(2814) Proposal to conserve the name Leea macrophylla against Aralia lappifolia (Vitaceae)

Abstract

(2814) Leea macrophylla Roxb. ex Hornem., Hort. Bot. Hafn.: 231. 1813 [Angiosp.: Vit.], nom. cons. prop. Typus: India, Serampore (C barcode C10020284). (=) Aralia lappifolia Retz., Observ. Bot. 6: 27. Jul–Nov 1791, nom. rej. prop. Lectotypus (hic designatus): “Aralia Lappaefolia n.” (LD barcode 1754684). Noltie (in Taxon 62: 1340. 2013) successfully proposed the outright rejection of the name Aquilicia samudraca Jones (in Asiat. Res. 4: 265. 1795) as it threatened Leea macrophylla Roxb. ex Hornem. (Hort. Bot. Hafn.: 231. 1813), the name of a well-known species from South and South-East Asia. This proposal similarly seeks to maintain nomenclatural stability by the rejection of another earlier synonym of Leea macrophylla Roxb. ex Hornem. Retzius (Observ. Bot. 6: 27. 1791) described Aralia lappifolia (as ‘lappaefolia’) based on specimens that he received from Johann Koenig in India. Fischer (in Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1932: 53. 1932) noted the presence of two sheets from the Lund herbarium that represented original material for Aralia lappifolia. Fischer tentatively identified the plant as Leea macrophylla. In our opinion this is the correct identification of the specimens. We here select the Lund specimen with the better-developed inflorescence as lectotype of the Retzius name. Ridsdale (in Blumea 22: 85. 1974), in the last complete revision of Leea, noted that L. macrophylla was a rather variable species vegetatively, particularly in terms of stature at maturity and leaflet number, but the floral morphology was more consistent. It has been suggested that Leea macrophylla should be split up (Molina & al. in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 171: 354. 2013). Therefore, as type material is available and it is possible that someone splitting up the “Leea macrophylla complex” in future may find it desirable to use the “lappifolia” epithet, our proposal is to conserve Leea macrophylla against Aralia lappifolia, rather than reject the latter outright, preventing in this way, Leea macrophylla being displaced by the Retzius name. Ridsdale (l.c.) referred to the type of Leea macrophylla as “in Herb. Hornem. Roxburgh s.n., Serampore (C)”. There is a sheet in Copenhagen labelled on the back “Leea macrophylla Roxb. Serampore”, which we take to be the one referred to by Ridsdale, though the handwriting is not Roxburgh's. Possibly it is a later collection, and Ridsdale's effective lectotypification may be a neotypification. However, as no other original material is available, the typification is accepted by us. Noltie (l.c.) reported the acceptance of Leea macrophylla as the correct name for the species in all the recent floras across its range. There is also a substantial body of research publications, notably in medicine, ethnobotany and plant chemistry, employing the name Leea macrophylla (nearly 500 entries from 2016 onwards in Google Scholar). We therefore propose that the well-known and much-used name Leea macrophylla be conserved against Aralia lappifolia, which has scarcely been referred to since its publication. AT-B, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9745-3222 Patrik Frödén (LD) and Olof Ryding (C) are thanked for their invaluable assistance in providing us with images of specimens.