Malvaviscus arboreus var. drummondii (Torr. & A. Gray) Schery, Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 29:215. 1942

Hibiscus drummondii (Torr. & A. Gray) M.J. Young View in CoL , Familiar Lessons Bot. 186. 1873 (“ Drummondii ”), non Turcz., Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 31(1):195. 1858. Malvaviscus drummondii Torr. View in CoL & A.Gray,Fl. N. Amer. 1(2):230. 1838.

Malvaviscus arboreus var. drummondii (Torr. & A. Gray) Schery, Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 29:215. 1942 View in CoL (“ Drummondii ”).

TYPE: U.S.A. Texas.Sine loc., s.d., T.Drummond III 1 [ LECTOTYPE, designated by Turner & Mendenhall (1993:447): NY ( NY00221867 as image! )].

Although this combination appears without authorship in Young (1873), it is indirectly linked to a name previously published by Torrey and Gray (1838). Young’s description of Hibiscus drummondii View in CoL is copied almost verbatim from the protologue of Malvaviscus drummondii View in CoL . The only differences are that the former is abbreviated in length. Otherwise, every word in the former is exactly the same as in the latter with one insignificant exception, Young (or Buckley) substituted “red” for “scarlet.” Given that the descriptions are identical, the species epithet is the same, the voucher collection is the same, and Young (and Buckley) is known to have used Torrey and Gray’s A flora of North America (1838) while compiling her own flora, it seems clear that H. drummondii View in CoL is a combination and not a new species. The change in generic circumscription is not explained by Young (1873),but Gray (1852) in a footnote attached to his treatment of M.drummondii View in CoL in Plantae Wrightianae transferred M. floridanus Nutt. View in CoL to H. floridanus (Nutt.) Shuttlew. View in CoL ex A. Gray. Perhaps this was the impetus for the analogous transfer of M. drummondii View in CoL .

The protologue of Malvaviscus drummondii states simply “ Texas, Drummond !” The lectotype is a specimen in the Torrey Herbarium (NY) that does not have an original label. Torrey, however, wrote on the sheet “ Malvaviscus Drummondii, T & Gr. ” and “ Texas, Drummond, Coll. III , 1.” The sheet also includes pencil sketches of the stigmas and the anther column, the latter mentioned in the protologue. It is not clear that there are duplicates of “ Drummond, Coll. III , 1.” Several herbaria have Drummond specimens of M. arboreus var. drummondii from Texas that are labelled “ Drummond Coll.II , no.1”and these are found in:BM[BM000645403 as image!], GOET [GOET007742 as image!], K [K000659685 as image!] [“Brazoria Texas ”], and P [P02285843 as image!]. Unnumbered Drummond specimens of this taxon from Texas also can be found in several herbaria, including: GH [GH0005294 as image!] [“no. 1 Hibiscus Malvaviscus | S. Felipe de Austin: Texas | T. Drummond . Hooker misit|Januar. 1835.”], GH [GH00052945 as image!], K [K000659686 as image!], and NY [NY00221866 as image!].

The type locality cannot be identified more precisely than Texas and the exact collecting date cannot be determined. Turner and Mendenhall (1993) inferred that the type locality is “San Felipe de Tejas” in Austin Co. from information on one of the unnumbered specimens. The fact that another Drummond specimen of this taxon is labeled “Brazoria” in Brazoria Co., which is some 135 km distant from San Felipe de Austin, makes this inference untenable and further suggests that Drummond may have assembled his sets of this taxon from different localities.