The generic name Phyllodes was published by Loureiro (Fl. Cochinch.: 13. 1790) to accommodate a single species, P. placentaria Lour, native to Cochinchina (South Vietnam). A few years later Willdenow (Sp. PL 1: 17. 1797) published the generic name Phrynium citing Loureiro's older generic name Phyllodes as a synonym. Willdenow cited only a single species name in his new genus, Phrynium capitatum Willd, a superfluous name as the older Linnaean name Pontederia ovata is cited in synonymy. Nevertheless, Phrynium became the name in use while Phyllodes fell into oblivion. Citation of Phyllodes placentaria as a synonym of Phrynium capitatum was also followed by Schumann in his monograph of the Marantaceae (in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 48 (Heft 11): 45. 1902), although he noted that Phyllodes right ly had the higher priority. At this stage the name Phrynium had become so well established in the literature that, at the Vienna Congress of 1905, it was conserved against Phyllodes (see ICBN App IIIA E2, Greuter & al. in Regnum Veg. 138. 2000). Merrill (in Philipp. J. Sei. 15: 230. 1919) realised that the types of Phyllodes placentaria Lour, and Phrynium capitatum Willd. represent two different species and he reinstated Loureiro's taxon as a distinct species under the name Phrynium placentarium (Lour.) Men*. In addition to the original appearance in Loureiro's Flora Cochinchinense, the name Phyllodes was used by K. Schumann (in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 15: 440-446. 1893) for sev eral African species, and by O. Kuntze (Revis. Gen. PL 2: 692-697. 1891) for numerous African and American species now in Calathea G Mey. and Marantochloa Brongn. ex Gris. After the publication of these names in Phyllodes, they have not been accepted by later authors. The generic name Stachyphrynium was published by Schumann (I.e., 1902) in his monograph of the Marantaceae to accommodate a group o? Phrynium species characterised by simple spikes in contrast to the much branched inflorescences present in most Phrynium species. Schumann transferred a total of eight species formerly placed in Phrynium to his new genus and another 11 names have been added to the genus later. As currently understood Stachyphrynium comprises about ten species, distributed from Myanmar to Borneo (Andersson in Kubitzki (ed.), Farn. Gen. Vase. PI. 4: 278-293. 1998). The genus forms a well-supported monophyletic group more closely related to some African genera than to the core group of Asian Marantaceae that includes Phrynium (Andersson & Chase in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 135: 275-287. 2001; Kress, in press; Suksathan & al. unpublished results). Clausager & Borchsenius (in Kew Bull. 58: 669. 2002) lectotypified Stachyphrynium by Stachyphrynium latifolium (Blume) K Schum, based on Phrynium latifolium Blume. Schumann's original diagnosis of Stachyphrynium emphasized inflorescence branching (spike-like versus rich ly branched), bract arrangement (distichous versus spirally arranged) and number of flower-pairs per inflorescence unit (one versus several) as differential characters relative to Phrynium. None of these characters is very strong and the notion of a single flower-pair per inflorescence unit was even erroneous, based on insufficient observation as point ed out by Holttum (in Gard. Bull. Singapore 13: 254-269. 1951). All known Stachyphrynium species can have more than one flower-pair. A more recent view was presented by Andersson (I.e.) who suggested that flowers with a long corolla tube and short sepals might be a better defining character of Stachyphrynium. Following Andersson's con cept Clausager & Borchsenius (I.e.: 647-678.) transferred what was then known as Phrynium placentarium (Lour.) Merr. to Stachyphrynium, a placement that has later been confirmed by DNA sequence data (Suksathan & al, unpub lished data). In doing so they overlooked, however, that combining the species originally named Phyllodes placen taria, the type of Phyllodes Lour. (1790), with Stachyphrynium K. Schum. (1902) requires that the com bined genus be named Phyllodes. The fact that that name has been rejected relative to Phrynium is immaterial in this context. Therefore, all Stachyphrynium species should cor rectly be named Phyllodes, unless it can be agreed to reject that name in favour of Stachyphrynium. We find reinstatement of the name Phyllodes unfortu nate for several reasons. The name has never been used in
Read full abstract