Typification of names of Clusiaceae based on material
collected by August Weberbauer in Peru
Authors: Do Nascimento, José E., Bittrich, Volker, and Do Amaral,
Maria Do Carmo E.
Source: Willdenowia, 49(2) : 193-196
Published By: Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin (BGBM)
URL: https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.49.49208
BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles
in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations,
museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your
acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use.
Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non - commercial use.
Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as
copyright holder.
BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit
publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to
critical research.
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Willdenowia on 01 Jun 2020
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Willdenowia
Annals of the Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin
JOSÉ E. DO NASCIMENTO JR1*, VOLKER BITTRICH2 & MARIA DO CARMO E. DO AMARAL3
Typification of names of Clusiaceae based on material collected by August Weberbauer in Peru
Version of record first published online on 27 June 2019 ahead of inclusion in August 2019 issue.
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.
Key words: August Weberbauer, Berlin herbarium, Chrysochlamys, Clusia, Clusiaceae, nomenclature, Peru flora,
Tovomita, typification
Article history: Received 29 November 2018; peer-review completed 6 April 2019; received in revised form 10
April 2019; accepted for publication 11 April 2019.
Citation: Nascimento Jr J. E., Bittrich V. & Amaral M. C. E. 2019: Typification of names of Clusiaceae based on material collected by August Weberbauer in Peru. – Willdenowia 49: 193 – 196. doi: https://doi.org/10.3372/wi.49.49208
Introduction
August Weberbauer was a German botanist, naturalist
and university professor. He was born in Breslau on 26
November 1871 and died on 16 January 1948 in Lima
(Peru). A few years after obtaining his doctorate degree at
the University of Berlin, Germany (under the supervision
of A. Engler [Stafleu & Cowan 1988]), Weberbauer made
his first journey to Peru, where he stayed for four years
and made more than 5000 plant collections (Garcia 1949).
In 1908, he travelled again from Germany to Peru and was
named Director of the Parque Zoológico y Botánico de
Lima. In 1911 Weberbauer published a study about the
Peruvian flora (Weberbauer 1911) and began to work
on the first edition of his phytogeographical map, which
was published 12 years later (Weberbauer 1923). In the
following years, he worked at the Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos and at the Estación Experimental
Agrícola de la Molina, and continued to do field work in
Peru until 1947 (Garcia 1949).
During the last years of his life, in spite of his advanced
age and his poor state of health, Weberbauer was working
at the University of San Marcos to finish the second edition
of his phytogeographical map (Garcia 1949). His importance for the development of Peruvian botany was recognized by the bestowal of the “Orden El Sol del Perú”, the
designation of several species names in his honour, as well
as herbarium collections and even elementary schools.
1 Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Vegetal, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Rua Monteiro Lobato 255, 13083862, Campinas, SP, Brazil. Current address: Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro, Av. Rio Paranaíba, 1295, 38280-000,
Iturama, MG, Brazil; *e-mail: jenascimentojr@gmail.com (author for correspondence).
2 Rua Dr. Mario de Nucci 500, 13083-290, Campinas, SP, Brazil; e-mail: folcar2007@gmail.com
3 Departamento de Biologia Vegetal, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Rua Monteiro Lobato 255, 13083-862, Campinas, SP,
Brazil; e-mail: volker@unicamp.br
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Willdenowia on 01 Jun 2020
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
194
Nascimento & al.: August Weberbauer and names of Clusiaceae from Peru
During a period of approximately 35 years
(1901 – 1905, 1908 – 1939), Weberbauer collected more
than 8000 specimens in Peru, most of which were deposited in the Berlin herbarium (B) (Stafleu & Cowan
1988; León 2002; Luteyn & al. 2008; herbarium codes
according to Thiers 2018+). A large part of the collection of the Berlin herbarium was destroyed during World
War II in the night of 1 – 2 March 1943, including most
of the collections of Weberbauer and the entire collection
of Clusiaceae (Hiepko 1987; BGBM data portal 2018).
After World War II, botanists often considered nearly all
type material of Clusiaceae collected by Weberbauer as
destroyed (Pipoly 1997), and sometimes photographs deposited in the herbarium of the Field Museum of Natural
History in Chicago (F) were considered as type material
(see below), although these photographs are not part of
the original material because they did not exist when
the names were published (see also Luteyn & al. 2008
for such incorrect typifications in Ericaceae). Destroyed
type material of the Berlin Herbarium was later frequently considered as holotypes (e.g. Luteyn & al. 2008; Burke
& Michelangeli 2013), although evidence that the respective taxon description was based on a single element is
usually lacking. As McNeill (2014) recently made clear:
“If, prior to 1958, no specimen is indicated in the protologue, there will be a holotype only if it can be shown that
a single specimen (or illustration) was the only element
upon which the validating description or diagnosis was
based […] If, prior to 1990, a single gathering (but not a
single specimen) is indicated as the type of the name of a
new taxon, there will be a holotype only if the gathering
is represented by a single specimen (see above).”
Fortunately, most type material in the Berlin herbarium was photographed by J. F. Macbride before
WW II. However, he did not photograph all duplicates,
as we know from type material of monocotyledons that
survived WW II: for example, duplicates of gatherings
of Paepalanthus sellowianus Körn. and P. weberbaueri
Ruhland (Eriocaulaceae) were not photographed by
Macbride (N. Hensold, pers. comm.). Macbride’s photographs of destroyed Berlin types cannot therefore be considered as evidence that only one specimen of a particular
gathering was originally present in that herbarium.
In recent years, a few taxonomists have designated lectotypes of names of taxa based on specimens collected by
Weberbauer (León & al. 2006; Luteyn & al. 2008; Burke
& Michelangeli 2013; Lagomarsino & Santamaría-Aguilar 2015). These authors had encountered duplicates of
specimens destroyed in Berlin in Peruvian herbaria. Evidently, botanists should visit Peruvian herbaria routinely
before making decisions about typification of names that
were published based on collections of Weberbauer.
To avoid the incorrect proposals of neotypes, and also
to properly typify some names in Clusiaceae with partly
incorrect typifications, we here designate lectotypes that
are duplicates of collections of Weberbauer deposited
mainly in Peruvian herbaria.
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Willdenowia on 01 Jun 2020
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
Material and methods
For this study we consulted the collections of the herbaria MOL and USM in Peru; F in the U.S.A.; and G
in Switzerland. In addition to visiting these herbaria, we
consulted the online databases of JSTOR Global Plants
(https://plants.jstor.org), the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (https://collections.nmnh.si.edu
/search/botany), the Botanischer Garten und Botanisches
Museum Berlin (http://search.biocase.org/bgbm/index)
and the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (https://
science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/search) in search of
images and duplicates of the material cited by Engler
(1923, 1925). We provide links to access the images of
specimens cited throughout the paper, when such images
are available online.
When duplicates were found, we designate as the lectotype the one in the best state of conservation and with
the greatest number of diagnostic characters. Therefore,
we prioritized specimens with staminate flowers, because
in general these provide more useful characters in Clusieae than female flowers. If duplicates were considered
equally well conserved and informative, we preferred to
designate as lectotypes specimens deposited in Peruvian
herbaria.
Results and Discussion
Lectotypification of names of taxa described by Engler
(1923, 1925)
There is no evidence that Engler used any of the duplicates of Weberbauer housed in Peruvian herbaria,
because no annotations from his hand can be found on
these specimens. Engler (1923) did not explicitly state
that he used only the material from the Berlin herbarium
for his descriptions, but at that time it was not a practice
to send duplicates from European herbaria to those in
South America. However, because it is not possible to
establish without doubt that Engler used only specimens
deposited in B, or that he used only a single specimen,
we consider that there are no holotypes for names published by Engler (1923, 1925), but rather syntypes, in
accordance with Art. 9.6 and Art. 40 Note 1 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and
plants (Turland & al. 2018).
Chrysochlamys weberbaueri Engl. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst.
58(Beibl. 130): 8. 1923. – Lectotype (designated here):
Peru, Dep. San Martin, cerros ao norte de Moyobamba, 1000 m, 27 Aug 1904, Weberbauer 4658 (MOL
0001050!; isolectotype: G 00355178! [https://plants.jstor
.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.g00355178]). – Syntype: Weberbauer 4658 (B [destroyed, photograph at F!
negative no. 9224 https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555
/al.ap.specimen.f0bn009224]).
Willdenowia 49 – 2019
Clusia carinata Engl. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 58(Beibl.
130): 3. 1923. – Lectotype (designated here): Peru,
Dep. San Martin, Prov. Moyobamba, cerros ao norte de
Moyobamba, 1000 – 1100 m, 27 Aug 1904, Weberbauer
4629 (MOL 0001410!; isolectotype: G G00355148!
[https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen
.g00355148]). – Syntype: Weberbauer 4629 (B [destroyed, photograph at F! negative no. 9182 https://plants
.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.f0bn009182]).
Oedematopus congestiflorus Engl. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst.
58(Beibl. 130): 6. 1923 ≡ Clusia engleriana Pipoly in
Sida 17: 766. 1997 [non Clusia congestiflora Cuatr. in
Revista Acad. Colomb. Ci. Exact. 8: 52. 1950]. – Lectotype (designated here): Peru, Sandia, 2300 – 2400 m,
fruiting, 28 Mar 1902, Weberbauer 624 (USM accession
no. 170363!). – Syntype: Weberbauer 624 (B [destroyed,
photograph at F! negative no. 9177 – https://plants.jstor
.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.f0bn009177]).
Pipoly (1997) proposed the new name Clusia engleriana for Oedematopus congestiflorus (non C. congestiflora Cuatr.), and placed this species in C. sect.
Oedematopus (Planch. & Triana) Pipoly. Pipoly (1997)
accepted the material deposited in herbarium B (destroyed during the World War II) as the holotype of O.
congestiflorus, and incorrectly treated the photograph
(deposited in herbarium F) of the destroyed Berlin specimen as an isotype. However, the photograph cannot be
an isotype because it is not a duplicate of a holotype
specimen (Turland & al. 2018: Art. 9.5), and it is not
eligible as a lectotype because, as mentioned above, it is
not part of the original material of the name.
Pipoly probably saw only the photograph of the destroyed specimen formerly deposited in B, and therefore
could not observe details of the reproductive structures.
Through the examination of the extant material deposited in the herbarium USM, we concluded that Clusia
engleriana should actually be included in C. sect. Anandrogyne Planch. & Triana, because its staminodes lack
antherodes and are deciduous after anthesis, and its stigmas are borne on elongated styles.
Oedematopus weberbaueri Engl. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst.
58(Beibl. 130): 6. 1923 ≡ Clusia hylaeae Pipoly in Sida
17: 766. 1997 [non Clusia weberbaueri Engl. in Bot. Jahrb.
Syst. 58(Beibl. 130): 4. 1923]. – Lectotype (designated
here): Peru, Loreto, Moyobamba, 800–900 m, ♀, 14 Aug
1904, Weberbauer 4526 (USM accession no. 170643!;
isolectotype: G!). – Syntype: Weberbauer 4526 (B [destroyed, photograph at F! negative no. 9178 https://plants
.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.f0bn009178]).
Pipoly (1997) made the same mistake as in the case
of Clusia engleriana (see above), when considering the
photograph of the destroyed specimen of B as an isotype.
We found duplicates of Weberbauer 4526 at the herbaria
G and USM, and designate the material of herbarium
USM as the lectotype.
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Willdenowia on 01 Jun 2020
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use
195
Clusia loretensis Engl. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 58(Beibl.
130): 5. 1923. – Lectotype (designated here): Peru,
Dep. Loreto, Prov. Moyobamba, 800 – 900 m, 9 Sep 1904,
Weberbauer 4696 (G 00355090! [https://plants.jstor.org
/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.g00355090]). – Syntype:
Weberbauer 4696 (B [destroyed, photograph at F! negative no. 9191 https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap
.specimen.f0bn009191]).
Clusia riojensis Engl. in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam., ed. 2, 21: 203. 1925. – Lectotype (designated here): Peru, Prov. Chachapoyas, north Moyobamba, without date, Weberbauer 4457 (G 00355313!
[https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen
.g00355313]). – Syntype: Weberbauer 4457 (B [destroyed, photograph at F! negative no. 9197 https://plants
.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.f0bn009197]).
Clusia sandiensis Engl. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 58(Beibl.
130): 2. 1923. – Lectotype (designated here): Peru,
Sandia, 2100 – 2400 m, 21 Mar 1902, Weberbauer 573 (G
00355316! [https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap
.specimen.g00355316]). – Syntypes: Weberbauer 573 (B
[destroyed, photograph at F! negative no. 9198 https://
plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen
.f0bn009198]); Peru, Sandia, 2100 – 2400 m, 20 Mar 1902,
Weberbauer 565 (B [destroyed]).
Clusia tarmensis Engl. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 58(Beibl. 130):
5. 1923. – Lectotype (designated here): Peru, Depart.
Junin, Prov. Tarma, La Merced en el vale Chanchamayo,
1000 m, Dec 1902, Weberbauer 1895 (USM accession no.
170653!). – Syntype: Weberbauer 1895 (B [destroyed,
photograph at F! negative no. 9202 https://plants.jstor.org
/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.f0bn009202]).
Clusia weberbaueri Engl. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 58(Beibl.
130): 4. 1923. – Lectotype (designated here): Peru,
Dep. Junin, Prov. Tarma, entre Huacapistana y Palca,
1900 – 2000 m, 6 Jan 1913, Weberbauer 1978 (USM accession no. 170360!). – Syntype: Peru, Dep. Junin, Prov.
Tarma, 7 Jan 1913, Weberbauer 1999 (B [destroyed, photograph at F! negative no. 9207 https://plants.jstor.org
/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.f0bn009207]).
Engler (1923) described Clusia weberbaueri based
on staminate (Weberbauer 1999) and pistillate (Weberbauer 1978) plants. Since we did not find staminate material, we designate the pistillate material as lectotype.
Tovomita chachapoyasensis Engl. in Bot. Jahrb. Syst.
58(Beibl. 130): 7. 1923. – Lectotype (designated
here): Peru, Dep. Amazonas, Prov. Chachapoyas, Molinopampa, 2000 – 2300 m, ♂, 18 Jul 1904, Weberbauer
4340 (USM accession no. 170652!). – Syntypes: Peru,
Dep. Amazonas, Prov. Chachapoyas, Molinopampa,
2000 – 2300 m, ♀, without date, Weberbauer 4336
(B [destroyed, photograph at F! negative no. 9208
196
Nascimento & al.: August Weberbauer and names of Clusiaceae from Peru
https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen
.f0bn009208], G 00386353! [https://plants.jstor.org/stable
/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.g00386353], USM accession no.
170642!).
Tovomita chachapoyasensis was described by Engler
(1923) using staminate (Weberbauer 4340) and pistillate
(Weberbauer 4336) specimens. Although the extant pistillate material deposited in G and USM has more leaves,
the staminate material provides a larger number of taxonomically useful characters. The syntypes show that T.
chachapoyasensis belongs to Clusia sect. Anandrogyne;
the large external pair of sepals enveloping the other parts
of the floral bud, a typical attribute of Tovomita, is absent
in the flowers of the syntypes of T. chachapoyasensis.
More studies are necessary to verify if T. chachapoyasensis should be transferred to Clusia as a new combination
or synonymized under the name of a species already described. The type specimens have many similarities with
C. engleriana, for example, a species originally also described by Engler (1923, as Oedematopus congestiflorus)
and lectotypified in this paper (see above).
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge access to the relevant collections at the herbaria G, MOL and USM. We thank Dr.
Kanchi N. Gandhi (GH) for clarifications about the term
“syntype”, and reviewers Dr. W. Scott Armbruster (ALA)
and Dr. Manuel Luján (CAS) for suggestions on the manuscript. This study was funded by Fundação de Amparo
à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo – Fapesp – through
the processes 2012/51781-0 and 2012/15542-0. MCEA
thanks CNPq for a research grant (#311744/2017-6).
References
BGBM data portal 2018. – Published at http://search
.biocase.org/bgbm/index [accessed 27 Nov 2018].
Burke J. M. & Michelangeli F. A. 2013: Lectotypification of Peruvian Melastomataceae described by Cogniaux from Weberbauer collections. – Phytotaxa
125: 10 – 16.
Engler A. 1923: Guttiferae andinae, imprimis Weberbauerianae. – Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 58(Beibl. 130): 1 – 10.
Engler A. 1925: Guttiferae. – Pp. 154 – 237 in: Engler A.
& Prantl K. (ed.), Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien,
ed. 2, 21. – Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
Garcia O. B. 1949: Obituaries. – Proc. Linn. Soc. London
161: 243 – 254.
Hiepko P. 1987: The collections of the Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem (B) and their history. – Englera
7: 219 – 252.
Lagomarsino L. P. & Santamaría-Aguilar D. 2015: Lectotypification of Peruvian Campanulaceae names associated with collections made by Augusto [sic!] Weberbauer. – Harvard Pap. Bot 20: 77 – 79.
León B. 2002: Significance of August Weberbauer’s
plant collecting for today’s Río Abiseo National Park,
northern Peru. – Taxon 51: 167 – 170.
León B., Granda A., Roque J. & Vilcapoma G. 2006: A
review of Peruvian Phoradendron (Viscaceae) species names published by Paczoski and typified by
material collected by Augusto [sic!] Weberbauer. –
Taxon 55: 513 – 514.
Luteyn J. L., Ortiz E. M. & Léon B. 2008: Notes on and
lectotypification of Augusto [sic!] Weberbauer’s collections of Peruvian Ericaceae. – Revista Peruana
Biol. 15: 127 – 134.
McNeill J. 2014: Holotype specimens and type citations:
general issues. – Taxon 63: 1112 – 1113.
Pipoly J. J. 1997: Nomenclatural notes on neotropical
Clusieae (Clusiaceae). – Sida 17: 765 – 767.
Stafleu F. A. & Cowan R. S. 1988: Taxonomic literature,
ed. 2, VII: W – Z. – Utrecht/Antwerpen: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema; The Hague/Boston: dr. W. Junk
b.v., Publishers. – [Regnum Veg. 116].
Thiers B. 2018+ [continuously updated]: Index herbariorum: a global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. New York Botanical Garden’s virtual
herbarium. – Published at http://sweetgum.nybg.org
/science/ih/ [accessed 27 Nov 2018].
Turland N. J., Wiersema J. H., Barrie F. R., Greuter W.,
Hawksworth D. L., Herendeen P. S., Knapp S., Kusber
W.-H., Li D.-Z., Marhold K., May T. W., McNeill J.,
Monro A. M., Prado J., Price M. J. & Smith G. F.
(ed.) 2018: International Code of Nomenclature for
algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) adopted
by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress
Shenzhen, China, July 2017. – Glashütten: Koeltz
Botanical Books. – [Regnum Veg. 159].
Weberbauer A. 1911: Die Pflanzenwelt der peruanischen
Anden in ihren Grundzügen dargestellt. – Pp. 1 – 355
in: Engler A. and Drude O. (ed.), Die Vegetation der
Erde 12. – Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
Weberbauer A. 1923: Mapa fitogeográfico de los Andes
peruanos entre 5° y 17° de lat. S. – Lima: Imp. Torres
Aguirre.
Willdenowia
Open-access online edition bioone.org/journals/willdenowia
Online ISSN 1868-6397 · Print ISSN 0511-9618 · Impact factor 1.500
Published by the Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin
© 2019 The Authors · This open-access article is distributed under the CC BY 4.0 licence
Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Willdenowia on 01 Jun 2020
Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use