Ocotea madagascariensis Palacky

22. Ocotea madagascariensis (Meissner) Palacký

(Fig. 10)

Catalogus plantarum madagascariensium 2: 9 (1907).

Mespilodaphne madagascariensis Meissner, Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis 15: 105 (1864).

— Typus: Madagascar, Bernier 69 (syn-, MO, NY, P [P00541563, P00541564, P00541565]).

Mespilodaphne bernieri Baillon, Bulletin mensuel de la Société linnéenne de Paris 1: 453 (1885).

Ocotea bernieri (Baillon) Palacký, Catalogus plantarum madagascariensium 2: 9 (1907).

— Typus: Madagascar, S. Maria, Bernier 69 (syn-, MO, NY, P[P00541563, P00541564, P00541565]), Boivin 1731 (syn-, P [P00541636]).

SPECIMENS EXAMINED. — Toamasina. Île Sainte Marie, Bernier 69 (MO, P); same location, Boivin 1731 (P), Antsiranana. Parc National de Masoala, forêt d’Antanandavahely, Rahajasoa et al. 772 (MO, P[P02008093]).

PHENOLOGY. — Fruiting: August.

VERNACULAR NAME. — Voane sila.

DESCRIPTION

Large trees. Twigs angular, glabrous; terminal buds glabrous. Leaves 6-16 × 3-7 cm, alternate or somewhat clustered, stiffly chartaceous, elliptic or obovate-elliptic, base acute often lamina shortly decurrent on the petiole, apex obtuse; lateral veins inconspicuous, 6-8; upper surface smooth, lower surface with rather lax, raised reticulation; margin often slightly inrolled; domatia lacking. Flowers unknown. Infructescences 3-4 cm long. Fruits not seen. Cupule deeply cup-shaped, 1.8 cm wide, 1 cm deep, with persistent tepals.

REMARKS

Ocotea madagascariensis is only known from the two older collections cited above and one recent collection, all in fruit. The glabrous, somewhat clustered, obovate-elliptic leaves with raised reticulation allow identification. Flowers are not yet known. Kostermans cited several other collections under this species, but these specimens differ in characters as venation type and indument from the syntypes and I exclude them from Ocotea madagascariensis. Meissner (1864) did not cite specimens in his description of Mespilodaphne madagascariensis. He gave a description of cupules and fruits and stated he had seen material in P and G. In the Paris herbarium are two collections that predate Meissner’s description, Bernier 69 and a Boivin collection without a number. The Boivin collection is sterile, while the Bernier collection has detached cupules matching Meissner’s description. Therefore, I accept Bernier 69 as the type collection of M. madagascariensis. None of the Bernier specimens in Paris is annotated as Mespilodaphne madagascariensis. Therefore, the six specimens of Bernier 69 in P and the MO specimen recently received from P should all be considered syntypes. Because all specimens of Bernier 69 clearly belong to the same species, I see no reason to designate a lectotype.