Typification of names of Clusiaceae based on material collected by August Weberbauer in Peru

Abstract

August Weberbauer was a German botanist who worked for most of his life in Peru. Many species have been described based on specimens collected by him, which were mainly deposited in the Berlin herbarium (B). After the bombing of the Berlin herbarium during World War II, it was assumed that most of these types had been destroyed, duplicates rarely existed and neotypes had to be designated. However, during visits to Peruvian herbaria we rediscovered some overlooked duplicates of specimens of Clusiaceae. In the present paper, we designate lectotypes of ten names based on these Weberbauer collections and report additional duplicates found in the herbarium G. Some former incorrect typifications are corrected, and the problem of destroyed types in herbarium B, often known mainly from photos made by J. F. Macbride, is briefly discussed.

Typification of five plant names described based on specimens collected by Józef Warszewicz in Central and South America

“…Warszewicz’s collection preserved in KRA includes original specimens (duplicates) of the type material that was preserved at B herbarium but destroyed during the WWII. Fortunately, J. Francis Macbride documented on photographs most of the types preserved in B before WWII ( Hiepko 1987 ; Nascimento et al 2019 ; BGBM 2020 ), which nowadays can be used during comparative taxonomical studies. However, because we cannot be sure that Macbride photographed all duplicates of the type materials ( Nascimento et al 2019 ; BGBM 2020 ), the photographs cannot be considered as evidence that only one specimen of a particular gathering was originally present in B.…”

“…Fortunately, J. Francis Macbride documented on photographs most of the types preserved in B before WWII ( Hiepko 1987 ; Nascimento et al 2019 ; BGBM 2020 ), which nowadays can be used during comparative taxonomical studies. However, because we cannot be sure that Macbride photographed all duplicates of the type materials ( Nascimento et al 2019 ; BGBM 2020 ), the photographs cannot be considered as evidence that only one specimen of a particular gathering was originally present in B. Following the ICN ( Turland et al 2018 ) the photographs of original material have no nomenclatural standing, since they were not available to the author prior to being cited or published in the protologue, and therefore, cannot be designated as lectotypes.…”

“…9.8 in Turland et al 2018 ). A detailed discussion on the nomenclatural value of photographs of type specimens, with a number of examples of how photographs were treated by different taxonomists has been presented by Staples and Prado (2018) and Nascimento et al (2019) , with some suggestions on future ICN improvements.…”