On the identities of the two Anthurium latifolium Sodiro (Araceae), and the correct name for Anthurium sect. Digitinervia (Sodiro) Engl.

Alistair Hay

 

ABSTRACT

It is shown that Anthurium latifolium Sodiro (1900) and A. latifolium Sodiro (1903) are different species, both validly published and based on plants from different Ecuadorean localities, gathered likely four years apart by different collectors, and belonging to different sections of the genus. Anthurium latifolium Sodiro (1903) is thus an illegitimate later homonym. It has been treated as a synonym of A. balaonaum Engl. (‘bulaoanum’), a member of sect. Cardiolonchium (Schott) Engl. All the species included by Sodiro (1900) in his validly published (and aptly named) sect. Melastomifolia Sodiro, most if not all of which are synonyms of Anthurium ovatifolium Engl., would currently be regarded as members of sect. Digitinervia (Sodiro) Engl. (Engler, 1905), but the name sect. Melastomifolia takes priority, as the section is clearly homogeneous and cannot be typified taxonomically apart from sect. Digitinervia. Both sect. Digitinervia and sect. Melastomifolia are lectotypified. It is proposed that Engler’s change of the ending of Digitinervia to Digitinervium was incorrect. It is speculated that Sodiro might have renamed his first Anthurium latifolium as A. miconiifolium Sodiro (1901) as both were based on living plants observed by Sodiro at the same locality in 1899.

 

KEYWORDS

Anthurium, sect. Melastomifolia, nomenclature, Sodiro