NOTES ON THE LECTOTYPIFICATION OF NECTANDRA SANGUINEA (LAURACEAE) PEDRO LUÍS RODRIGUES DE MORAES ,1 JAMES DOBREFF ,2 AND LARS GUNNAR REINHAMMAR 3 Abstract. Notes on the lecotypification of Nectandra sanguinea , the type of Nectandra , are presented, comple - menting the prior one proposed by Luciano Bernardi. This is necessary in order to clarify the confusion that arose after his analysis whereby the sheet designated by him as “holotypus ” was subsequently altered, and because he mixed elements of two different sheets in the photographic plate indicated as being a single sheet of the “holoty - pus. ” Corrections of authorship and the place and date of publication of the species name are also discussed, hav - ing been overlooked by most authors who were seemingly unaware of the existence of the original dissertation published by Rottbøll in 1776 . Resumo. Apresentam-se notas sobre a lectotipificação de Nectandra sanguinea , o tipo de Nectandra , complementando a prévia proposta por Luciano Bernardi. Isto se faz necessário para o esclarecimento da confusão surgida após sua análise, uma vez que a exsicata designada por ele como “holótipo ” foi subsequentemente alterada, e porque ele misturou elementos de duas exsicatas diferentes na prancha fotográfica indicada como sendo uma única exsicata do “holótipo. ” Correções da autoria e do local e data de publicação do nome da espécie também são discutidas, que foram negligenciadas pela maioria dos autores, que aparentemente desconheciam a existência da dissertação original publicada por Rottbøll em 1776 . Keywords: Lauraceae, Nectandra sanguinea , generitype, Daniel Rolander, Suriname Nectandra Rottb. was first published by Kiel, Leipzig, Lund, British Library, among oth - Rottbøll (1776: 11) in the dissertation “ Descrip- ers). It predates the almost verbatim version pub - tionis rariorum plantarum, nec non materi æ lished in the journal Acta Literaria Universitatis medic æ atqve oeconomic æ e terra Surinamensi Hafniensis 1: 279 ( Rottbøll , 1778), which was fragmentum placido ampliss. professorum exam - undoubtedly intended to be a serial, but expired ini, pro loco in consistorio rite tenendo dispu - after only one volume (Rickett and Stafleu, taturus, subjicit Christianus Friis Rottböll, 1961). The latter publication has been repeatedly S.R.M. a consiliis justiti æ, in Universitate cited by authors (e.g., Nees von Esenbeck, 1836; Havniensi medicinæ professor p.o. spartam Meisner, 1864; Mansfeld, 1935; Kostermans, defendentis ornante clarissimo medicinæ 1936, 1952; Green and Sprague, 1940; Allen, candidato, Arnoldo Nicolao Aasheim, AD D. 1945; Camp et al., 1947; Rickett and Stafleu, maji A. MDCCLXXVI ,” (copies in the university 1959; Bernardi, 1962; Rohwer, 1986, 1993), as libraries of Copenhagen, Darmstadt, Halle, Jena, the place of valid publication of the generic We give our sincere thanks to Ida Holm (K øbenhavns Universitetsbibliotek), Susanne Röckel, and Julia Schwarz (Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg), Lisa DeCesare (Botany Libraries, Harvard University), Victoria McMichael (Missouri Botanical Garden Library), Craig Brough (Library & Archives, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), Alain Chautems (Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève), Arne Jönsson (Lunds universitet), Uwe Braun (Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle), Stefan Spoddig (Universitätsbibliothek Kiel), Petra De Block and Patrick Pombout (Nationale Plantentuin van België), and Clas-Ove Strandberg (Stockholms universitetsbibliotek) for providing copies of the requested literature. Maria Backlund and Mia Ehn (S) are thanked for supplying images of the specimens. Jens G. Rohwer (HBG) and Henk van der Werff (MO) are thanked for remarks on the first version of the manuscript, and Olof Ryding (C) for personal communications regarding Daniel Rolander’s material. Henk van der Werff, two anonymous reviewers and the Nomenclature Editor of Harvard Papers in Botany are thanked for suggestions to the final version. 1 Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Laboratório de Sistemática Molecular, Avenida Transnordestina s/n, 44036-900 Feira de Santana, BA, Brazil. Email: [email protected] , pedro.moraes@ pq.cnpq.br. Author for correspondence. 2 Center for Language and Literature, Lund University, P.O. Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. Email: commercium [email protected] 3 The Bergius Foundation at the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, P. O. Box 50017, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: [email protected] Harvard Papers in Botany, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2009, pp. 187 –192. © President and Fellows of Harvard College, 200 9. 188 HARVARD PAPERS IN BOTANY Vol. 14, No. 2 name, hence overlooking the former (but see According to Bernardi, the lost specimen would Mez, 1889; Bernardi, 1967; Howard, 1981). explain why Rottbøll did not publish N. foetida . Rottbøll’s dissertation was based on specimens Regarding the identity of Nectandra foetida , and original descriptions by Rolander, from his Bernardi juxtaposed Rolander’s description with unpublished “ Diarium Surinamicum ” (Rolander, specimens collected by Ludwig Riedel of “ N. 1754–1756, unpubl. manuscript; hereafter myriantha Meissn. ex Brasilia excepta ” (= N. cis - referred to as Mss.). The English translation was siflora Nees); he emphasized the stinking odor recently published (Rolander, 2008), and the first of the plants noted in both sources . He eventu - edition of the original Latin text of that manu - ally concluded that N. surinamensis Mez (= N. script is scheduled for publication in 2009 (J. cissiflora Nees) was the species to which N. Dobreff, in prep.). foetida , as described in Rolander’s Diarium , Rolander originally described the genus based applied; although he warned that he perhaps did on Nectandra foetida Rol. (Mss.: 307 –308): not know N. surinamensis sufficiently well. In “Nomen arboris ab insertione staminum in short, N. foetida Rol. ex Rottb. is not a validly laciniis Nectarii commode derivari putabam, published name; nor is it clear what species adeoque Nectandra dicta est, et quidem haec Rolander had described as such in Diarium species Nectandra foetida, quia folia, lignum, Surinamicum . fructus et tota planta nauseoso-olidissima est, ut Rolander also described two other species, admota naribus lapidem suillum intense spiret. ” see N. sanguinea (Mss.: 389) and N. abortiens Although Rolander had already described N. Rol. (Mss.: 390). Rottbøll, using Rolander’s foetida (Mss.) , and Rottbøll later commissioned specimens and descriptions, described Nectandra a drawing, the second part of Rottbøll’s disser - and the species N. sanguinea and N. bijuga tation, Fragmentum materiæ medicæ et oeco - Rottb. (the latter based on N. abortiens ), which nomicæ Surinamensis , only cited that its fruits was combined as Ocotea bijuga (Rottb.) stink and are eaten by toucans, giving no descrip - Bernardi (1967). tion nor diagnosis (Rottbøll, 1776: 26; 1778: The lapse of 21 years from Rolander’s de- 294; 1798: 17). Bernardi (1967), however, tran - scription in Diarium (1755) until the valid pub - scribed Rolander’s description of the species and lication of the generic name (Rottbøll, 1776 ), reproduced the original drawing in his fig. 1, also rendered Nectandra Rottb. a later homonym of discussing its identity. In the Bergius Herbarium, Nectandra P. J. Bergius. However, in 1935 the Bernardi did not find the specimen that served as Special Committee for Phanerogamae and a model for the Diarium (Mss.) illustration of N. Pteridophyta appointed by the 6th International foetida . Botanical Congress recommended acceptance In the Copenhagen Museum, Bernardi located (e.g., Green and Sprague, 1940: 101; Camp et not only Rottbøll’s drawing but also another al., 1947: 63) of a proposal made by Mansfeld unpublished Rottbøll manuscript, “Rolander: (1935: 438) for the conservation of Nectandra Tegninger af surinamske Planter henhørende til Rottb. against the earlier homonym Nectandra P. Rolanders Rejse ,” with summaries and extracts J. Bergius (Bergius, 1767: 131), of which N. from Rolander’s Latin manuscript Diarium sericea (L.) P. J. Bergius represents Passerina Surinamicum (quod sub itinere exotico conscripsit sericea L.— Gnidia sericea (L.) L., Syst. Nat. Daniel Rolander ), including Rottbøll’s descrip - (ed. 12) 2: 272. 1767 (Thymelaeaceae; Rogers Nectandra tion of N. foetida . Based on Rolander’s description and Spencer, 2006). first appeared as a conserved name in the Stockholm Code and Rottbøll’s description and illustration, (Lanjouw et al., 1952). Bernardi concludes that the original specimen and description of the old Nectandra have The author of Nectandra sanguinea remained unnoticed in the two manuscripts (i.e., Rottbøll ascribed the new species Nectandra Diarium Surinamicum and Rottbøll’s unpub - sanguinea Rol. (in Rottb., Descr. Rar. Pl. Surin.: lished manuscript based on Diarium Surinam- 11–12. 1776) to Rolander, quoting and citing icum ). Still, Rottbøll, in his second unpublished him: “Nectandra sangvinea, arbor alta, patula, manuscript, added that he had not seen the flow - folia alterna, petiolata, lanceolata, glabra; ers of Rolander’s N. foetida . Bernardi then inter - florum racemi terminales sangvinei, flosculi preted that statement to mean that the specimen albidi; drupæ dispermæ succulentæ, atro-nitidæ, that was the basis of N. foetida was lost. pericarpiis carnosis sangvineis cinctæ . Mss. Rol. 2009 DE MORAES, ET AL., LECTOTYPIFICATION OF NECTANDRA SANGUINEA 189 p. 389 .” Thus, according to Article 46.2 of the Aubl. by O.