Sabdariffa diversifolia (Jacq.) McLay & R.L.Barrett, 2025

Sabdariffa diversifolia (Jacq.) McLay & R.L.Barrett View in CoL , comb. nov.

Hibiscus diversifolius Jacq., Obs. Bot. Coll. 2: 307 (1788 [Apr. 1789]); Furcaria diversifolia (Jacq.) Ulbr. in Engler, Pflanzenw. Afrikas 3(2): 402 (1921). Type citation: ‘Speciosa planta communicata mecum suit sub titulo Hibisci ficulnei Commersoni ex India orientali’. Type: ‘ Hibiscus diversifolius’ in N.J. von Jacquin, Icon . Pl. Rar. 3: t. 551, 1792, Hb. Jacq. [BHL] (neo designated by P.A.Fryxell, Malvaceae of Mexico 288, 1988).

Hibiscus scaber Lam., Encycl. 3: 350 ([19 Oct.] 1789). Type citation: ‘croit a 1’ Isle de France, & est cultivée depuis long temps au Jardin du Roi’. Type: Îsle de France [ Mauritius], s. dat., P. Commerson s.n. (lecto, here designated: P 00287576 ; isolecto: P 00287575 ) .

Hibiscus biflorus A.Spreng., Tent. Suppl. 19 (1828). Type citation: ‘ Uitenhagen C. B. S. Zeyher. (No.241.) V . f.’ Type: South Africa: Uitenhage [Kariega], 1822–1828, C. L. P . Zeyher 241 (lecto, here designated: HAL 0118176 About HAL . Residual syn: sketch of type at BM ( BM 013832976 )) .

Hibiscus macularis Harv. in W.H.Harvey & O.W.Sonder (eds), Fl. Cap. 1: 171 (1860), nom. inval., nom. nud.

Hibiscus beckleri F.Muell., Fragm. View in CoL 2: 117–118 (1861). Type citation: ‘In silvis ad fluvium Clarence. Dr. Beckler .’ Type: Australia: New South Wales: Clarence River , H. Beckler s.n. (holo: K 000659866 (ex MEL)) .

Hibiscus decaisneanus Hochr., Annuaire Conserv. Jard. Bot. View in CoL Genève 4: 119 (1900), nom. inval., pro syn.

Hibiscus diversifolius subsp. genuinus Hochr., Annuaire Conserv. Jard. Bot. View in CoL Genève 4: 119 (1900), nom. inval.

Hibiscus paludosus Merr. View in CoL , Philipp . J. Sci . 3: 151 (1908). Type: Philippines: Mindanao, Lake Lanao, Camp Keithley, July 1907, M.S. Clemens s.n. [874] (syn: BO, G, L 0012950, PH (destroyed), US 00810614).

Typification

The sheet selected as lectotype of Hibiscus scaber includes the location details cited in the protologue ( de Lamarck and Poiret 1789, p. 307) and the best material. The second sheet is presumed to be a duplicate and here accepted as an isolectotype.

A sketch held at BM has sometimes been referred to as the type of Hibiscus biflorus , presumably because no specimen was located previously, but there is a sheet at HAL and this is here designated as lectotype. No herbarium was cited by Sprengel (1828) but a specimen is stated to have been seen .

Notes

POWO (see https://powo.science.kew.org/) lists ‘ Hibiscus spicatus Cav., Diss. 3, Tertia Diss. Bot . 163, t. 59, fig. 1 (1787). Type citation: ‘V. S. unicum exemplar apud D. de Jussieu.’ (holo: P-JU; iso: MA 475812)’ as a synonym of H. diversifolius . However, Fuertes and Fryxell (1993, p. 661) determine this specimen as probably being an Alcea species and therefore not a member of the Hibisceae .