Nomenclatural notes on Heliocarya (Boraginaceae) from Iran Author Ranjbar, Massoud Author Khalvati, Sina text Phytotaxa 2020 2020-03-02 434 3 292 300 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.434.3.7 journal article 10.11646/phytotaxa.434.3.7 1179-3163 13875341 1. Heliocarya actinobole (Bunge) Ranjbar & Khalvati , comb. nov. Basionym:— Caccinia actinobole Bunge (1871: 8) . Fig. 1 . Type ( Lectotype designated here):— IRAN . Semnan province : near the city Schahrud [Habitat in praeruptis montium prope urbem Schahrud Persiae borealis mediae transelbrusensis], June 1858 , Bunge & Bienert s.n. ( lectotype P! [P03877514], isolectotypes LE! [LE01043871], LE! [LE01043872], LE! [LE01043873]). FIGURE 1 . Lectotype of Heliocarya actinobole (Bunge) Ranjbar & Khalvati ( Bunge s.n., P03877514) consisting of two different gatherings: the upper specimens collected at “Chorassan, inter Schahrud et Nischapur”—the lower specimens collected at “prope Schahrud” (reproduced with permission). FIGURE 2. Heliocarya actinobole (Bunge) Ranjbar & Khalvati ( Bunge s.n., P03877514). A. aerial parts. B & C . corolla. D . calyx. Description: —Plant perennial; root thick; 20–30 cm tall. Basal leaves, ovate to lanceolate, 20–50 × 5–15 mm , obtuse, tapering into the petiole, with entire, flat or sometimes slightly undulate margins; cauline leaves, obovate to oblong or obovate, 50–80 × 10–18 mm , obtuse or subacute at apex, sessile, attenuate at base, adaxial surface with densely whitish and prominent tubercles, sometimes with short spinules arising from the tubercles, the abaxial surface unevenly strigose, more densely so towards the midrib. Inflorescence dense, cymose-paniculate, with an elongate main axis bearing numerous lateral ones; pedicels short, 2–5 mm long at anthesis; peduncle 2–5 cm long; bracts triangular-ovate, 3–10 mm long. Calyx 4–5 mm long at anthesis, up to 7–8 mm long in fruit, divided entirely to base; lobes triangular to ovate, acute, densely hispid-setose with whitish, patent setae up to 2 mm long. Corolla purplish, tube cylindrical, longer than calyx, 5–8 mm long with obtuse lobes, 2–3 × 1–1.5 mm . Stamens inserted at the upper half of tube, reaching or partly overlapping the lobes; filaments free form each other. Style filiform, 8–10 mm long, exerted; stigma punctiform. Nutlets (mature nutlets not seen) usually 1, flat or low-convex, ovoid to orbicular, 4–6 × 4–5 mm , slightly shiny, margin with very narrow unequally dentate rim, the teeth papillate, with anchor like head. Observations: —The description above is based on the lectotype , Semnan , Iran (P). Phenology: Flowering in April and fruiting in May to (probably) June. Notes: During the study on the family Boraginaceae for the Flora of Iran , as well as the detailed review of the genus Caccinia , it was found that there is no holotype specimen of C. actinobole . Bunge (1871) cited an examined specimen as “Habitat in praeruptis montium prope urbem Schahrud Persiae borealis mediae trans elbrusensis (Bunge & Bienert!). v. v. sp. fl. & c. fr. jun.” in the species protologue. The four specimens are held at LE and P. Since no specific herbarium is mentioned in the original description, the available specimens should be considered as syntypes and according to Art. 9.11 ( McNeill et al. 2012 ) and the species needs lectotypification. One of the LE specimens, collected during the expedition, has no information about date on its label ( Fig. 3.A ) and is thus not appropriate for typification. The remaining specimens include two sheets from LE ( Fig. 3.B & C ) and one sheet from P, and are labeled with the locality and date information ( Fig. 3.D ). Among them, the P specimen includes a mature plant with the nutlets and is a good choice for lectotype . However, the specimen is a mixed sheet of two plant pieces and labeled with two different localities ( Fig. 1 ). Additionally, the date entered on the labels is in conflict with the original description ( Fig. 3.D ). The top piece was collected from “Chorassan, inter Schahrud et Nischapur, Juni 1858 ” and the bottom one from “prope Schahrud, Maj 1858”. So there is an ambiguity in the date and locality of the specimen, which makes it difficult for typification. As all three sheets were labeled in May 1858 (Maj 1858), Bunge probably cited “ Juni 1858 ” instead “Maj 1858” mistakenly in the original description. Thus, the bottom piece of the P specimen (P03877514) is designated as lectotype for the mentioned species ( Fig. 1 ).