Among C. I. Forsyth Major's botanical specimens from Madagascar (see Dorr, 1997), an individual collection number may comprise a set of specimens he believed to belong to the same species, but sometimes bearing different collection dates. In that case, they clearly must be considered as different gatherings (see Gautier & Callmander, 2010 for further details). The aim of this note is to clarify one of these collection sets: Forsyth-Major 346, on which the name Psychotria ambohimitombensis Bremek. is based, and which includes material collected on Nov. 5th, Dec. 21st, 22nd, & 23rd, 1894 in the Ambohimitombo forest in central Madagascar.

While describing the species, Bremekamp (1963: 135) cites “Forsyth Major 346 G” as the type, without mentioning any collection date. Examination of available material at G shows that among the several specimens labelled as Forsyth Major 346, only one bears annotations by Bremekamp. This specimen has printed labels indicating that it came from the herbier Candolle and that when this herbarium was donated to the City of Geneva, it was incorporated in the General collection of the Herbier Delessert (now G) in 1924, as were all specimens that were not cited in Candolle's “Prodromus” or in the “Monographiae Phanerogamarum” (which are kept separately in G-DC). This specimen also has an anonymous identification label that says “Psychotria sp. nov.” There are now several other duplicates at G of the collection Forsyth Major 346, originating from the Boissier Herbarium which was supposed to have distributed Forsyth Major's collections but failed to do so. However, as these were not identified (even to family level) until they were rediscovered in the 1990's, it is very unlikely that Bremekamp would have seen any of them. Two further specimens of Forsyth Major 346 have been traced at BM and K, none of them bearing any annotation by Bremekamp. Thus, the specimen at G annotated by Bremekamp represents the type.

As is often the case in G, because of the relatively small format of the sheets the specimen annotated by Bremekamp consists of two sheets, with the first sheet included in the flap of the second sheet. Four separate twigs, each glued on a separate label, are pinned on these two sheets with two twigs on each sheet. The first sheet bears a handwritten label reading “Typus; Psychotria ambohimitombensis Brem. n. spec; Det. C. E. B. Bremekamp; Utrecht, X.1962”. The second sheet bears the following label: “dupl. typi; Psychotria ambohimitombensis Brem. n. spec; Det. C. E. B. Bremekamp; Utrecht, X.1962”. General practice at G would have been to consider this as the holotype specimen, comprising two sheets. Unfortunately however the separate twigs do not all bear the same date: three of them are dated 21.12.1894 (the two twigs of the first sheet, and the upper twig on the second sheet), while the fourth is dated 22.12.1894 (the lower twig of the second sheet). Our conclusion is therefore that the typical material designated by Bremekamp is heterogenous and consists of two different gatherings, and that a lectotype must be designated. We here choose the first sheet with the two twigs collected on 21.12.1894 as the lectotype, and have separated it physically from the second one which bears one isolectotype (upper, collected on the same date) and one syntype (lower, collected on 22.12.1894).

The other specimens labelled as Forsyth Major 346 at G but not annotated by Bremekamp will be distributed as indicated below.

Nomenclature

Psychotria ambohimitombensis Bremek. in Verh. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch., Afd. Natuurk., sect. 2, 54(5): 135. 1963.