Hydnophytum gaudichaudii & H. inerme.

[Derrick]

H. gaudichaudii (Gaudich.) Becc. (Odoardo Beccari) in Malesia raccolta 2, p124 (1884) & Type description p139, (1885) (Malesia 2)

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44197923#page/253/mode/1up

 

Basionym (as originally spelt) Mirmecodia inermis, (sic.) Gaudich. (Charles Gaudichaud-Beaupré) in Voyage autour du monde, entrepris par ordre du roi, éxécuté sur les corvettes de S. M. l'Uranie et la Physicienne, pendant les années 1817, 1818, 1819 et 1820; Vol. Botanique p472, pl.95, (1830) Note that Gaudich collected in the Moluccas Islands, Indonesia.

(Voy. Uranie), http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/98627#page/488/mode/1up.

 

Illustration in Voy Uranie labelled Mirmecodia inermis, which is definitely a Hydnophytum. http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/53603#page/219/mode/1up.

 

Types???. Collected by Beccari at Soron, Indonesia, presumably Sorong, West Papua Province, Western New Guinea Island, which seems to be an error if Gaudich did not collect there.

http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.fi008892

http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.fi008891

 

It was (and still is in most databanks) considered a synonym of H. inerme (Gaudich.) Bremek. (Cornelis Eliza Bertus Bremekamp) as published in Blumea 5, (1942) (Blumea), also using the basionym Mirmecodia inermis (1830). For example see, “The Plant List” http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-100943

And http://www.tropicos.org/Name/100204699

 

However, the Type specimen that Bremekamp used was not the Gaudich Type specimen according to C. R. Huxley in, Taxonomic history of the Hydnophytinae, published in Blumea 37, pp335 340. (1993) http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/566138

 

H. inerme (Gaudich) Bremek (Cornelis Eliza Bertus Bremekamp.) Was a new combination published in Blumea 5, p245, (1942) (Blumea) to replace H. gaudichaudii Becc. Bremekamp used the basionym Mirmecodia inermis (sic) Gaudich, (Charles Gaudichaud-Beaupré), which was published in, Voyage autour du monde, entrepris par ordre du roi, éxécuté sur les corvettes de S. M. l'Uranie et la Physicienne, pendant les années 1817, 1818, 1819 et 1820; Vol. Botanique p472, pl.95, (1830.) Note that Gaudich only collected in the Moluccas islands, Indonesia.

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/98627#page/488/mode/1up

 

Illustration in Voy Uranie labelled Mirmecodia inermis, which is definitely a Hydnophytum. http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/53603#page/219/mode/1up.

 

However, the Type that Bremekamp used was NOT the Gaudich Type specimen. The correct H. inerme type specimen refers to H. formicarum according to C. R. Huxley in Taxonomic history of the Hydnophytinae, published in Blumea 37, pp335- 340. (1993.) http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/566138

 

The type specimen actually used now refers to Myrmecodia tuberosa thus M. inermis is currently a synonym of that highly variable ‘species’. See Huxley & Jebb, The tuberous epiphytes of the Rubiaceae 5: A revision of Myrmecodia (1993) http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/565633

 

The name H. inerme has been used for a Solomon Islands collection. I quote Dr Guppy in “(T)he Solomon Islands and their natives” (1887), “Hydnophytum inerme, a specimen I obtained from Ugi Island at the east end of the group (Solomon Islands) in 1882, and identified by Mr C. Moore of Sydney.” It is evidently a misidentification, possibly of M. tuberosa “salomonensis.”

 

If one cannot beat them, join them!

[Derrick]

I doubt if anyone is interested but I have edited my original post.  Modern taxonomy uses phylogenetics and it seems possible that ochlospecies such as H. formicarum, M. tuberosa and others may be split into new species. Therefore, some of these old names may have precedence.

[Aurélien]

HI Derrick,

 

Of course phylogeny with Hydnophytinae will be valuable, and will help in the understanding of so variable plants (as Andreas prove a few days ago). So many field work remain necessary to complete our knowledge of myrmecophytes! We are only in early stages of "myrmecophytology"...

 

All the best,

 

Aurélien

[jeff]

Bonjour

 

for me the taxonomy , the phylogeny , the caryology are 3 differents sciences ,necessary for the understanding of the species, they should not be in concurence but complementary.

 

to make a good consensus phylogeny tree, it is necessary to know all species, for myrmecophytes we are far from this, it seems, except on them Lecanopteris which have one

 

jeff