Sabdariffa cannabina, Barrett, Russell L., Yoshikawa, Vania Nobuko, McLay, Todd G. B., Duarte, Marília Cristina, Mwachala, Geoffrey & Hanes, Margaret M., 2025

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

( Fig. 3 View Fig , 11 e, f View Fig .)

Hibiscus cannabinus L., Syst . Nat. ed. 10, 2: 1149 (1759). Ketmia glandulosa Moench, Suppl. Meth. 202 (1802), nom. illeg.; Furcaria cannabina (L.) Ulbr. in H.G.A.Engler & O.Drude, Veg. Erde 9 (Pflanzenw. Afrikas); 3(2): 400 (1921); Hibiscus sabdariffa subsp. cannabinus (L.) G.Panigrahi & S.K.Murti, Fl. Bilaspur Dist. 1: 127 (1989). Type: ‘ Alcea Bengalensis spinosissima’ in C.Commelijn, Hort. Med. Amstelod. Pl. Rar., 1: 35, t. 18 (1697) (neo: [BHL]), designated by D.O.Wijnands, The Botany of the Commelins 144 (1983) (as ‘lectotype’)).

Hibiscus vitifolius Mill., Gard. Dict. , 8th edn, n. 8 (1768), nom. illeg., non L. (1753). Type citation: ‘ Ketmia Indica vitis folio, magno flore. Tourn. Inft. R . H. 100.’

? Hibiscus tripartitus Forssk., Fl. Aegypt.-Arab. 126 (1775), non Kuntze (1891); Hibiscus cannabinus var. tripartitus (Forssk.) Chiov., Boll. Soc. Bot. Ital. 1923: 115 View in CoL (1923). Type: s. loc., s. dat., P. Forsskål s.n. (?holo: LD 1755565 ) .

Hibiscus congener Schumach. & Thonn. in C.F.Schumacher, Beskr. Guin. Pl. 319 (1827). Abelmoschus congener (Schumach. & Thonn.) Walp., Repert. Bot. View in CoL Syst . 1(2): 308 (1842). Type: Ghana: Volta Region, Keta Lagoon, s. dat., P. Thonning 130 (syn: C 10003981, C 10003982, C 10003983).

Hibiscus obtusatus Schumach. & Thonn. in C.F. Schumacher, Beskr. Guin. Pl. 321 (1827). Type: Ghana: southern part of the country, s. dat., P . Thonning s.n. (syn: C 10003984 , C 10003985 ) .

Hibiscus wightianus Wall., Numer. List : n.° 2695A (1831), nom. inval., nom. nud.

Hibiscus cannabinus var. genuinus Hochr., Annuaire Conserv. Jard. Bot. View in CoL Genève 4: 115 (1900), nom inval.

? Hibiscus cannabinus var. sudanicus Hochr., Annuaire Conserv. Jard. Bot. Genève 10: 20 (1906). Type: Chad: Africa Central, territoire de Chari, Ndelle, s. dat., A.J.B.Chevalier 6914 (syn: G, P, both n.v.).

Hibiscus cannabinus var. simplex A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. View in CoL India, Bot. Ser. View in CoL 4: 16, pl. 2 (left) (1911). Type: ‘ Hibiscus cannabinus View in CoL var. simplex’ in A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. View in CoL 4: 16, pl. 2 (1911) (left-hand illustration).

Hibiscus cannabinus var. purpureus A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. 4: 17, pl. 3 (right) (1911). Type: ‘ Hibiscus cannabinus var. purpureus’ in A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. View in CoL 4: 16, pl. 3 (1911) (right-hand illustration).

Hibiscus cannabinus var. ruber A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. 4: 17, pl. 3 (centre) (1911). Type: ‘ Hibiscus cannabinus var. ruber’ in A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. View in CoL 4: 16, pl. 3 (1911) (centre illustration).

Hibiscus cannabinus var. viridis A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. 4: 17, pl. 2 (right) (1911). Type: ‘ Hibiscus cannabinus var. viridis’ in A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. View in CoL 4: 16, pl. 2 (1911) (right-hand illustration).

Hibiscus cannabinus var. vulgaris A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. 4: 17, pl. 3 (left) (1911). Type: ‘ Hibiscus cannabinus var. vulgaris’ in A.Howard & G.Howard, Mem. Dept. Agric. India, Bot. Ser. View in CoL 4: 16, pl. 3 (1911) (left-hand illustration).

Hibiscus henriquesii Pires View in CoL de Lima, Brotéria, Sér. Bot . 19: 138 (1921). Type citation: ‘ Colhi exemplares floridos e fructificados, nos campos incultos dos arredores de Palma, em 14 de Agosto de 1916. [ A. Pires de Lima] No. 24.’ Type : n.v.

Descriptions and illustrations

Roxburgh (1832, p. 208); Harvey (1860, p. 176); Dalzell and Gibson (1861, p. 20); Masters (1868, p. 204); Trimen (1893, p. 154); Hochreutiner (1900, p. 114); Cooke (1901, p. 109); Prain (1903, p. 267); Baker (1911, p. 27); Ulbrich (1921, p. 400, fig. 188); Popova (1928, p. 493); Andrews (1952, p. 28, fig. 11); Hochreutiner (1955, p. 37, fig. X, 4, 5); Macbride (1956, pp. 470–471); León and Alain (1957, p. 256); von Cufodontis (1959, p. 558); Exell (1961, p. 441); Hauman (1963, pp. 108–110); Bates (1965 a; 79, fig. D); Borssum Waalkes (1966, pp. 63–64); Merxmüller (1969, p. 82:14, 17); Adams (1972, p. 476); Gibson (1975, pl. 65, fig. 3); Liogier (1981, pp. 91–93); Blundell (1987, p. 76); Paul and Nayar (1988, pp. 127–128); Fryxell (1989, pp. 222–223); Panigrahi and Murti (1989, p. 127); Edmonds (1991, p. 15, fig. 1(1), 2(15, 16)); Paul (1993, pp. 324–325); Vollesen (1995, p. 198); Sivarajan and Pradeep (1996, pp. 104–106, fig. 33); Philcox (1997, pp. 295–296); Thulin (1999 a, p. 44, fig. 25a–f); Wilson (1999, pp. 66–67); Krapovickas and Fryxell (2004, pp. 51–52); Heath and Heath (2009, p. 282, fig.); Mwachala (2009, pp. 41–42); Fayaz (2011, p. 508, fig.); Liu et al. (2013, p. 16, fig. 1–3); Amany et al. (2020, pp. 125–126); Hyde et al. (2024, fig.).

Typification

Linnaeus (1759) is not known to have examined a specimen of this widely cultivated species and rather appears to have relied entirely on early literature, hence Wijnands (1983, p. 144) designated an illustration in Commelin (1697) as the ‘lectotype’ of this name (that is to be corrected to neotype as the illustration was not explicitly cited by Linneaus). Whereas the choice is entirely consistent with the protologue and in our opinion entirely appropriate, the neotypification has left lingering doubts about the application of the name, especially as the diagnostic woolly tomentum on the calyx is not evident in this figure. Wijnands (1983, p. 144) suggests that the woolly tomentum is represented by white patches on a coloured original of the figure, however we have now examined images of S. radiata from eastern India with white stripes on the calyx that better match this representation.

We are now convinced that the plant illustrated represents our concept of Sabdariffa radiata , based on the appearance of the stem aculei, the distinct aculei on the leaf petioles, the upper leaves being deeply divided (not simple), the shape of the leaf margins and the white but not woolly calyx. The floral features are ambiguous as presented, especially the representation of the epicalyx, matching neither S radiata nor S. cannabina as we define these, and most likely represent artistic licence (or the forks on the epicalyx may have been entirely overlooked). Although there is extensive historical confusion between the two taxa, we consider the application of this name to the taxon here recognised as S. radiata to be too disruptive, therefore we are preparing a proposal to conserve the name Hibiscus cannabinus with a conserved type to maintain current usage of both names.

There is confusion in the literature regarding the application of the name Hibiscus tripartitus , as different authors either ascribe this to Sabdariffa cannabina (e.g. Wilson 2006; POWO, see https://powo.science.kew.org/) or Fioria vitifolia (L.) Mattei (e.g. El-Hadidi et al. 1999). Forsskål and Niebuhr (1775) cite no specimens and do not refer to any prior literature references, therefore the name is assumed to be based entirely on Forsskål’s own collections (see Hepper and Friis 1994, p. 197). We have only located a single specimen referable to this name, meaning that this is potentially the holotype though further duplicates may be extant. The specimen is in mature fruit, consistent with the protologue and fits the current concept of S. cannabina sens. lat., though this complex requires further review.

Howard and Howard (1911) did not list any specimens for their new varieties in Hibiscus cannabinus and as such the only unambiguous original material we can identify at this stage constitutes the plates published with the protologues. Borssum Waalkes (1966, p. 64) notes that a number of the Howard and Howard (1911) varieties were cultivated at Bogor, with specimens held at BO and L, therefore these may serve as epitypes if the illustrations are insufficient for identification. Wilson (1999, p. 65) considered the varietal names of Howard and Howard (1911) to be cultivar names. However, Howard and Howard (1911, p. 16) state that there are ‘five varieties comprising eight agricultural types’, 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/internationalcode-nomenclature-cultivated-plants-ninth-edition).

Notes

Whether Hibiscus tripartitus , described by Forsskål and Niebuhr (1775), is actually a synonym of S. cannabina is questionalble and the affinity to S. verrucosa should also be considered.

Schumacher and Thonner (in Schumacher 1827) described two additional species from Ghana, H. congener and H. obtusatus but these are considered to be potentially wild forms of this widely cultivated species.

We were unable to locate a type specimen for Hibiscus cannabinus var. sudanicus therefore this name is only tentatively placed here. Wilson (1999, p. 49) examined material at G and P, and considered the type specimens to represent a hybrid between S. cannabina and S. acetosella .

Hibiscus cannabinus var. simplex was recognised by Hauman (1963, pp. 109–110), including var. viridis as a synonym.

We were unable to locate a type specimen for Hibiscus henriquesii ( Pires de Lima 1921), therefore application of this name requires confirmation, though the description and type location are consistent with the placement here .

Distribution

Native to Africa and Arabia, in Angola, Bénin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of The Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Introduced and commonly naturalised to Afghanistan, Bangladesh, SE Brazil, Cape Verde, China, Cuba , Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India , Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kriti, Laos, Leeward Islands, Nepal, Niue, Pakistan, Perú, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam and the Windward Islands.