(125) Request for a binding decision on the descriptive statement associated with <i>Laurus tawa</i> ( <i>Lauraceae</i> )

(125) Laurus tawa Yate, Account New Zealand: 42. 1835 [Angiosp.: Laur.] The species is one of the commonest canopy trees in the lowland forests of northern New Zealand. The current accepted citation of this name is Laurus tawa A. Cunn. (in Ann. Nat. Hist. 1: 379. 1838a), the basionym of the current binomial Beilschmiedia tawa (A. Cunn.) Benth. & Hook. f. ex Kirk (Forest Fl. New Zealand: 257. 1889). Allan Cunningham collected and named the species in New Zealand in 1826 (l.c. 1838a), which date is attested by a K herbarium label (Wright in New Zealand J. Bot. 22: 115. 1984). This request seeks an opinion if a publication of the name by Yate (Account New Zealand: 42. 1835), prior to Cunningham's eventual publication, includes a validating description. William Yate (1802–1872) was a missionary in New Zealand intermittently from 1828 to 1837 (Binney in Dict. New Zealand Biogr.: 1: 611–613. 1990). While visiting London in 1835, the book was published in which Laurus tawa appeared (Yate, l.c.: 42) (the full title is An account of New Zealand; and of the formation and progress of the Church Missionary Society's Mission in the Northern Island, but the book is generally known by its short title). The book contains a section on New Zealand plants in which a number of binomials are effectively published, some having what may be validating descriptions, and others not. No author citations were given, there was apparently no original plant material collected by Yate (who was more interested in conchology), and there are no botanical illustrations in his book. Two “editions” of the book were printed that same year, but they differ only in the title-page including the initials of the names of the publishers and stating the edition; otherwise the text is exactly the same (Hocken, Bibliogr. New Zealand Lit.: 58. 1909). The links in this article are to the earlier “edition”. Yate's botanical notes were confined to trees, and only to those which were “useful”, i.e., could provide timber. Much of his description of Laurus tawa is taken up with the uses and characteristics of its timber. Omitting those parts, which are excluded from valid descriptions by ICN Art. 38.3 (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 162. 2025), his description is: “Tawa (Laurus Tawa) is a frequenter of damp and deeply-shaded woods, with leaf and branches similar to those of the Mairi-tree; the branches a little more straggling, and not quite so robust. Its wood is light [an account of the uses of its wood by Māori is here omitted except that being used for fencing]. It decays [in the ground] in the course of two years, and becomes perfectly useless. It produces a berry, about the size of a small sloe [a clause and sentence describing preparation of the fruit for food by Māori is here omitted]” (Yate, l.c.: 42–43). This can be compared with a modern description of Laurus tawa A. Cunn (as Beilschmiedia tawa): “Tree […] branchlets slender […] Lvs […] entire, 5–10 × 1–2 cm., lanceolate to narrow-elliptic […] Drupe ellipsoid to ovoid, 2–3 cm. long” (Allan, Fl. New Zealand 1: 136–137. 1961). There is also a very clear line drawing of L. tawa A. Cunn. (as Beilschmiedia tawa) by Harris (in Wright, l.c.: 117, fig. 5) which shows both leaves and drupe. The first problem is to determine what is a “Mairi-tree” (“mairi” being an attempt to write down phonetically a Māori name). Yate (l.c.: 41) had earlier stated: “Mairi—a tree of the Podocarpus species […] It has a spiral leaf, long and narrow, of a pale bright green.” However, there is no New Zealand Podocarpus, or any other indigenous gymnosperm, which fits this description, or which has a leaf in any way resembling that of Laurus tawa. Cunningham (in Ann. Nat. Hist. 1: 212. 1838b) identified Yate's “Mairi” with Podocarpus ferruginea D. Don (≡ Pectinopitys ferruginea (D. Don) C.N. Page), the Māori name for which is “Miro”, and quoted some of Yate's description of its uses. However, Yate (l.c.: 46) described P. ferruginea separately and differently, as follows: “It produces a fine red berry […]. The leaf is like that of the fir-tree”. Cunningham's identification seems, therefore, incorrect. It is more likely that Yate's “Mairi” is either Mida salicifolia (Santalales/Nanodeaceae), or any one of a number of species of Notelaea (Primulales/Oleaceae), for all of which the Māori name is “Maire”, and all do have long narrow leaves (although the resemblance to those of Laurus tawa A. Cunn. is not close), and they are all much smaller, less densely branched trees than L. tawa A. Cunn. Yate's descriptive phrase therefore compares his L. tawa to a species which cannot be definitely identified but which is, in any case, from an unrelated order. It does not seem, therefore, to be relevant as part of a validating description. The description of the wood as “light” is ambiguous as to whether it refers to density or colour. The phrase “a berry, about the size of a small sloe” is not very descriptive either. The sloe (fruit of Prunus spinosa L., Rosales/Rosaceae) is described as “Fruit 10–15 mm., globose” (Webb in Tutin & al., Fl. Eur. 2: 78. 1968), that is, it is of a different size and shape to the drupe of Laurus tawa A. Cunn. Yate only mentions one size, which would only be appropriate for an equidimensional object like a sloe; otherwise one might expect it to be stated which dimension of the object is being referred to (as in the description given by Allan, l.c.) suggesting that Yate's descriptive phrase is too vague to be a useful descriptive statement. As at that time, there was no readily available work in English on New Zealand botany and as there is no evidence in Cunningham's considerable extant correspondence (Orchard & Orchard, Allan Cunningham: Letters Botanist/Explorer 1791–1839. 2015) that he knew Yate personally or corresponded with him, it would appear that Yate's knowledge of the tree came only indirectly from Cunningham, who, when in New Zealand in 1826, gave preliminary manuscript names to many of his specimens, some others of which were also mentioned by Yate. Cunningham resided with the New Zealand missionaries and Yate may have acquired his knowledge from information left by Cunningham with them. It is almost certain that Yate's binomial Laurus tawa was intended to be that of Cunningham, even if some of Yate's descriptive statements do not exactly match those of that species. Conversely, Cunningham (l.c. 1838a) quoted (without attribution) some of Yate's (l.c.: 42) statements about the uses of its wood, word for word, indicating that they were describing the same species. Moreover, if L. tawa Yate is considered to be validly published, there is no element of its sparse description that would preclude, under the provisions of Art. 9.19(c), its neotypification by a specimen of L. tawa A. Cunn. Thus, should Yate's description be considered adequate for valid publication, the only change need be in the authorship of the name, whereas no nomenclatural change would be entailed should the descriptive material be considered inadequate. I wish to thank John McNeill and John Wiersema for their advice and assistance with this request.