Cyperus reduncus Hochst. ex Boeckeler

Linnaea 35: 580 (Boeckeler 1868).

LECTOTYPE. — Ethiopia [most likely Abyssinia] • 19.IX.1838; W. Schimper (ex Herb. Hochstetterii); lectotype (here designated): TUB[TUB007289] • Same data; Isolectotype: M[M 0107056].

REMARKS

Hochstetter coined this name (date unknown), but apparently only on a herbarium label and without a formal description, as was often the case with Hochstetter names (it supposedly was a nomen nudum). This can at least be deduced from Boeckeler (1868: 580) who added “in sched.” (in schedula, i.e. on a label) after the name Cyperus reduncus and validated it. In his protologue of this species, Boeckeler referred to “ Abyssinia ” and “Schimper”, without further indications. The herbarium of G.W. Schimper was preserved in B (partly destroyed) and in P, with numerous duplicates in other herbaria (Stafleu & Cowan 1976 -1988). However, neither B nor P actually contain specimens of C. reduncus that were collected by Schimper in Abyssinia. Hoenselaar's assumption (Hoenselaar et al. 2010) that the (holo-) type is located in B is therefore incorrect (it can be assumed that, if it ever existed, the collection was destroyed during World War II). In the C.F. Hochstetter herbarium, now incorporated at TUB (Stafleu & Cowan 1976 -1988), a specimen is preserved that bears a label: “In Abyssinia legit et paucula. Specimina misit W. Schimper”; it is dated “19 Sept [18]38”. The collection represents a complete plant showing all diagnostic features typical for the species. It corresponds with the information provided in the protologue by Boeckeler l.c. and was collected well before Boeckeler l.c. validated C. reduncus as a new species and thus can be considered as original material. This collection is here designated as the lectotype for this name.

Interestingly, at S there is an undated historical collection, originating from the area where the type material also comes from (“in uliginosis prope Gapdiam”) (S13-17060). It may be original material, even if no collector is listed and no date is mentioned. After the name Cyperus reduncus Hochst. follows an extensive description of the species so that it could be assumed that it concerns Hochstetter's original collection, based on a Schimper specimen (in which case the name would have been validly published by Hochstetter and a validation by Boeckeler was superfluous).However, the handwriting does not correspond to that of Hochstetter (compared with examples of his handwriting presented by Steinberg 1973). Moreover, Hochstetter's herbarium is located in TUB, as far as known without duplicates in S. Considering the doubt that surrounds this collection, it is better not to take it into account for typification purposes.