Triplaris pachau var. pachau Mart. ex Meisn. 1855

Triplaris pachau Mart. ex Meisn. (1855: 51–52) var. pachau Type (designated here):— BRAZIL. Bahia State, Rio San Francisco (fr), Martius s.n. (lectotype: M); isolectotypes: F [F6502, photonegative digital image!], M, NY [NY 324255 (fragment), digital image!]). Remaining Syntypes:— BRAZIL. Bahia State, “fluvium Itahype” (fr), Martius s.n. (B [B 10-0250418 (fragment), digital image!]). —[BRAZIL]. Rio Maranhão, (fr) Pohl 2366 (OXF [OXF 9174, digital image!]). Notes:— Martius (1831: 1011) was the first author to use the name Triplaris pachau, citing it in a series of plants he collected/observed in and around Bahia and Rio de Janeiro. However, no diagnosis or description was given and, as a consequence, Martius’ name was not validly published (nomen nudum; see Art. 38.2 Ex.1 of ICBN). The species was validated by Meisner (1855: 51–52) in Flora Brasiliensis, where he explicitly cited Martius as the author of the name. Meisner (1855: 51–52) listed four specimens (syntypes): Martius s.n. (from Bahia), Blanchet s.n. (from Rio Maranhâo, Goyas Province), Pohl 2366, and Pohl 3093. Moreover, he reported “in Herbario Reg. Monac.”, which refers to the current Herbarium M. We traced two Martius specimens at NY (NY 324255) and B (B 10-0250418). Both of these collections are fragmentary, and consist of fruits only. As a consequence, it is difficult to identify the specimens, since leaf shape is an important characteristic in Triplaris taxonomy (e.g. Koenemann 2021). The NY specimen is labeled as “Rio de San Francisco, Brasil …Herb. Acad. Monac.” (note that the protologue reports “ad fl. S. Francisci, prov. Bahiensi.), but no date is given for this collection. The B specimen includes the annotation “Brasilia prov. Bahia in sylvis, in inundatis ad fluvium Itahype.” The “fluvium Itahype” is perhaps referring to a river near the current town of Itaipé in Minas Gerais. This is uncertain, and as a result we give the type locality verbatim from the protologue. Brandbyge (1986) annotated the B specimen as type material for the name Ruprechtia martii. Examination of the specimen suggests, however, that it is a specimen of Triplaris since the achene is hidden by acrescent tepals, which is the case in Triplaris but not in Ruprechtia. Pendry (2004) did not cite either the B or the M specimen as original material for R. martii. In fact, Pendry (2004) excluded that name from the genus Ruprechtia. There is a photonegative at F (F 6502) that bears a label reporting “HERBARIUM REGIUM MONACENSE” and “Brasilia Provinc. Bahia ”. This information matches the protologue. In the photo, there is a scrap of paper on the sheet with some unintelligible writing and the number 871. F has interpreted this to be the collection number and filed it as Martius 871. The photonegative refers to an M specimen, which we were able to locate and here designated as the lectotype of Triplaris pachau. Another M specimen, as well as F and NY exsiccata, are isolectotypes. We were able to locate also a Pohl specimen no. 2366 at OXF. However this is the type specimen of Triplaris pachau var. longipetala Meisn. (see below).