Aspidosperma quirandy Hassl., 1913

Castello, Ana Carolina Devides, Pereira, Andreza Stephanie De Souza, Shimizu, Gustavo Hiroaki, Zuntini, Alexandre Rizzo, Simões, André Olmos & Koch, Ingrid, 2022, Taxonomy and nomenclature of Aspidosperma (Apocynaceae), Phytotaxa 571 (3), pp. 239-277 : 264

publication ID	https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.571.3.1
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7295871
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A787AC-2F68-FFD4-82D1-E5C5C05595E5
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Aspidosperma quirandy Hassl.
status

Treatment

Aspidosperma quirandy Hassl. View in CoL in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 12(325/330): 259. 1913.

≡ Aspidosperma quirandy View in CoL var. quirandy.

Neotype (designated here): — PARAGUAY. Concepción: Estancia San Luis , 18 Apr 1980, L. Bernardi 20657 ( MBM [No. 99565 image!]; isoneotypes: MO [barcode MO-1057862], US [barcode 03229982 image!]) .

= Aspidosperma quirandy var. angustifolium Hassl. View in CoL in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 12(325/330): 260. 1913. Holotype:— PARAGUAY. Zwischen Río Apa und Río Aquidaban, 1908–1909, K. Fiebrig 4292 [Herb. Hassler] (G [barcode G00108788 image!]; isotypes: BM [barcode BM000817584 ], G [barcode G00108787 image!], GH [barcode 00057218 image!], K [barcode K000587666 image!], L [barcode L0004433 image!]).

= Aspidosperma quirandy var. campestre Hassl. View in CoL in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 12(325/330): 260. 1913. Lectotype (first-step lectotype designated by Woodson in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 38(2): 151. 1951; second-step lectotype designated by Elsam et al. in Bonplandia 30(1): 28. 2021):— PARAGUAY. [ Concepción]: Pr. Concepción, Aug 1901 /1902, E. Hassler 7199a (G (mounted on two herbarium sheets) [barcode G00108791 image!]; isolectotypes: G [barcode G00108789 image!] (mounted on two herbarium sheets), barcode G00108790 image! (mounted on two herbarium sheets), barcode G00108792 image!], K [barcode K000587664 image!, barcode K000587665 image!], MPU [barcode MPU022745 About MPU image!], NY [barcode 00297988 image!], P [barcode P00634401 image!, barcode P00634402 image!], S [No. S12-16253 image!]).

= Aspidosperma quirandy var. silvaticum Hassl. View in CoL in Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 12(325/330): 260. 1913. Lectotype (first-step lectotype designated by Woodson in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 38(2): 151. 1951; second-step lectotype designated by Elsam et al. in Bonplandia 30(1): 28. 2021):— PARAGUAY. [ Amambay]: Sierra de Amambay, prope Esperanza , Sep 1907 /1908, T. Rojas s.n. [E. Hassler [10601]] (G (mounted on two herbarium sheets) [barcode G00108799 image!]; isolectotypes: A [barcode 00057219 image!], C [barcode C10005750 image!], G [barcode G00108800 image!, barcode G00108801 image!], K [barcode K000587667 image!], LIL [barcode LIL001110 About LIL image!], MO [barcode MO-2246609 image!], NO [barcode NO0109663 image!], NY [barcode 00297990 image!], S [No. S12-16252 image!], US [barcode 00111814 image!]).

“ Aspidosperma malmei ” Hassl. , mss. in sched.

“ Aspidosperma silvatium ” (Hassl.) Meyer , mss. in sched.

“ Aspidosperma paraguariense ” Meyer , mss. in sched.

Notes — Elsam et al. (2021) proposed a lectotype for A. quirandy (G barcode G00108793). However, in the protologue of A. quirandy, Hassler (1913) only indicated specimens for its varieties (ICN article 26.3, Ex. 6; Turland et al. 2018). According to the ICN article 9.13 ( Turland et al. 2018): “If no original material is extant or as long as it is missing, a neotype may be selected.”. Thus, since we understand that this name has no nomenclatural type attached to it, we elected a specimen with follicles as the neotype of A. quirandy (MBM No. 99565) (ICN article 9.13; Turland et al. 2018). Also, the specimen cited by Woodson (1951) as the type of A. quirandy (“Hassler 2329”) is actually a paratype of A. occidentale Malme.

Woodson (1951) considered A. quirandy as a synonym of A. australe Müll.Arg. , but Elsam et al. (2021) reestablished the former. We agree with the reestablishment of A. quirandy because it presents subsessile or sessile leaves ( vs. petiolate) with eucamptodromous venation ( vs. brochidodromous), flowers with corolla lobes equal to or longer than the tube (2×) ( vs. 2.5–4× smaller), and inflated follicles ( vs. flattened).