Agarista pulchra G. Don 1834

7. Agarista pulchra (Cham. & Schltdl.) G.Don (1834: 837)

≡ Andromeda pulchra Chamisso & Schlechtendal (1826: 521) ≡ Leucothoë pulchra (Cham. & Schltdl.) Candolle (1839: 604) ≡ Andromeda sellowii Steudel (1841: 89), nom. superfl.

Type:— BRAZIL. Without location, F. Sellow s.n. (lectotype, E00326871, image!, here designated; isolectotypes G00352007, image!, K000494431, image!, NY0008205, fragment!, NY0008206, fragment!; the former lectotype B †, designated by Sleumer 1959: 471).

Note:—The material used to describe Agarista pulchra is a Sellow collection without number, collected in “Brasilia tropica” with no date or location indicated. Friederich Sellow dispatched his collections to the Royal Botanical Garden at Scĥneberg, now part of B (Urban 1893, Moraes 2020, Carvalho et al. 2022) and the specimens used to describe this species were probably deposited in B, but this information cannot be confirmed. Chamisso & Schlechtendal (1826: 521) did not indicate in the protologue a single specimen used for the description of the species or specify the herbarium or other collection in which the type was deposited. Thus, the materials related to this collection could be potential syntypes. There are two syntypes that consist of a few fragments (NY0008205) and three complete sheets (E00326871, G00352007, K000494431). No lectotypification of this name has yet been proposed.

There is another herbarium sheet at NY (NY0008206) with indication on the label that it is a fragment belonging to Sellow s.n. collection. Here, this material is also considered as an isolectotype of Agarista pulchra. The sheet from K (K000494431) is a mixed sheet mounted with assembled fragments of two different collections. One sample comprises the collect of Andromeda pulchra from F. Sellow (syntype). The other sample K000494430 is a collection of Leucothoë pulchra var. parvifolia from Claussen (Minas Geraes, Brasilia) and could be an isolectotype of that name, but there is no collection number indicated in the label to confirm this.

Sleumer (1959) called the B † specimen as “ holotype ”, and the remaining duplicate specimens as “isotypes”. Judd (1984, 1995) followed this same pattern of type designation. According to 7.11, Ex. 13 of the ICN (Turland el al. 2018), Sleumer (1959), when indicating the type location, collector, collection number and linked these data to the material deposited in B, designated this specimen as a lectotype. The remaining duplicate specimens then became isolectotypes. Moreover, as this lectotype is no longer available, a new lectotype must be designated as its substitute (Art. 9.11).

We designated the specimen E00326871 as lectotype following Art. 9.12 of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018). We choose that specimen due to its original label similar to that of the Sellow collection in B, with Sellow’s handwriting. This collection is well preserved and is the only one among the remaining syntypes that also has flowers in agreement with the protologue. Additionally, this material is available digitally in Jstor Global Plants (JSTOR 2022) and also in the digital herbarium database from E (RBGE, 2022).