Sabdariffa diversifolia (Jacq.) McLay & R.L.Barrett subsp. diversifolia

Sabdariffa diversifolia (Jacq.) McLay & R.L.Barrett subsp. diversifolia

( Fig. 14 c, d View Fig .)

Descriptions and illustrations

Von Jacquin (1789, p. 207, 1795, t. 551); Sprengel (1828, p. 19); Edwards and Ridgeway (1819, t. 381); Ecklon and Zeyher (1835, p. 38); Harvey (1860, p. 171); Mueller (1861, pp. 117–118); Bentham (1863, p. 213); Masters (1868, p. 198); Bailey (1899, p. 127); Hochreutiner (1900, p. 119); Merrill (1908, p. 151); Baker (1911, p. 27); Eyles (1916, p. 415); Ulbrich (1921, p. 402, fig. 187E–G); Exell and Mendonça (1937, p. 173); Garcia (1946, p. 40); Mendonça and Torre (1950, p. 14); Andrews (1952, p. 24, fig. 10); Brenan et al. (1953, p. 225); Hochreutiner (1955, p. 39, fig. 10(6–8)); Exell (1961, p. 443); Hauman (1961, p. 86); Hauman (1963, pp. 110–112); Wilson and Menzel (1964, p. 84, fig. 6, 7, 20, 21); Bates (1965 a, p. 79, fig.); Borssum Waalkes (1966, pp. 65–66); Scarth-Johnson (1968, p. 245, fig.); Bates (1971, p. 678); Wilson (1974, p. 164); Maquet (1983, p. 383, fig. 121, 4); Marais and Friedmann (1987, p. 36, fig. 11 (5, 6)); Fryxell (1988, p. 208); Edmonds (1991, p. 17, fig. 1(6, 7); 2(20, 21)); Wilson (1993, pp. 281–282); Vollesen (1995, p. 196); Wilson and Craven (1995, p. 445); Wilson (1999, p. 63); Fryxell (2000, p. 16); Mitchell and Norris (2000, p. 329); Cooper and Cooper (2004, p. 277, fig.); Krapovickas and Fryxell (2004, pp. 65–66); Leistner (2008, p. 114); Mwachala (2009, pp. 45–46); Lejoly et al. (2010, p. 171); Coyne (2011, p. 160, pl.); Badry et al. (2015, pp. 39–45, fig. 3–6); Bredenkamp (2019, p. 1205); Amany et al. (2020, pp. 124–125); McLay (2022); Coutinho and Fernandes-Júnior (2024).

Distribution

The native range of this species deserves further attention. The origins and native range are commonly accepted as African, occurring in Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of The Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

POWO (see https://powo.science.kew.org/) considers this subspecies to be introduced in many other regions of the world but we accept this as also native to Asia, Australia, Brazil, the Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Fiji, Galápagos, Mauritius, Mexican Pacific Islands, Mexico, New Caledonia, New Guinea, New Zealand (North Island), Niue, the Philippines, Saint Helena, Tubuai Islands and Vanuatu.

Several lines of evidence support the natural occurrence of S. diversifolia subsp. diversifolia , especially in the Pacific. A primary argument is that the Hawaiian S. brackenridgei is purported to be derived from S. diversifolia ( Wilson 1993) and S. brackenridgei is placed as sister to S. diversifolia in our phylogeny (Fig. 6), albeit with very limited sampling. Sabdariffa brackenridgei is clearly in the ‘African’ clade, indicating dispersal at some point. If S. diversifolia is the ancestral origin of S. brackenridgei that has clearly diverged significantly in morphology since arriving in Hawai’i, there was likely a source population of S. diversifolia (or a progenitor) somewhere around the Pacific early enough for dispersal and divergence to occur. The French Polynesian species Sabdariffa australensis is likely to also have been derived from S. diversifolia and the affinity of S. kitaibelifolia should also be investigated.

Specific evidence for the natural occurrence of S. diversifolia in the Pacific comes from fossil pollen discovered in the Galápagos that significantly pre-dates human arrival in these islands ( van Leeuwen et al. 2008 ). Fossil Hibiscus - type pollen is also known from pre-settlement deposits in New Zealand, though this may represent S. diversifolia or Hibiscus trionum (sens. lat.) ( Newnham and Lowe 1991; de Lange et al. 2018). We conclude that this is a native species in most countries and islands listed as introduced locations by POWO (see https://powo.science.kew.org/) but some of these, especially Mexico and Brazil, may require more detailed studies to assess the status as a native or adventive species. This species is suggested to be an introduction on Norfolk Island by Polynesian settlers ( MacPhail et al. 2001) but even that remains uncertain and a global review is justified. This species is listed for Hawai’i ( USA) but is considered to be only in cultivation there.