Sabdariffa gossypiifolia (Mill.) M.M.Hanes & R.L.Barrett, 2025

Sabdariffa gossypiifolia (Mill.) M.M.Hanes & R.L.Barrett View in CoL , comb. nov.

( Fig. 2 View Fig , 17 c, d View Fig .)

Hibiscus sabdariffa L., Sp. Pl. 2: 695 (1753), nom. cons; Sabdariffa rubra Kostel., Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 5: 1857 (1836), nom. illeg.; Furcaria sabdariffa (L.) Ulbr. in H.G.A.Engler, Pflanzenw. Afrikas 3(2): 402 (1921). Type citation: ‘ Habitat in India .’ Type: Ketmia indica gossypii folio, acetosa, sapore. [apparently cultivated material from the garden of George Clifford III: Hartekamp Garden, Holland], Herb. Clifford (BM- Cliff 000646500), type cons. (see P.A.Fryxell, Taxon 50: 929 (2001)).

Hibiscus gossypiifolius Mill., Gard. Dict. 8th edn, n. 10 (1768). Type: Cultivated. United States of America, Florida , Palm Beach, Everglades Experimental Station, accession A60-234 [grown from seeds received from Santiago de las Vegas, Cuba ], 21 Nov. 1962, M . Menzel & F . D. Wilson HV132 (neo, here designated): FSU 000112994 View Materials ).

Hibiscus fraternus L., Pl. Surin. 12 (1775). Type: Suriname: C.G.Dalberg 71 (lecto, designated by P.A.Fryxell, Syst . Bot . Monogr. 25: 225 (1988, as ‘holotype’): LINN-875.36; isolecto: S 09-24429 [? also S 11-9389]).

Hibiscus digitatus Cav., Diss. 3: 151, t. 70, fig. 2 (1787); Sabdariffa digitata (Cav.) Kostel., Allg. Med.-Pharm. Fl. 5: 1857 (1836). Type: Brazil: habitat circa Rio Janeiro , June 1767, P. Commerson s.n. [Wills no. 48] (syn: MA 475802 , P-JU 00673711; P 02285905 ) .

Hibiscus acetosus Noronha, Verh. Batav. Genootsch. Kunst. 5(Art. 4): 17 (1790), nom. inval., nom. nud.

Hibiscus digitatus var. kerrianus DC., Prodr. 1: 453 (1824). Type citation: ‘ad Rio-Janerio. H. digitatus Ker. bot. reg. t. 608.’ [Grown at Boyton and provided by Lambert, from seed collected in Brazil near Rio de Janeiro by Bonpland ]. Type: ‘ Hibiscus digitatus’ in Bot . Reg. 8: t. 608 (1822) [BHL] (lecto, here designated).

Hibiscus cuneatus Bertol. in A.Alessandrini, Nuovi Ann. Sci . Nat. 3: 138 (1840); Hibiscus cruentus Bertol. , Nov. Comm. Acad. Sci . Inst. Bonon. 4: 428–429, t. 45 (1840), nom. illeg., nom. superfl., non H. cuneatus Kuntze (1891) ; Abelmoschus cruentus Walp., Repert. Bot. View in CoL Syst . 1(2): 310 (1842). Type citation: ‘Esquintla.’ ‘Ex seminibus ab exemplari Guatimalensi eductis oblinui plantas duas, quae tola aestale laete sub dio vixerunt in horto botanico Bononiensi; sed hyeme sequenti perierunt in hipocausto, antequam florerent.’ Type: Guatemala: Escuintla, s.dat. [1836], J. Velásquez s.n. (holo: BOLO 0508032).

Hibiscus sanguineus Griff., Not. Pl. Asiat. View in CoL 4: 520 (1854), non Franch. (1882). Type citation: ‘Mergue. In aquosis. Ins. Kully Gewen [ Myanmar: Tenasserim Province , Mergui Archipelago]: Oct. 1834.’ [ W.Griffith] Type : (n.v.).

Hibiscus palmatilobus Baill., Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Paris View in CoL 1(64): 509 (1885). Type citation: ‘ Grandidier , no. 49, Mouroundava.’ Type: Madagascar: Mouroundava [Morondava], Apr.–May 1869, A. Grandidier 49 (holo: P 00560072 ) .

Hibiscus masuianus De Wild. & T.Durand View in CoL in T.A. Durand & E. A. J . De Wildeman, Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot . Belgique 38(2): 20 (1899). Type: Democratic Republic of The Congo : Boma, 1 July 1895, A . Dewèvre 71 (syn: BR 0000008952875 ; BR 0000008953537 ) .

Hibiscus sabdariffa var. albus A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. 4: 32, 36, pl. 6 (left) (1911). Type: ‘ Hibiscus sabdariffa var. albus’ in A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. 4: pl. 6 (left -hand illustration).

Hibiscus sabdariffa var. intermedius A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. 4: 32, 33, 36, pl. 7 (right) (1911). Type: ‘ Hibiscus sabdariffa var. intermedius’ in A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. 4: pl. 7 (right-hand illustration).

Hibiscus sabdariffa var. ruber A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. 4: 32, 35, pl. 6 (right) (1911). Type: ‘ Hibiscus sabdariffa var. ruber’ in A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. 4: pl. 6 (right-hand illustration).

Hibiscus sabdariffa var. bhaghalpuriensis A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. 4: 33, 36, pl. 7 (left) (1911). Type: ‘ Hibiscus sabdariffa var. bhaghalpuriensis’ in A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. 4: pl. 7 (left-hand illustration).

Hibiscus sabdariffa cultivar ‘Altissima’ Wester, Philipp . Agric. Rev . 7: 268, fig. 4 (1914).

Descriptions and illustrations

Linnaeus (1737, 1753, p. 695, 1759, p. 1149, in Alm and Linnaeus 1775, p. 12); Edwards (1822, t. 608); Bertoloni (1840, pp. 428–428, fig. 45); Griffith (1854, p. 520); Masters (1874, p. 340); Baillon (1885, p. 509); Durand and de Wildeman (1899, p. 20); Hochreutiner (1900, p. 116); Cooke (1901, p. 110); Williams and Cheeseman (1929, p. 88); Uittien (1932, p. 20); Standley and Steyermark (1949, pp. 351–352); Andrews (1952, p. 28, fig. 12); Hochreutiner (1955, p. 39, fig. 11(3)); Kearney (1955, p. 275); Macbride (1956, pp. 474–475); Ochse and Bakhuizen van den Brink (1977, p. 476, fig. 296); Hauman (1963, pp. 114–115); Bates (1965 a, p. 79, fig. 23e); Borssum Waalkes (1966, pp. 64–65); Adams (1972, p. 476); Abedin (1979, p. 10, fig. 2, B, C); Liogier (1981, pp. 94–95); Marais and Friedmann (1987, p. 36, pl. 10 (8, 9)); Fryxell (1988, pp. 225–226); Paul and Nayar (1988, pp. 148–149); Edmonds (1991, p. 21, fig. 1(9, 10); 2(23, 24)); Fryxell (1992 b, pp. 117–118); Wheeler (1992, p. 220, fig. 60d); Kenneally et al. (1996, p. 123, pl.); Sivarajan and Pradeep (1996, pp. 114–119, fig. 41); Philcox (1997, pp. 296–297); Wilson (1999, pp. 65–66); Boulos (2000, p. 108); Fryxell (2000, p. 13); Krapovickas and Fryxell (2004, pp. 52–53); van Wyk and Wink (2004, p. 170, fig.); Hussey et al. (2007, p. 184, pl.); Leistner (2008, p. 115); Mwachala (2009, p. 32); Fayaz (2011, p. 510, fig.); van der Burg (2013, pp. 66–67); Cowie et al. (2013, pp. 16–17, fig. 5, pl. 9); Baldini et al. (2019, pp. 212–213, fig. 13); Amany et al. (2020, p. 126); McLay (2022); Coutinho and Fernandes-Júnior (2024, fig.).

Typification

No specimens are cited in the protologue for Hibiscus gossypiifolius Mill. Jacek Wajer (BM; pers. comm.) has confirmed that there is no known extant specimen that can be associated with Miller’s description, neither in the main collection of BM nor the Sloane collection, Linnean Society collection or Clifford Herbarium. No illustration can be directly linked to this name and, although Miller cites a polynomial from Tournefort, there is no illustration associated with that polynomial. Although Miller may have observed the species in cultivation in the Apothecaries’ Garden at Chelsea and not preserved a specimen, the source of his description was likely earlier works (e.g. Hughes’s The Natural History of Barbados; Sloane’s Voyage to Jamaica and Natural History of Jamaica and in Browne’s The Civil and Natural History of Jamaica), explaining his presumption that this was a New World species, distinct from ‘true’ roselle from the Old World (Jacek Wajer, pers. comm.). Wester (1911, p. 96) points to Sloane (1707) as the first to record use of the fruit for food in Jamaica and this would seem to be a fairly direct link to Miller’s concept of his species ( Miller 1768).

Abedin (1979, p. 10) used the name Hibiscus gossypiifolius for the taxon traditionally called H. sabdariffa (which Abedin applied to H. cannabinus ) and cited ‘ Holotype: (BM)’ but as this cannot actually be linked to any specimen (as noted above), the statement does not qualify as an inadvertent neotypification.

As no original material can be traced, a neotype must be selected for Miller’s name. We here select a modern collection with a known cytotype to fix the application of Miller’s name to the cultivated form of roselle with large, fleshy, red calyces consistent with the typification of Hibiscus sabdariffa L. by Fryxell (2001 b). We choose a cultivated specimen originating from Cuba over any material from Jamaica as the selected neotype has a known chromosome number of 2 n = 72. Given the long utilisation of this species and known variation in chromosome number, future workers may wish to formally recognise different cytotypes as distinct taxonomic entities and in such a case, an epitype will subsequently not be required to fix the application of this name.

We here select the cited illustration as lectotype of the name Hibiscus digitatus var. kerrianus DC. as we have not been able to trace any other original material, though a Bonpland collection may possibly be extant somewhere.

Howard and Howard (1911) did not list any specimens for the new varieties under Hibiscus sabdariffa and as such the only unambiguous original material we can identify is here considered to be the plates published with the protologues that are simply recognised as ‘type’ here, in case actual specimens can be located that might more appropriately serve as lectotypes. Wilson (1999, p. 65) considered the varietal names of Howard and Howard (1911) to be cultivar names. Howard and Howard (1911, p. 32) state that ‘Four different forms in all have been isolated by us and these have bred true. As the differences are very distinct and of a morphological nature rather than agricultural, we have formed the following four varieties:’, demonstrating that the varieties were considered to be more than agricultural selections and the names are here considered to fall under the International code of nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants ( Turland et al. 2018), rather than the International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants (see https://www. ishs.org/scripta-horticulturae/international-code-nomenclaturecultivated-plants-ninth-edition).

Notes

Bertoloni is commonly considered to have first published 60 new names in his Florula guatimalensis ( Bertoloni 1840) , a reprint from work published earlier in 1840 in Novi Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Instituto Bononiensis, including the illegitimate Hibiscus cruentus Bertol. However, Baldini et al. (2019) present a comprehensive review of these names and the associated types, correcting the place of first publication to Bertoloni in Alessandrini (1840) and identifying authentic type material.

Wilson (1999, p. 65) considered the varietal name ‘Altissima’ of Wester (1914) to be a cultivar name and we agree with this conclusion. We list the name here as this is sometimes treated as a variety under the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018) in the literature (e.g. Rakshit and Kundu 1970).

Distribution

As this species has a long history of cultivation, the precise native range is difficult to define. Sabdariffa gossypiifolia is generally considered native to the Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of The Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Nigeria and Sudan.

Introduced and commonly naturalised in the Andaman Islands, Angola, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Bénin, SE Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Caroline Islands, Cayman Islands, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba , Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, The Gambia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Gulf of Guinea Islands, Haiti, India , Iraq, Jamaica, Laos, Leeward Islands, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Marianas, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Perú, Puerto Rico, Réunion, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Windward Islands, Zambia and Zimbabwe.