venezuela. Colonia Tovar, Caracas." (see specimens NY 324250, NY 324252). There is a Colonia Tovar near the modern city of Caracas but we do not find any reference to this location in either the protologue or on the specimens themselves and we have excluded this information above. Brandbyge (1986) cited both Bredemeyer and Vargas specimens as syntypes, but he did not designate a lectotype. The Bredemeyer 325 material is better than the Vargas 33 material, which merely consist of fruits. Given that fruit morphology is important in species determination, and the collection Bredemeyer 325 is specifically cited in the protologue, we here designate the female specimen of Bredemeyer 325 (W 75177) as the lectotype, whereas the male specimen (W 75180) is an isolectotype. While it is possible that the two specimens of Bredemeyer s.n. represent a duplicate collection of Bredemeyer 325, we only have circumstantial evidence to support that assertion. We know only that Brandbyge considered them all part of the same collection. Until more direct evidence is found linking these two sets of Bredemeyer collections, it is best to not consider the Bredemeyer s.n. (W) collections as original material, which we do here.