Introduction

Within the endemic Malagasy family Sarcolaenaceae, a group of closely related genera have been treated by various authors as either three genera (Leptolaena Thouars, Mediusella (Cavaco) Hutch., and Xerochlamys Baker), or as a single broadly-defined genus under the name Leptolaena. Following an earlier revision of Leptolaena s.s. (Schatz & al., 2001), and in light of an ongoing molecular phylogenetic study of the family (Haevermans, pers. comm.), a recent revision recognizes both Mediusella and Xerochlamys, and clarifies species delimitation in the two genera (Hong-Wa, 2009).

Until now, authorship of three combinations in Xero — chlamys (X. bojeriana, X. diospyroidea, and X. grandidieri) for names originally described in the genus Sarcolaena Thouars by Baillon has been attributed to J. G. Baker. Perrier de la Bâthie (1931) accepted the genus Xerochlamys and mistakenly cited Baker as the author of the three combinations, in each case incorrectly citing their place of publication as “Trim. J. of Bot. 1882: 4”. Cavaco (1952), in adopting Leptolaena s.l., similarly misattributed authorship of the combinations Xerochlamys bojeriana and X. grandidieri to Baker in the same incorrect reference, placing them in synonymy under Leptolaena bojeriana (Baill.) Cavaco and citing their place of publication as “Journ. of Bot. XX 1882: 4”; however, he did not mention the combination Xerochlamys diospyroidea in synonymy under Leptolaena diospyroidea (Baill.) Cavaco. In fact, the current full journal citation for Baker's 1882 publication, which both Perrier and Cavaco incorrectly cited as occurring on page 4, is “Journal of Botany, British and Foreign 20: 45” (standard abbreviation “J. Bot.”; the journal was originally known as “Trimen's Journal of Botany, British and Foreign”, hence Perrier's abbreviation “Trim. J. of Bot.”), where Baker first described the genus Xerochlamys and the species X. pilosa, but made no mention whatsoever of bojeriana, diospyroidea, or grandidieri. These citation errors, both in authorship and place of publication, were perpetuated, when recently Hongwa (2009) also erroneously attributed the three combinations to Baker, incorrectly citing their place of publication as “Journal of the Linnean Society, Botany 25: 296. 1889”, where, in fact, Baker published X. pubescens, but again made no mention of X. bojeriana, X. diospyroidea, or X. grandidieri.

Despite describing these three species in the genus Sarcolaena, Baillon (1886) nevertheless placed them in what he considered to be part of sect. Xerochlamys (Baker) Baill. Schumann (1893) published a treatment of Chlaenaceae in Engler & Prantl's “Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien” in which he recognized the genus Xerochlamys, and associated Baillon's three Sarcolaena names with Xerochlamys, but clearly stated that he did not know the three species and therefore could not pass judgment on their correct placement (“Leider kenne ich jene Arten (Sarcochlaena [Xerochlamys] bojeriana Baill., grandidieri Baill., diospyroidea Baill.) nicht, und kann also uber diese ein Urteil nicht abgeben”. Schumann, 1893: 174), thus not validely publishing the new combinations for the three names in Xerochlamys (Article 34.1 of the ICBN; McNeill & al., 2006). Although Xerochlamys is also recognized as a separate genus from Leptolaena and Sarcolaena in “Index Kewensis” (Volume II, p. 1238; Suppl. i, vi, vii, ix), these epithets initially appeared under Sarcolaena in 1895 and 1906 (Volume II, p. 804; Suppl. i) and later under Leptolaena in 1958 (Suppl. xii), but never as combinations in Xerochlamys.

Gérard (1915) likewise recognized Xerochlamys as a distinct genus; he discussed Baker's description of the genus and two species (X. pilosa and X. pubescens), and implied that Baker also recognized the three Baillon Sarcolaena species as belonging to Xerochlamys (“…le botaniste anglais détachait encore du genre Sarcochlaena, tel que l'avait créé du Petit-Thouars, trois espèces: S. Bojeriana, S. diospyroidea et S. Grandidieri, dont il fit des Xerochlamys”. (Gérard, 1915: 405). Then, on the following page, he goes on to state: “Nous admettons donc qu'il faut classer respectivement dans deux genres les espèces connues ci-après:” (Gérard, 1915: 406), listing species in two columns under either Sarcochlaena [sic] or Xerochlamys, clearly placing bojeriana, diospyroidea, and grandidieri in Xerochlamys, and thus effectively making the new combinations (Articles 33.1, 33.2 and 33.3 of the ICBN; McNeill & al., 2006).

Currently, among the three combinations discussed here, only X. bojeriana and X. diospyroidea are accepted taxa, with X. grandidieri considered to be a synonym of X. bojeriana. The following taxonomic citations serve as corrections for those that appeared in Hong-Wa (2009).

Nomenclature