Habenaria foliosa auct

Habenaria foliosa auct . Wight in Icon. Pl. Ind. Orient 5: 12, t. 1700. 1851, p.p. FigS. 6 View Fig & 3g View Fig

Habernaria laciniata Dalzell (1850) which was overlooked and misinterpreted for long years, is resurrected here as the oldest available name for H. gibsonii Hook.f. ( Hooker, 1890) View in CoL . Dalzell and Gibson (1861) erroneously synonymised Habenaria laciniata View in CoL under H. foliosa A.Rich. ( Richard, 1841) View in CoL following Wight (1852, t. 1700), providing the description of the former species. It is evident that, Dalzell was not aware of the protologue of H. foliosa View in CoL . As H. foliosa View in CoL of Wight (1852, t. 1700) is contrary to H. foliosa A.Rich. View in CoL in having filiform lip-lobes, greenish petal margins, and agrees more with H. gibsonii View in CoL . Hooker (1890) followed the circumscription of H. laciniata View in CoL appearing in Dalzell and Gibson (1861), and relegated H. foliosa View in CoL as a variety of H. digitata Lindl. ( Lindley, 1835) View in CoL . He also stated that he had never seen the Salsette (part of Bombay) plant of Dalzell with spirally twisted posterior petal lobes and a broader mid-lobe. After careful study of the protologues of H. laciniata View in CoL and H. foliosa View in CoL , we found both to be taxonomically distinct. Habenaria laciniata View in CoL has lanceolate acute leaves, shorter bracts, larger flowers, green petal lobes, filiform lip-lobes, a longer, broader mediallip, and a clavate spur ( Fig. 3g View Fig ), whereas H. foliosa View in CoL has elliptic acute leaves, longer bracts, smaller flowers, pale white to white petal lobes, narrow, linear, sub-equal lip-lobes, and an inflated spur ( Fig. 3e View Fig ).

Habenaria digitata Lindl. var. foliosa Hooker (1890) View in CoL was placed under Habenaria gibsonii View in CoL as a variety by Santapau and Kapadia (1966), which was an error, as Habenaria foliosa View in CoL has priority over H. gibsonii View in CoL . Habenaria gibsonii var. foliosa View in CoL is circumscribed by deeply divided petal lobes and sub-equal recurved linear-subulate lip-lobes. Santapau and Kapadia (1966) have not commented upon H. laciniata View in CoL , however, the species has been overlooked for a century, and erroneously placed either partly in H. foliosa View in CoL ( Dalzell & Gibson, 1861; Hooker, 1890), or H. digitata ( POWO, 2023) View in CoL . It is evident here observing the protologues, original material, herbarium specimens (Appendix 1), and live collections of H. digitata View in CoL ( Fig. 3d View Fig ), H. foliosa View in CoL ( Fig. 3e View Fig ) and H. laciniata View in CoL ( Fig. 3g View Fig ), these species share similarities in their floral characteristics like concave spreading dorsal sepals and bipartite petals. But H. foliosa View in CoL differs from H. digitata View in CoL and H. laciniata View in CoL by its white to pale white sepals and petals, sub-equal linear-subulate lip-lobes, and inflated spur. H. digitata View in CoL differentiated from H. laciniata View in CoL by its trinerved leaves, pale green to yellowish green small flowers, comparatively shorter falcate included anterior petal lobes, linear-acute lip lobes with distinct mesochile, reflexed (right angle) lateral lobes, and a shorter faintly clavate spur ( Fig. 3d View Fig ).

Habenaria gibsonii View in CoL is conspecific to H. laciniata View in CoL , hence relegated to synonymy. The former species was described based on greenish-white flowers, ovate obtuse dorsal sepals, oblong lateral sepals, filiform lip-lobes, a broader mid-lobe, and a clavate spur. These characters unequivocally agree with the description of H. laciniata View in CoL , except for the shorter bract, and spirally twisted posterior lobes. The bract length often varies from equal to longer than the ovary, whereas spirally twisted posterior lobes of petals seem to be an error. Habenaria laciniata View in CoL was often misinterpreted with its conspecific taxa, perhaps due to the absence of the original material. Nevertheless, a collection housed at BM of N.A. Dalzell’s drawings with the anonymous pencil annotation Habenaria View in CoL in the bottom left corner and N.A. Dalzell in the bottom right corner, depicts the character of H. laciniata View in CoL , is chosen here as a neotype.

13. Habenaria modesta Dalzell View in CoL , Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 2: 262. 1850. Neotype (designated here): Drawings from Dalzell’s collection (BM!).

Habenaria ovalifolia Wight, Icon. Pl. Ind. Orient. 5: 13, t. 1708. 1851, syn. nov. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA , Tamil Nadu, Annamalai (as Annamalay), July 1848, R. Wight s.n. (K [K000247463!]). Residual syntypes: INDIA , Kerala, Malabar, June 1836, R. Wight 3016 (K [K000247461!]); (GH [GH00099981 digital image!]); Ibid., 1836, R. Wight 1037? (K [K000247464]). FigS. 7 View Fig & 3h View Fig

Habenaria modesta ( Dalzell, 1850) View in CoL is resurrected here which is the oldest available name for H. ovalifolia ( Wight, 1851) View in CoL . The former name was overlooked and erroneously considered as part of H. stenopetala Lindl. ( Cooke, 1908) View in CoL , also confused with H. stenostachya Lindl. ex Benth. View in CoL and presumed doubtful ( Hooker, 1890; Blatter & McCann, 1932). The POWO (2023) shows that H. modesta View in CoL is conspecific with H. furcifera ( Lindley, 1835) View in CoL . Nevertheless, Santapau and Kapadia (1966) rightly identified H. modesta View in CoL as being conspecific to H. ovalifolia View in CoL and recognised its nomenclatural priority. In the absence of the original material of H. modesta View in CoL and its past taxonomic flux, perhaps they hesitated to make the nomenclatural decision.

After comparing the protologues of H. ovalifolia Wight View in CoL and H. modesta Dalzell View in CoL and following the observations of Sanatapau and Kapadia (1966) with H. modesta View in CoL , we found that both are morphologically similar. Both species have aggregated leaves near the base, bracts shorter than the ovary, dorsal sepals and petals together forming a galea and a filiform spur. Wight’s (1851: t. 1708) illustration of H. ovalifolia View in CoL shows an ascending lip mid-lobe, which is contradictory, as the original material housed at K (K000247461, 63, 64) and GH (GH00099981) shows an incurved mid-lobe, coherent with galea, which is clearly seen in H. modesta ( Dalzell, 1850) View in CoL .

The illustration of H. ovalifolia ( Wight 1851: t. 1708), portrayed equal sepals and petals, which appears to be an error by the artist. The bracts in H. modesta vary, either shorter or equal to the ovary, which was depicted contrastingly in the protologues of H. modesta (bracts half of the ovary) and H. ovalifolia (shorter than the ovary). In the drawing maintained at BM referring to Dalzell’s collection, the enlarged flower shows the bract is equal to the ovary, which is also shown in the original material of H. ovalifolia . The drawing housed at BM is from Dalzell’s collection and agrees with the description of H. modesta which is designated here as the neotype.

Hooker (1890) considered H. modesta similar to H. stenostachya (Lindl. ex Benth.) Benth. (= Platanthera stenostachya Lindl. ex Benth. ) but placed it as an ‘imperfectly known species’. Habenaria modesta shares similarities with H. stenostachya in its trilobed lip and short broad obtuse mid-lobe. However, it differs by its aggregated leaves near the base, shorter or equal bracts, and a longer spur.

Cooke (1908) erroneously reduced H. modesta to the synonymy of H. stenopetala Lindl. ( Fig. 3i View Fig ), however, the former can be differentiated from the latter by its entire petals, together with dorsal sepal form galea (bipartite, free from galea), green to greenish white lip (greenish to brown, or ochreous), mid-lobe of the lip shorter than lateral lobes, and incurved (longer than lateral lobes).

Habenaria ovalifolia Wight has been reduced to the synonymy of H. furcifera Lindl. ( Fig. 3f View Fig ) ( POWO 2023) which is corrected here and considered conspecific to H. modesta . Habenaria furcifera has longer filiform lateral lip lobes, broader mid-lobe free from galea, and hamate spur as opposed to sub-equal lip lobes, whereas H. modesta has linearlanceolate acute lateral lobes, an ovate-oblong mid-lobe coherent with galea and a filiform faintly bulged clavate spur, hence the latter is treated here as distinct.

14. Habenaria suaveolens Dalzell View in CoL , Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 2: 263. 1850. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA , Bombay, s.d., Dalzell s.n. (K [K0002474341!]); Residual syntypes: K [K000247435!]); DD (Acc. no. 172597!).

Habenaria variabilis Blatt. & McCann, J. View in CoL Bombay Nat. Hist. 36: 19–20. 1932. nom. illeg., non Ridley, 1886.

Habenaria panchganiensis Santapau & Kapadia, J. View in CoL Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 54: 478. 1957. Syntypes: INDIA View in CoL , Maharashtra, Panchgani and Mahabaleshwar, Frenchman 21; Hallberg 26494; Blatter 55, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204; Sedgwick 7908; Mozelle Issacs & Blatter 205, 206; McCann s.n., all perhaps at BLAT, n.v.)

A terrestrial orchid, endemic to peninsular India View in CoL , can be identified by its bipartite, filiform petals, mid-lobe narrower than lateral lobes of lip and longer spur than ovary. Habenaria suaveolens View in CoL was resurrected by Jalal and Jayanthi (2013), which had previously been known as H. panchganiensis Santapau & Kapadia. View in CoL

We could locate four sheets associated with H. suaveolens housed at K and DD. The sheet K000247434 has six specimens with a label by Dalzell in pencil as ‘ Habenaria suaveolens mihi’ and Hooker’s annotation as ‘ Bombay Dalzell’ which agrees with the protologue is designated here as the lectotype. The sheet K000247435, presented by Mrs Dalzell in 1878, has a pencil label by Dalzell. Similarly, there are other sheets (not yet digitized) at K with Hooker’s annotations as ‘ Habenaria suaveolens Dalzell , Bombay Dalzell’ but without Dalzell’s annotation. The sheet from DD (172597) is perhaps a duplicate of K000247435 and has Dalzell’s annotation ‘3 Habenaria suaveolens’.

15. Habenaria uniflora Dalzell View in CoL , Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 3: 344. 1851. nom. illeg. non Don (1825). Type: INDIA , jugo Syhadrensi. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA , Bombay, s.d., Dalzell s.n. (K [K000247424!], perhaps holotype).