On the identity of Blanco's Cissus frutescens and its correct name in Melicope (Rutaceae) with neotypification of Cissus arborea Blanco.

The names Cissus frutescens and Cissus arborea have a long history of confusion. Cissus frutescens Blanco belongs to the genus Melicope (Rutaceae) and we herein correct a nomenclatural mistake made by T.G. Hartley in the revision of Melicope. The name Melicope confusa (Merr.) P.S. Liu was accepted for this taxon by Hartley. However, Cissus frutescens Blanco represents the earliest name for this entity and a new combination, Melicope frutescens (Blanco) Appelhans & J.Wen is herein proposed. Neotypification of Cissus arborea Blanco is also provided.

Introduction

The name Blanco was published in 1837 in the first edition of Francisco Manuel Blanco’s Flora de Filipinas (Blanco 1837). The description in Spanish was relatively short and did not cite any collection. Blanco’s second edition of this work was published in 1845 shortly after his death and included several name changes without comments or reference to the first edition (Merrill 1905). Among these names PageBreakis , which was changed to Blanco, but the treatment of the taxon remained identical to that in the first edition (Blanco 1845).

After Blanco’s death, an addendum to the Flora de Filipinas was written by Fernandez-Villar, who considered / conspecific with (Cham.) Benth. [ =, ] (Fernandez-Villar, 1877-1883). is currently known as (Gaertn.) T.G.Hartley, and interestingly, only a single specimen of this widespread species was cited from the Philippines in the latest revision of and (Hartley, 2001), suggesting that it might be rare in the Philippines. This was highlighted by Merrill, who stated that the species was “not definitely known from the Philippines” (Merrill 1918: 198).

In 1918 Merrill also treated / as conspecific with Blume, noting that “Blanco’s descriptions were very indefinite, and the species Blanco described might with equal propriety be reduced to almost any trifoliolate species of with glabrous leaves” (Merrill 1918: 198). In 1918, Merrill mentioned a collection of that he collected in the vicinity of Blanco’s locality for this species (Merrill, Species Blancoanae No. 904, Fig. 1). Merrill considered this collection an “illustrative specimen” with duplicates deposited at A, GH, K, L, NSW, NY, P, US and W. In 1922, Merrill published the new species Merr. where Merrill 904 was listed along with many other specimens. Liu (1962) transferred to , a decision which is in agreement with recent revisionary (Hartley and Stone 1989; Hartley 2001) and molecular phylogenetic studies (Appelhans et al. 2014a, b) where a total of seven species, restricted to New Guinea, northern Australia and several Pacific island groups are recognized in . All species of from the Philippines have been transferred to (Hartley and Stone 1989; Hartley 2001).

Figure 1.

The neotype of (Blanco) Appelhans & J.Wen (A).

The latest revision of (Hartley 2001) included the lectotypification and the neotypification of the names and , respectively. Hartley (2001) reported that the type of (Ramos 15055, PNH) was lost and therefore he chose Borden 3045 (NY) among the paratypes, as its lectotype. He also designated Merrill 904 as the neotype of , which he placed as a synonym of (Hartley 2001). Merrill 904 is the “illustrative specimen” that Merrill provided for Blanco’s names and which was listed in the protologue of (Merrill 1922).

Until the neotypification of (Hartley 2001), the status of Blanco’s names was unclear. Blanco’s species descriptions were not detailed enough to differentiate among several species of /, and his collections were lost. However, by assigning a neotype to , Hartley (2001) definitely associated the specimen Merrill 904 to this taxon name. By the principle of nomenclatural priority the species epithet must be used for the entity of , as represents a synonym of . The epithet is not pre-empted in .

Three other authors used the name . Forssk. (Forsskål 1775) is a synonym of L. (; Roemer and Schultes 1818); Willd. ex Roem. & Schult. is a synonym of (Aubl.) Mez. (Mez 1901); and (L.) Des Moul. is a synonym of (L.) J.Wen & Boggan (Wen et al. 2014), so the Des Moulins’ taxon remains the only that actually represents a species.

Taxonomic treatment

(Blanco) Appelhans & J.Wen comb. nov.

urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77151881-1

Basionym.

Blanco, Flora de Filipinas, ed. 1: 70. 1837. Type: Philippines. Luzon: Rizal, Mar 1915, Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 904 (neotype: A!, designated by Hartley 2001, p. 220; isoneotypes: GH!, K, L, NSW, NY!, P!, US!, W).

Blanco, nom. illeg., Flora de Filipinas, ed. 2: 51. 1845 (non Forssk., 1775). Type: Philippines. Luzon: Rizal, Mar 1915, Merrill: Species Blancoanae No. 904 (neotype: A!, designated here; isoneotypes: GH!, K, L, NSW, NY!, P!, US!, W).

Merr., Philipp. J. Sci. 20: 391. 1922. (Merr.) P.S. Liu, III. Native Introd. Lign. Pl. Taiwan 2: 876. 1962. Type: Philippines. Luzon: Bataan, Borden (lectotype: NY!, designated by Hartley, 2001, p. 220; isolectotypes: BO, SING, US!).

In addition to its distribution in the Philippines, is known to occur in Borneo, Sulawesi and the Moluccas. It typically grows in the lowlands but reached elevations of up to 1800 m in the Philippines. The species occurs in primary, secondary, and disturbed rainforests.