Two Nidularium Species from São Paulo State, Brazil ... - CNCFlora

r 

.' 

Two Nidularium Species from São Paulo State, 

Brazil: Synonyms and Further Comments 

Elton M. C. Lemel 

In May 2000, when the third volume of the trilogy on the nidularioid 

complex was in its final printing stage, two articles on Nidu/arium species from 

São Paulo State appeared on the scene in the January-April issue of the Acta 

Botanica Brasilica. Besides a few new combinations, Wanderley & Moreira 

(2000) and Moreira & Wanderley (2000) then described two new taxa to 

Nidu/arium. More recently, Luther (200 I) reduced these taxa to synonyms, 

following the taxonomical treatment proposed by Leme (2000), and briefly 

commented on the new combinations as well. At the time the two articles became 

available, it was impossible to interrupt the printing process to include any new 

information in the Nidu/arium volume. Therefore, I am taking the opportunity to 

provide the commentaries on those new taxa now. 

In the first article Wanderley & Moreira (2000) explicitly adopted a broad 

concept for Nidu/arium (including the subgenus Canistropsis), in opposition to 

the circumscription proposed by Leme (1997, 1998,2000), and described a new 

taxon, N amazonicum varopaulistanum Wand. & B. A. Moreira. The new variety 

was based on a specimen collected in 1992 by Wanderley et alo (collection 

number 2000) and cultivated in the Instituto de Botânica de São Paulo. By 

coincidence, a descendant specimen from the same cultivated clone flowered in 

Rio de Janeiro in December 1995 and was carefully examined for the global 

revision of Nidu/arium published by Leme (2000). It was cited as one of the 

"supplementary examined specimen" for N krisgreeniae Leme. This coincidence 

makes it clear that N amazonicum varopaulistanum was just a N krisgreeniae 

conceived under variety status, which was easily confirmed also by comparing 

the description and drawing provided in the protologue of varopaulistanum. 

Wanderley & Moreira (2000) unintentionally generated confusion when 

they stated the type material of their varopaulistanum carne from the same 

cultivated source of the specimen Kanashiro # 386 which was selected as the 

type of N krisgreeniae. Also, they established a nomen nudum, "N kanashiroi", 

and attributed it to me. However, in order to clarify the problem, some 

background information must be taken into consideration. 

On November 21, 1995, the botanist Shoey Kanashiro, then working at the 

Instituto de Botânica de São Paulo, sent three specimen of Nidu/arium to me in 

Rio de Janeiro for study along with a letter containing information on them. The 

first sample was N minutum Mez, collected by him in 20 November 1995 (# 

680), latter selected as a neotype (Leme, 2000; see picture on page 175). The 

I Herbarium Bradeanum, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. E-mail: leme@ti.ri.gov.br 

195 

u

--.. 

Figure 1. The type specimen of Nidularium krisgreeniae has light 

green leaves with darker green transverse veins 

196 

EltonLeme 

Elton Leme 

Figure 2. 

The type 

specimen of 

Nidularium 

corallinum, in 

shady condition, 

with darker 

leaves, which 

are magenta 

colored 

abaxially. 

I 

I 

I 

l

1 

I' 

Figure 4. A close up of the 

clonotype's inflorescence of 

N. longíscapum, a recognized 

synonym of N. corallínum, 

highlighting its typical coral-red 

corolla. 

197 

Figure 3. The green-Ieafed 

clonotype of N. longíscapum, a 

synonym of N. corallínum, which 

was collected by the botanist 

Eduardo L. M. Catharino and 

flowered in cultivation. 

EltonLeme

second sample became the type-specimen of N. krisgreeniae, collected by 

himself under the number 386, in 14 May 1993, at Fazenda lntervales (Leme, 

2000; see page 171 and picture on page 173).The third sample was a specimen 

under his number 99 that was cultivated at the Instituto de Botânica de São 

Paulo. According to the data provided by Kanashiro, this sample was collected 

by "Wanderleys. n." in August 1992 at Fazenda Intervales. 

The data on the third above-mentioned specimen, "Kanashiro # 99", was 

cited in the protologue of N. krisgreeniae as "Sete Barras, Faz. Intervales, Aug. 

1992,M. G. L. Wanderleys. n. legit, fi. cult Dec. 1995,E. Leme 3305 (HB, RB)" 

and listed among the "supplementary specimens examined", but was not adopted 

as a nomenclatural type (Leme, 2000; see page 172). 

On the other hand, the specimen "Kanashiro # 386" examined by 

Wanderley & Moreira is the isotype of N. krisgreeniae deposited in the 

Herbarium of the Instituto de Botânica de São Paulo (SP), but definitively it is 

not the same as "Wanderley et aI. # 2000". In fact, "Wanderley et aI. # 2000" 

(deposited in SP and RB, and collected in July 1992) and "Wanderley s. n." 

(deposited in HB and RB, and indicated by Kanashiro as being collected in 

August 1992, certainly a second hand information error for the correct date, July 

1992)are descendant of the same source in cultivation in Instituto de Botânica de 

São Paulo. 

Finally,the epithet "kanashiroi", initially chosen to honor the collector, was 

abandoned after a written request of Shoey Kanashiro, who would like to avoid 

any kind of argument with c10secolleagues from the Instituto de Botânica de São 

Paulo. Therefore, the name "kanashiroi" was never published before Wanderiey 

& Moreira (2000). For instance, another more appropriate epithet was correctly 

chosen for the taxon (i. e., N. krisgreeniae) and validly published in the global 

revision of Nidularium (Leme, 2000). 

After such considerations, two conc1usionsmay be reached: I) Wanderley 

& Moreira examined the isotype of N krisgreeniae deposited in SP and knew in 

advance, even before publishing N amazonicum varopaulistanum, that it would 

soon be published as a new species, as cited in Leme [1998; see page 8, and the 

citation "N. sp. novo(Kanashiro 386)" and "Nidularium sp. novo(Kanashiro 386)" 

on page 116, 117 and 127]. 2) The epithet "Kanashiroi", which did not have any 

status under the International Code of Botanical Nomenc1ature(art. 12.1, Saint 

Louis Code, Greuter et aI., 2000) before Wanderley & Moreira (2000), was 

inappropriately established and published by them, without a description or 

diagnosis, as a nomen nudum. 

Although N. amazonicum varopaulistanum was published before N. 

krisgreeniae,according to art. 11.2 of Saint Louis Code (Greuter et aI., 2000), "in 

no case does a name have priority outside the rank in which it is published". So 

adopting the species status as the most appropriate facing the criteria used in the 

global Nidularium revision (Leme, 2000),the full citation ofthe synonym follows: 

198 

-

Nidularium krisgreeniae Leme, Nidularium Bromel. Mata Atl. 171-173, 260, 

figo44, May 2000. Type: São Paulo, Sete Barras, Faz. Intervales, 14 May 1993, 

S. Kanashiro 386 legit, fl. Cult. Nov. 1995, E. Leme 3304 (holotype: HB; 

isotype: SP). Synonym: Nidularium amazonicum varopaulistanum Wand. & B. 

A. Moreira, Acta botobras. 14 (1): 6-8, fig.l, Jan.-Apr. 2000. Type: São Paulo, 

Ribeirão Grande, Res. Faz. Intervales, Ju!. 1992, Wanderley et aI. 2000 legit 

(holotype: SP, n. V.;isotype RB, n. v.). Paratypes: Sete Barras, Faz. Intervales, 

Saibadela,Oct. 1992, Wanderleyet aI. 2060 (SP,n. v.); Jan. 1994,Morelato et aI. 

63 (HRCB, n. v.); Jan. 1994, Morelato et aI. 64 (HRCB, n. v.); Tapiraí, May 

1994,Mel/o-Silva et aI. 899 (UEC, n. v.; SPF,n. v.);Mel/o-Silva et aI. 913 (SP,n. 

v.; SPF,n. v.);Aug. 1992, Wanderleyet aI. 1998 (SP,n. v.); São Miguel Arcanjo, 

P. E. Carlos Botelho, Jan. 1995, Morais et aI. 1138 (ESA, n. v.); May 1977, 

Makito 45 (UEC, n. v.); Mamparra, R. F. Carlos Botelho, Febr. 1995, Miyagi et 

aI. 532 (ESA, n. v.). See Luther (2001). Nidularium kanashiroi Leme ex Wand. 

& B. A. Moreira, Acta botobras. 14 (1): 8, Jan.-Apr. 2000; nom. nud. 

In the second article, Moreira & Wanderley (2000) described a new species, 

Nidularium longiscapum B. A. Moreira & Wand., based on specimens (holotype 

in SP and isotype in RB) cultivated by the eminent botanist Eduardo Luiz 

Martins Catharino, who collected it in the county of Bananal, São Paulo State. 

Two other specimens, from different regions of the State of São Paulo, were 

designated as paratypes. 

At first glance, N. longiscapum species appears to be cospecific to N. 

corallinum (Leme) Leme, an endemic taxon from the same region of Bananal, 

São Paulo State. However, some conflicting data in the protologue (i. e., Latin 

diagnosis, description, discussion and figure) was detected, which suggested the 

need of reevaluation of the type material of N. longiscapum. For example, in the 

Latin diagnosis the petals are described as purple ("petalis in lobis cuculatis, 

purpuratis"), but in the description it is stated the flowers are pink ("flores 

rosas") with pink petals ("pétalas rosas"). Once again, in the discussion item, 

they pointed out the purple color of the petals. AIso, the petals appendages were 

described as having a fimbriate apex, while in the figure Id their apex is 

irregularly dentate. 

Unfortunately, after consulting the involved herbaria (i. e., SP, SPSF and 

RB), I was informed that the holotype, isotype and paratypes of N. longiscapum 

were still on loan to Moreira & Wanderley,and not available for loan or even for 

examination (1. R. Grant, 1.A. Pastore and B. R. Silva, pers. comm.). However, 

the collector of N. longiscapum, Eduardo L. M. Catharino, still had the original 

clone in cultivation and in June 200I kindly provided a mature living specimen 

in full bloom. 

After examining this living "clonotype" of N. longiscapum it was confirmed 

that its coral red colored petals, the leaf and bract conformation, and the floral 

morphology are identical to the characteristics presented by N. coral/inum, which 

199

suggestively carne from the same type locality (i. e, Bananal, São Paulo). The 

single peculiar difference is related to the green leafed color of the living clone of 

N. longiscapum and the wine-purplish abaxial color of the leaves of N. 

corallinum. This kind of variation is very common in Nidularium [e. g., N. 

amazonicum (Baker) Linden & E. Morren ex Lindm., N antoineanum Wawra,N 

apiculatum L. B. Sm., N innocentii Lem., N krisgreeniae Leme, N procerum 

Lindm.] and in other bromelioid genera as well (e. g., Aechmea, Canistropsis and 

Lymania) and is seen as an adaptation to shady habitats (Leme, 2000). Thus, the 

phenomenon is not consistent enough to taxonomically segregate N longiscapum 

from N corallinum.The full synonym citation follows: 

Nidu/arium corallinum (Leme) Leme, Nidularium Brome/. Mata At/. 121,258, 

figo28, May 2000. Type: São Paulo, Bananal, Sertão das Cobras, Faz.Albion, 23 

Sept. 1989, E. Leme 1427,fl. cultoAug. 1990 (holotype HB). 

BASIONYM:WittrockiacorallinaLeme,J BromeliadSoc. 42 (2): 51,figo1,2, 1992. 

SYNONYM: Nidularium longiscapum B. A. Moreira & Wand., Acta botobras. 

14 (1): 122-123, figo I, Jan.-Abr. 2000. Type: São Paulo, Bananal, Sede da 

Probocaina, 10 Jun. 1995, E. Catharino s. n. legit, fl. cultoSão Paulo Botanic 

garden 540 (holotype Sp, n. V.;isotype RB, n. V.;clonotype: HB). Paratypes: São 

Paulo, Biritiba Mirim, Est. Eco!' Boracéia, 10 Jun. 1984, Custodio Filho 2399 

(SPSF, n. v.); Lavrinhas, 12 km north Lavrinhas, Vale do Ribeirão do Braço, 6 

Apr. 1995,Kinoshita & Moreira 9520 (SP; n. v.). See Luther (200 I). 

Finally, comparing the morphological characteristics of the flowering 

clonotype of N longiscapum and the description and drawing in its protologue, I 

found the discrepancies listed below: 

I) flowers are ca. 40 mm Iong, but not 29 mm long. The shorter length 

may suggest that an immature flower was measured. 

2) SepaIs are ca. 20 mm long and connate at base for ca. 3 mm, and not 18 

mm Iong neither connate for I mm, which may suggest a mistake when 

cutting and measuring the sepaIs. 

3) Petals are ca. 30 mm long, but not 20 mm long, suggesting again that an 

immature flower was measured. Their color is coral red (as depicted in 

its description), and not purple as indicated in the diagnosis and 

discussion item. The basal appendages are long fimbriate, as described, 

but not irregularly dentate as portrayed in figure 1d, as well as the petals 

apex is obtuse-cucullate, but not truncate like the same drawing. 

4) The ovary is 10 mm long, and not 4 mm long. Curiously, the immature 

fruits were described as having 10 mm long. 

Despite the already mentioned impossibility of examining the type material 

of N longiscapum (i. e, not available for loan or inaccessible to non authorized 

persons), which was compensated for by the available flowering living clonotype, 

and taking into consideration the discrepancies highlighted above and the fact 

200

that Moreira & Wanderley (2000) artificially related their species to Canistropsis 

billbergioides (Schult. F.) Leme, it is reasonable to speculate that the paratypes 

designated in the protologue, or at least one of them, may belong to a distinct 

species of another genus. In the speculation field, considering the origin of the 

paratype from Biritiba Mirim, Est. Ecol. Boracéia (SPSF), it is possible to state it 

may represent Canistropsis exigua (E. Pereira & Leme) Leme. That region is the 

type locality of C. exigua and its shorter petals appendages and the ovary 5-7 

mm long only may justify some of the reported morphological discrepancies 

attributed to N longiscapum. The paratype from Lavrinhas (SP) may represent 

some species of the "blue complex" of Nidularium, probably N antoineanum or 

N meeanum Leme, Wand. & Mollo, and justify the confusion concerning the 

erroneously reported purple color ofthe petals. 

Finally, the new specimen of N. corallinum recently introduced in 

cultivation under the synonym N longiscapum represents a valuable addition to 

ex-situ conservation of this endemic and rarely seen species. Horticulture should 

also welcome this lighter leafed colored clone of N corallinum, which provides a 

more intensely ornamental contrast to the apical red color of its primary bracts. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

I thank the botanist Eduardo L. M. Catharino who kindly provided the living material of the 

c1onotype of N. longiscapum, as welI as Jason R. Grant, for his valuable commentaries and 

suggestions. 

LITERATURECITED: 

Greuter, w., 1. Mcneill, ER. Barrie, H.M. Burdet, V. Demoulin, T.S. Filgueiras, D.H. Nicolson, 

p.c. Silva, 1.E. Skog, P. Trehane and NJ. Turland. 2001. International Code of Botanical 

Nomenclature. (St. Louis Code). Electronic version 

http:www.bgbm.fu.berlin.de/iapt/nomenclature/code/SaintLouis/OOOOSt.Luistitle.htm 

Leme, E. M. C. 1997. Canistrum: Bromeliads of the Atlantic Forest. Salamandra, Rio de 

Janeiro. 107 p. 

_ 1998. Canistropsis: Bromeliads of theAt/antic Forest. Salamandra, Rio de Janeiro. 143p 

_ 2000. Nidu/arium: Bromeliads of theAtlantic Forest. Sextante Artes, Rio de Janeiro. 263 p 

Luther, H. E. 2001. De Rebus Bromeliacearum. Selbyana 22 (I): 34-67. 

Moreira, M. A. & M. G. L. Wanderley. 2000. Nova Espécie de Nidularium Lem. 

(Bromeliaceae) para São Paulo, Brasil. Acta bot. bras. 14 (I): 121-123. 

Wanderley, M. G. L & B. A. Moreira. 2000. Notas Taxonômicas sobre Nidularium Lem. 

e Wittroc/da Lindm. (Bromelioideae, Bromeliaceae). Acta botobras. /4 (I) 1-9. 

201

Two Nidularium Species from São Paulo State, Brazil ... - CNCFlora

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?