Nomenclatural notes on Piper Linn. (Piperaceae) from India II Author Mukherjee, Prasanta Kumar text Phytotaxa 2018 2018-02-09 338 1 17 32 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.338.1.2 journal article 10.11646/phytotaxa.338.1.2 1179-3163 13719121 19. Piper schmidtii Hook. f. Fl. Brit. India 5(13): 89. 1886 . Type:— INDIA : Tamilnadu , Nilghiris, Mr. Schmidt s.n. ( lectotype designated here G0032945 image!; isolectotype K000794459 image!, CAL !; syntypes Nilgherry hill, Wight 2555 K00794460 image!, Courtallum , Wight 2622 E00313754 image!, Wight 2682 E00313756 image!, Wallich 6643D K 001124394 image!, E 00313755 image!). Homotypic synonym:— Piper opacilimbum C. DC. Candollea 16: 191. 1925 nom . illegt. syn. nov. Type:— INDIA : Tamilnadu , Nilghiri hills, Schmidt s. n. CAL ! Piper arborescens auct . non. Roxb. Miq. Syst. Piperac. 320. 1844 pro parte. Type:— INDIA : Tamilnadu , in montibus Nil-Gherries, Perrottet s.n. in Herb. De Less n. v. Piper arborescens auct . non. Roxb. C . DC. Prodr. 16: 359. 1869 pro parte. Type:— INDIA : Tamilnadu , montibus Nilgheriis, Perrottet 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073 ( syntypes G-DC G 00206848, 00206844 & 00206845, 00206849 & 00206851 images!). Piper gibsonii C. DC. Candollea 2: 190. 1925 syn. nov. Type:— INDIA : Maharashtra , Bombay Presidency, Western Ghats, Gibson s. n. ( holotype CAL !). Piper glabrirhache C. DC. Candollea 2: 200. 1925 syn. nov. Type:— INDIA : Tamilnadu , Nilgherries, G . King s.n. ( lectotype designated here CAL !; syntype Ooty, 7000ft. C . B . Clarke 11464 CAL !). Piper ootacamundense C. DC. Repert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg 13: 298 et Candollea 2: 191.1925 descr. amplo syn. nov. Type:— INDIA : Tamilnadu , Ootacamund, G . King s. n. ( holotype CAL !). Piper ovatostemon C. DC. Candollea 2: 204. 1925 syn. nov. Type:— INDIA : Tamilnadu , Nilgherries, Wright ( Wight? ) s. n. ( holotype CAL !). Distribution:— INDIA : Tamilnadu , Kerala , Karnataka , Maharashtra . Note: Piper schmidtii Hook. f. (1869: 89) was published with the citation of types as “Nilghiri Mts., Schmidt, and Wight & c ”. Hooker ( loc. cit. ) also included as synonyms (i) a part of P. arborescens Miq. non Roxb.(1820) based on ‘in montibus Nil-Gherries ( Perrottet ! in Herb. De Less.)’, (ii) Nilghiri plants only of P. arborescens C. DC. non Roxb. (1820) partly based on Perrottet ( Perrotet ) 1070, 1071, 1072 and 1073, (iii) P. arcuatum γ (var.!) quintuplinervium C. DC. (1869: 360), based on in Herb. De Less. G-DC (G 00418445) and (iv) lower specimen only of P. nigrum Wall. cat 6643D (K001124394). Mr. Schmidt’s specimen from Nilgiris at G (G 0032945 image) bearing an annotation in Hooker’s hand is designated here as the lectotype . Mr. Schmidt’s specimen from Nilghiris at Hooker’s herbarium (K (000794459) does not have the annotation by Hooker. F. A. W. Miquel (1844: 320) did not mention any collection number for Perrotet ’s specimen. A specimen at E (Courtallum, Wight 2622 E in Wallich list no.6643 D (E00313754) bears annotation in Miquel’s hand as P. arborescens Roxb. Casimir de Candolle cited four of Perrottet’s specimens but these collected in 1854 must be different from the one cited by Miquel ( loc. cit. ). They all are similar to types of P. schmidtii ‘Nilghiris, Mr. Schmidt ’ (K000794459) and Wight 2555 (K000794460), Wight 2622 (E00313754) and Wight 2682 (E00313756). So is Wallich 6643D. C. DC.’s (1869: 359) varietal name is based on the same material having an annotation by Miquel’s as P. arcuatum nervis remotiribus nom . invalid . However, this specimen at G-DC (G 00418445 image) appears very dissimilar to Schmidt’s specimens but similar to ‘Nilgherris, Perrotet 1065 ’ identified as Chavica sphaerostachya ( P. mullesua Don ). Therefore, C. DC.’s name is removed from the synonymy here. Its confirmation for placement under P. mullesua needs further revision. Wallich 6643D mentioned by Hooker purported to be a collection from Penang , as present at K (001124394 lower plant only) and E (00313755) are from Courtallum (Nilgiris), and both are P. schmidtii . The names Perrotet and Perrottet both are mentioned on the sheets. Piper opacilimbum turns out to be homotypic with P. schmidtii and is a superfluous name and illegitimate. Types of all the names published later by C. de Candolle (1913, 1923, 1925) and cited here as new synonyms were correctly identified and annotated as conspecific by J. S. Gamble at CAL. Piper ootacamundense was mentioned as a new species by C. de Candolle (1914b) without the accompanying description but with the citation of Meebold 11962 and 11989 G as types. The species was fully described by him in 1925 with the mention of ‘Ootacamund, King s.n. as the type. This last-named specimen at CAL is considered here as the holotype of the name. Piper silentvalleyense Ravindran, Nair & Nair (1988: 167) based on “ INDIA : Kerala , Silent valley forests, PNR 186 -herb NRCS, Calicut” seems to be conspecific to this species but its type is not available, being probably misplaced. Leaves of this species are very characteristic and often confused with those of P. wightii Miq. (1846: 552) , but it has markedly different bracts, which are peltate and ovoid.