The genus Begonia (Begoniaceae) in Peru Author Moonlight, Peter. W. Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20 A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH 3 5 LR, Scotland, UK. & Botany Department, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland. moonligp@tcd.ie Author Jara-Muñoz, Orlando A. Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá D. C., Colombia. oajaram@unal.edu.co Author Purvis, David A. Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20 A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH 3 5 LR, Scotland, UK. dpurvis@rbge.org.uk Author Delves, Jay Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20 A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH 3 5 LR, Scotland, UK. j.delves@westernsydney.edu.au Author Allen, Josh P. Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20 A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH 3 5 LR, Scotland, UK. myrmeciaman@gmail.com Author Reynel, Carlos Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Nacional Agraria-La Molina, Lima 12, Peru. reynel@lamolina.edu.pe text European Journal of Taxonomy 2023 2023-07-18 881 1 334 http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2023.881.2175 journal article https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2023.881.2175 2118-9773 8178280 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.’