Rungia muralis Nees

Rungia muralis Nees View in CoL

Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis 11: 470 ( Nees 1847).

— Type: India • “ Coromandel ”; s.d.; Macé s.n.; lectotype: P [ P02898041 ]! here designated ( Fig. 2 View FIG ) • same data; isolectotype: P [ P02898039 ]! digital image • same location; “ Coromandel ”; s.d.; Macé “n. 114”; residual syntypes: GZU [ GZU000250321 About GZU , pro parte]!); “In muris Bernhampore ad Gangetem fluvium”, GZU [ GZU000250323 About GZU !] .

NOTES

C.G.D. Nees von Esenbeck (1847) described Rungia muralis Nees in de Candolle’s “ Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis ”, Volume 11 based on multiple gatherings and cited the specimen details as: “ a In muris Bernhampore ad Gangetem fluvium, in Courtallum (Wight!), Coromandel (Macé! In h. Mus. Paris. et Nees, n. 114)”. Thus, it is apparent that, while describing the species, Nees referred to multiple collections – plants growing on the walls of Berhampur, near the river Ganges and collection from Courtallum by Wight along with collections from Coromandel by Macé deposited in P and the specimen deposited in Nees’s own herbarium (GZU) labelled n.114. This referring of multiple collections, requires lectotypification of the name Rungia muralis . In our search we found four herbarium sheets, two at herbarium of Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz (GZU) and two sheets at herbarium of Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (P). The two specimens at P (P02898039 and P02898041), were collected from Coromandel, by Macé; while one of the two herbarium sheets present at GZU (GZU000250323) contains a single individual with a label mentioning Rungia muralis on the walls at Bernhampore, Ganges, collected by Wight. The other sheet at GZU (GZU000250321) contains two individuals with two different labels; of which, one label as “HERB. MUS. PARIS” printed on it showing the details as “ Rungia muralis ” collected from Coromandel by Macé, and possesses the number 114.The other label reads as “ R. muralis ex.h. Roxb.”, which indicates that the specimen was received from Roxburgh’s collection.Scrutiny of literature confirmed the annotation “ R. muralis ex. h. Roxb.” and “ Rungia muralis ” onGZU000250321 does not match with Roxburgh’s handwriting ( Steinberg 1977); but confirmed to be of Nees ( Burdet 1977). This implies that Nees had studied the specimens and pasted an annotation crediting Roxburgh for the sample. This creates an ambiguity regarding the source of the individuals on GZU000250321, i.e. which one is Macé’s collection from “Coromandel” with “n. 114” and which one was received from Roxburgh’s collection. Therefore, selection of any individual from GZU000250321for lectotypification of the name Rungia muralis Nees may not be correct, as it does not confirm which specimen was cited by Nees in protologue. The specimen collected from Coromandel by Macé deposited in P (P02898041) for being one of the best-preserved original materials, representing better morphological characters and not being in any conflict with the protologue, is selected here as the lectotype of the name Rungia muralis Nees , in accordance with Art. 9.3, 9.11 and 9.12 of ICN ( Turland et al. 2018).