Search

Begonia tetrandra Irmsch, Botanische Jahrbücher für Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 74 (4): 626 (Irmscher 1949). – Type: ECUADOR – Prov. Tunguahara • Valley of the Pastaza River, between Baños and Cashurco, 8 hours east of Baños; 1300–1800 m a.s.l.; 25 Sep. 1923; A. S. Hitchcock 21889; syntype: US [US 00221970]). – PERU • Lobb s.n.; syntype: W [n.v.]. Brako & Zarucchi (1993: 195). Notes Brako & Zarucchi (1993) included B. tetrandra Irmsch. in the latest checklist of Peruvian Begonia based upon Lobb s.n. (W), a syntype of the name. We have not seen this specimen so, following Smith & Wasshausen (1986), treat the species as endemic to Ecuador and exclude the name from our treatment.

Begonia anemonoides Haenke Voyages dans l’Amérique Méridionale depuis 1781-1801 2: 503 (Haenke 1809). – Type: unknown. Notes This species was described as abundant in the Andes Mountains of “Peruvia”. At the turn of the 19 th Century “Peruvia” referred to the Viceroyalty of Peru including much of modern-day Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Chile. It remains very unclear where Haenke encountered this species. Furthermore, no type material of the species was cited in the protologue, but it is possible that some original material remains undiscovered among the specimens housed in PR herbarium. The protologue describes the species as tuberous with flowers resembling those of an Anemone, and while this is not sufficient for identification it seems likely that this refers to a member of the octopetala group of B. sect. Eupetalum (Tebbitt 2015). The only member of the octopetala group described before 1809 was B. octopetala so B. anemonoides Haenke may be an earlier name for any other species in this group. The discovery of original material and lectotypification of B. anemonoides should be a priority for any future work on Peruvian or tuberous Andean Begonia, and if this is not possible the name should be rejected.

Begonia sect. Doratometra (Klotzsch) A.DC. Prodromus Systematis Naturalis Regni Vegetabilis 15 (1): 383 (de Candolle 1864). – Doratometra Klotzsch, Gattungen und Arten 1854: 127 (Klotzsch 1855). – Type: holotype: Doratometra wallichiana Klotzsch = Begonia wallichiana Lehm. Synonymy notes For a full list of sectional synonyms, see Moonlight et al. (2018). Notes A small section of diminutive, annual, or short-lived species of Begonia. Within Peru, the section is represented by two species which are distinguished from B. sect. Ephemera by their palmate-pinnate rather than palmate venation.

Begonia falcifolia Hook.f. Curtis’s Botanical Magazine 94: t. 5707 (Hooker 1868). – Type: hort. Kew; coll. unknown s.n.; holotype: K [K000739972]. Brako & Zarucchi (1993: 192); León & Monsalve (2006: 166). Notes This species was described from plants grown in the glasshouses of Kew Gardens, which J.D. Hooker stated in the protologue were collected in Peru by Pearce and given to Kew by Veitch Nurseries (Hooker 1868). The illustration and type specimen are however of a species closely allied to B. malabarica Lam., a species from southern India and Sri Lanka. Plant hunters from both Kew Gardens and Veitch Nurseries had collected in this area by this date, so it seems likely this is an Indian species whose providence was confused in either institution.

Moonlight, Peter. W., Jara-Muñoz, Orlando A., Purvis, David A., Delves, Jay, Allen, Josh P., Reynel, Carlos (2023): The genus Begonia (Begoniaceae) in Peru. European Journal of Taxonomy 881: 1-334, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2023.881.2175, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2023.881.2175

Begonia marinae Tebbitt. Novon 23 (4): 481, fig. 1 (Tebbitt 2015). – Type: BOLIVIA – Dept. Santa Cruz: Prov. Vallegrande • Rd. from Pucará to Alto Seco, N & NE facing open slopes in remnant Tucomano forest; 18°44′ S, 64°06′ W; 2727 m a.s.l.; 12 Jan. 2012; M. C. Tebbitt 724; holotype: UCZ; isotype: UCZ [2]. Begonia octopetala auct. non L’Hér.: Griseb., Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 19: 148 (Grisebach 1874). Notes Bolivian specimens of this species were identified as B. octopetala by Grisebach (1874). Some of these specimens were mistakenly cited as from Peru.

Begonia patula Haw. Supplementum Plantarum Succulentarum: 100 (Haworth 1819). – Type: unknown. Otto & Dietrich (1836: 358); Klotzsch (1855: 150); Walpers (1843a: 215, 1858: 879); de Candolle (1861: 348, 1864: 302); Smith & Schubert (1950: 245); Smith & Smith (1971: 49); Jacques & Mamede (2005: 581). Notes This name was published by Haworth based upon plants cultivated in Loddiges’ nursery in Hackney in 1816 (Haworth 1819: 100). The plants had arrived at Loddiges’ from Mr Gulielmo Anderson, who had in turn received them from Mr C.F. Otto in 1811, the inspector of Berlin Botanical Gardens. The description in the protologue is insufficient for identification and there is no illustration. Most of Haworth’s specimens are deposited in Kew and Oxford herbaria, but we have found no material labelled with this name that predates the publication of the protologue so could be considered type material. It is possible that there is original material among the cultivated material in Kew or Berlin herbarium. We however consider it extremely unlikely that it will ever be possible to determine to which species this name belongs and follow Jacques & Mamede (2005) in suggesting the name is rejected. We cite B. patula Haw. here because it has frequently been considered the same species as B. fischeri and was published earlier. The first suggestion of this derives from the protologue of B. pauciflora (Lindley 1820: t. 471), which is now considered a synonym of B. fischeri. Lindley considered B. patula Haw. a probable synonym of B. pauciflora, contrary to the principle of priority. Haworth (1821b: cc) later published an addendum in Edward’s Botanical Register, which stated that B. pauciflora and B. patula Haw. were different species. Later authors including Walpers (1843a: 215), Klotzsch (1855: 150), and Smith & Schubert (1950: 245) disregarded this and considered B. patula Haw. an earlier name for B. pauciflora. Alphonse de Candolle (1861: 348; 1864: 302) further confused matters by citing Klotzsch’s 1855 citation of B. patula Haw. as ‘ Begonia patula Klotzsch’, excluding B. paucifolia from the citation and only doubtfully including B. patula Haw. in synonymy. Smith & Wasshausen (1979) were the first to recognise that B. patula Haw. may not be the same species as B. pauciflora, and also the first to cite B. fischeri as the same species as B. pauciflora. In the synonymy of B. fischeri, they cited ‘ Begonia patula sensu Klotzsch non Haw.&rsquo