Callmander, M.W., R.E. Gereau, B. Offroy, C.M. Taylor, L.G. Lohmann, M.T. Strong, L. Biral & J. Calvo (2024). History of plants sent by Jean-Baptiste Leblond to the Société d'histoire naturelle de Paris and typification of names published by Louis Claude Richard in 1792. Candollea 79: 3–52. In English, English abstract. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15553/c2024v791a2
After Jean-Baptiste-Christian Fusée Aublet, the botanist who spent two years in French Guiana (1762–1764) under the auspices of Louis XV, other botanists and naturalists were sent to the region to look for useful plants, among them, Louis Claude Richard and Jean-Baptiste Leblond. The latter sent natural history collections gathered mostly from French Guiana, together with some from the Antilles, to the Société d'histoire naturelle de Paris [SHNP]. These collections were described in 1792 in the Actes de la Société d'histoire naturelle de Paris and the plant material was treated by Richard. At the breakup of the SHNP, Étienne Pierre-Ventenat bought Leblond's original collections, which were deposited in G by the descendants of Benjamin Delessert. Richard's herbarium was subsequently acquired by Emmanuel Drake del Castillo and ultimately bequeathed to P. Most of the names published in the Actes by Richard were listed in his Catalogus Plantarum manuscript dated 1790 and indicated on his own collections now at P. Therefore, original material of the names published in 1792 can be sought in both the first set of Leblond, now at G, and Richard's herbarium at P. Due to in-depth search of original material in G, P, P-LA, and P-JU, we can here provide a comprehensive list of the 143 names (including 5 new genera) validated by Richard in 1792 as well as information on typification and currently accepted names. Among those names, four remain doubtful because no original material has been traced, and 76 names are still in use today either as originally published or as basionyms of later combinations. Lectotypes are designated for 82 names, including 15 for which a second step lectotypification is necessary, plus one neotype. Two new combinations and a replacement name are further published: Fridericia pilulifera (Rich.) L.G. Lohmann & Callm. (Bignoniaceae), Monteverdia ramiflora (Rich.) Biral & Callm. (Celastraceae), and Ouratea richardii Callm. & J. Calvo (Ochnaceae).
Introduction
The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783, ended the Seven Years' War (1756–1763) and weakened France's influence overseas, especially in the Americas where the country lost almost all its possessions. In this context, Louis XV wanted to reinforce France's influence on one of its only remaining territories, Guiana (now French Guiana). Louis-Guillaume Le Monnier (1717–1799), physician of the King, professor of botany at the Jardin du Roi, and an influential figure who sent naturalists around the world to collect exotic plant species that could be acclimatised in France (Jaussaud & Brygoo, 2004), appointed Jean-Baptiste-Christian Fusée Aublet (1723–1778) as the botanist of the King. Fusée Aublet had proved his worth in Mauritius between 1752 and 1761 by creating the Pamplemousses Botanic Garden there in 1753 (Allorge, 2019). He was afterwards sent to French Guiana with the aim of exploring new useful and economically important plants (Allorge et al., 1998). Fusée Aublet spent two years there between 1762 and 1764 and published Histoire des plantes de la Guiane Françoise (FuséE Aublet, 1775) in four volumes, including two containing botanical illustrations. Upon his death, his herbarium was divided and put up for sale with most of the specimens now deposited at BM and P (Stafleu & Cowan, 1976). After Fusée Aublet, other botanists and naturalists were sent to French Guiana to look for useful plants, among them two of particular interest in the context of this contribution: Louis Claude Marie Richard (1754–1821) and Jean-Baptiste Leblond (1747–1815).
Louis Claude Richard was recruited by the Académie des Sciences to explore French Guiana as the “naturaliste du Roi [naturalist of the King]” between 1781 and 1789 (Boiteau, 1976). During this travel, he also visited several islands of the Greater and Lesser Antilles. “La Botanique étant le principal objet de ma mission, le règne végétal sera nécessairement le mieux traité [Botany being the main purpose of my mission, the plant kingdom will necessarily be the best treated].” (BC: Ms Jus 23, no 100 [see lists of unpublished sources below]). Richard sent 61 chests of natural history collections from Martinique to Le Havre in 1789. Among these chests, 29 housed an herbarium of “deux milles cinq cent espèces de plantes dont très peu sont bien connues [two thousand five hundred species of plants of which very few are well known]” (BC: Ms Jus 23, no 100). Richard shipped not only dried specimens, but also spirit collections of flowers and fruits that would prove “l'exactitude de mes dessins et de mes descriptions [the accuracy of my drawings and descriptions]”. Furthermore, Richard had meticously listed all his botanical collections in a manucript dated 1790 that is today preserved in the Bibliothèque centrale in Paris (BC) and named Catalogus Plantarum in Guyanna et Antillis collectarum a Ludovico Claudio Richard: a fine anni 1781, ad medium annum 1789 [Catalogus Plantarum] (BC: Ms 1320) (Fig. 1).
Jean-Baptiste Leblond first sailed for Martinique, where he arrived in 1767 at the age of 19. Leblond left France with no official support, but rather driven by his own curiosity and the new opportunities offered by the Americas (Pouliquen, 2001). He spent nine years in the Antilles, notably in Saint-Vincent, Grenada, and Trinidad before traveling to South America in 1776. He visited Venezuela, Colombia, and Peru, and after having spent two years in Cayenne, in French Guiana, he returned to France in 1785 (POULIQUEN, 2001: fig. 3). With all the knowledge he had acquired, Leblond was sent back to Cayenne in 1787 as the “médecin-naturaliste breveté du Roi [King's certified physician-naturalist]” to find Cinchona officinalis L. (Rubiaceae) in order to free France from the Spanish monopoly on this medicinal plant, at that time the only known febrifuge against malaria. Leblond undertook three expeditions in the interior of French Guiana in 1787, 1788, and 1789 (see maps of his travels in POULIQUEN, 2001: fig. 21, 22, 23) but never found the precious bark of this Andean species, which does not grow naturally in French Guiana. Leblond did, however, gather other natural history collections during his travels. In 1789 he shipped three chests of living trees to the Jardin du Roi (ANOM: COL C14 62 Fo 224, 227 retranscribed by Pouliquen, 2001: 147–149). Leblond also made two further shipments to Paris in 1790 and 1797.
The Société d'histoire naturelle de Paris
In January 1791, Richard joined the Société d'histoire naturelle de Paris [SHNP], which was founded on 27 August 1790, a year after the French revolution in a context of major transformations of the French scientific circle. The SHNP rapidly established itself as a central node for the accumulation and the outflow of naturalistic knowledge (Chappey, 2009). Renowned French naturalists of this period were among the first members of the Société, e.g., René Louiche Desfontaines (1750–1833), Charles Louis l'Héritier de Brutelle (1745–1800), Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck (1744–1829), and André Thouin (1747–1824) (BC: Ms464; see Chappey, 2009). Soon after its foundation, the Société became a place of deposit of natural history collections gathered by its members around Paris and by its correspondants around the world.
Leblond was an early associate of the SHNP and offered “un exemplaire de tous les objets d'histoire naturelle qu'il a ramassé pendant ses voyages dans l'intérieur de la Guyane françoise [a duplicate of all the natural history collections he gathered during his travels in the interior of French Guiana]” (BC: Ms464, session 16, 10 December 1790). The chests sent by Leblond arrived at Paris on 20 January 1792, and the SHNP elected a commission to name the various natural history collections received (BC: Ms464, session 80, 27 January 1792; Fig. 2A). Desfontaines and Lamarck were first named commissioners for naming the botanical specimens, but Richard, Leblond's predecessor in Cayenne, was elected to replace those two botanists at the next session (BC: Ms464, session 81, 3 February 1792) (Fig. 2B).
Fig. 1.
First page of the manuscript Catalogus Plantarum in Guyanna et Antillis collectarum a Ludovico Claudio Richard: a fine anni 1781, ad medium annum 1789 in Louis Claude Richard's hand dated 1790. [Ms 1320; © Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Bibliothèque centrale, Paris]
The SHNP decided to publish the descriptions of the various natural history collections sent by Leblond in the first and only issue of the Actes de la Société d'histoire naturelle de Paris [Actes] (BC: Ms464, session 86, 9 March 1792). Besides the plants described by Richard (1792; Fig. 3), Brongniart (1792) described the mammals, Richard & Bernard (1792) the birds, Olivier (1792) the insects, and Brugière (1792) the shells; all authors were members of the SHNP.
Étienne-Pierre Ventenat (1757–1808), an early member of the SHNP and later the botanist of Empress Joséphine, had an important personal herbarium that contained 14,000–15,000 collections. Besides the plants cultivated in Cels's and Joséphine's gardens and described in his three flower books (Ventenat, 1800–1803, 1803–1805, 1803–1808; see Callmander et al., 2017), he also acquired collections through his correspondents and purchases. At the breakup of the SHNP, Ventenat bought Leblond's first set of specimens that was curated by Richard. This herbarium comprised four boxes that were “disposées suivant le système de Linnaeus, conformément au catalogue imprimé [arranged according to the system of Linnaeus, in accordance with the printed catalogue]” (Ventenat, 1808: 74). Upon his death, Ventenat's library and herbarium were auctioned in Paris between 25 April and 2 May 1810. Benjamin Delessert (1773–1847), a botany enthusiast, philanthropist and wealthy banker and industrialist, bought this herbarium. After Delessert's death in 1847, his herbarium, one of the largest private herbaria of that time, was bequeathed to the City of Geneva in 1869 by his descendants (Callmander et al., 2017). This herbarium is now the core of the general herbarium of the Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques in Geneva (G).
Nothing was clearly known about all the purchasers of Ventenat's prestigious library, which was carefully depicted in a catalogue released in December 1808 (Ventenat, 1808). On page 61 of this catalogue, the first volume of the Actes de la Société d'histoire naturelle de Paris has the selling number 502, with the note “M. Ventenat y a joint le catalogue manuscrit des plantes données à la Société par M. Leblond, décrit par M. de la Marck [M. Ventenat has attached to it the handwritten catalogue of plants given to the Society by M. Leblond, described by M. de la Marck]”. For this present contribution, tracing Ventenat's personal copy of the Actes was a priority. The first author discovered that part of his library was bought by Charles Joseph Emmanuel van Hulthem (1764–1832), a bibliophile from the Low Countries (Austrian Netherlands, later Belgium) whose collection of books provided the first core of the Royal Library of Belgium [KBR] (VOISIN, 1836–1837). A copy of Ventenat's catalogue annotated with auction prices and buyers is still kept in Brussels (KBR: VH21.657), revealing that Ventenat's personal copy of the Actes, including the handwritten catalogue of Leblond's herbarium, was sold to “M. Laloi” (Fig. 4). This mysterious person is most likely Mr. Laloi or Laloy, bookseller in Paris at Passage Feydeau (see for example Lemercier, 1798). The catalogue of Leblond's herbarium in Ventenat's hand will sadly probably never be traced.
Richard's botanical legacy
Louis Claude Richard's collections from the “Guyane Françoise et les petites Antilles” were kept as a separate part of the family herbarium by his son Achille, as proved by the enumeration of the contents when the Richard father and son's herbarium was put up for sale in 1856. This part of the herbarium also contained drawings and analyses made by Louis Claude and represented c. 2,664 species and very numerous specimens (Hooker, 1856). The Richard herbarium was bought by Albert Belhomme de Franqueville (1814–1891) for 10,000 francs (Anon., 1856). Franqueville's herbarium was subsequently acquired by Emmanuel Drake del Castillo (1855–1904) around 1891 (Bureau, 1904). Ultimately, Drake's very rich herbarium containing c. 500,000 specimens was bequeathed to the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle in Paris (P) in 1904 (Le Bras et al., 2017). Some specimens of the Richard herbarium were also offered to Louis Claude and Achille's contemporary botanists, and are now deposited in various herbaria in Europe, e.g., BR, C, FI, G, W (see Stafleu & Cowan, 1983).
Richard did not publish much after returning to France in 1789. Lacroix (1932) suggested that he did not like to write, but rather to observe and draw. The truth is probably more complex. In a short manuscript notice presented to the Académie des Sciences in June 1789, Richard enumerated the various natural history collections that he brought back from his travels and his aim to write “un ouvrage considérable pour lequel j'ai recueilli tous ces materiaux [a considerable work for which I collected all these materials]” (BC: Ms 3522). Richard was sent to French Guiana under Louis XV, but the political changes in France during that period meant that his former protectors were eventually unable to cover the costs of his travel (ANOM: col. E 350bis, see also Jandin, 1994–1995). Despite several attempts, Richard never received what was owed to him (Bourzat, 2009), and without financial means he was not able to dedicate the necessary time for writing the report of his work, but rather had to provide the necessities of his own family (Jandin, 1994–1995).
Consequently, most of the plant names in his Catalogus Plantarum manuscript remained unpublished, except for the 143 names (5 genera and 138 species) based on the Leblond collections. These names were published in the Actes as commissioned by the SHNP. On one of the last pages of the Catalogus Plantarum, Richard wrote a summary of all his observations with a total of 165 new genera and c. 1,800 new species (Fig. 5). Ultimately, he published very few of these taxa and his protologues for these in the Actes (Fig. 3) are quite cursory in comparison to the notes in his collections. His notes are a rich source of information, usually with very complete descriptions and often also fine drawings (Fig. 6, 7). His son Achille Richard (1794–1852), who worked under more favorable professional circumstances and consequently was much more prolific, did publish some of his father's work posthumously.
Historical context and original material of the names published by Richard in the Actes
As discussed by Pruski (1998), the type status of Leblond's specimens at G and P have received disparate treatments over time and by various authors. The first author was encouraged in the past to consider the first set of Leblond's collections now in G as holotypes (Caire & Proença, 2015; Hassemer, 2020; Taylor et al., 2020). However, the discovery of Louis Claude's Catalogus Plantarum manuscript and its careful study shows that 84 manuscript species names (out of 138) were already listed in 1790, two years before he studied the Leblond collections now at G. Furthermore, most of the names validated in the Actes by Richard were written in his own hand on his collections from Guiana and the Antilles now at P (Fig. 6–8), and in a few cases added as succinct notes in his Catalogus Plantarum.
In the light of these insights, it is not possible to regard Leblond's first set as the only original material used by Richard to describe the names in the Actes. One could argue that in the absence of any material in Richard's own herbarium, the Leblond collections now at G should be considered as holotypes, but a thorough search in the various herbaria known to hold Richard's collections would be difficult (see Stafleu & Cowan, 1983). Another possibility would be to conclude that the 54 names that do not appear in the Catalogus Plantarum manuscript were only discovered when Richard studied Leblond's material in 1792. Again, this is difficult to support since Richard may have changed his mind in choosing some specific epithets or genus names already having a provisional determination in his herbarium, or reviewed his own specimens in more detail to find these additional taxa. We here revise our previous assessment (Caire & Proença, 2015; Hassemer, 2020; Taylor et al., 2020), and now consider Leblond's specimens and the material in Richard's herbarium as original material of the names published by Richard in 1792 following Art. 9.4 of the International Code of Nomenclature (Turland et al., 2018), cited as ICN hereafter.
Fig. 3.
First page of Richard's article published in the Actes de la Société d'histoire naturelle de Paris in 1792.
[Bibliothèque des Conservatoire et Jardin Botaniques, Genève]
Fig. 4.
Top of page 61 of the annotated copy of the Catalogue des livres de la bibliothèque de feu M.E.P. Ventenat, botaniste de Sa Majesté l'Impératrice et Reine deposited at the Bibliothèque royale de Belgique.
[VH21.657; © Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, Bruxelles]
It is also noteworthy that duplicates of Leblond's collection in Lamarck's herbarium (P-LA) were available to Richard and are therefore also part of the original material, as evidenced by several annotations in the Catalogus Plantarum manuscript as “vid. herb. Lamarck”. The Leblond collections now in P-LA are unnumbered and/or undated. We know from a single case (see Urena heterophylla Rich. [no 59], Malvaceae) that Lamarck received this collection before 1788. It is probable that the Leblond collections now in P-LA are duplicates of the series sent by Leblond to the SHNP but that they were sent earlier through other paths.
In a list of plants sent from Cayenne by Leblond to the Muséum in Paris on 7 June 1797, we understand that each of his collections was made in several duplicates. He meticulously numbered his collections and kept some duplicates with him in Guiana (BIF: Ms 2450). This way of working was most likely the same for the plants sent five years earlier to the SHNP. Therefore, when the numbering of a Leblond specimen deposited at P does not match the one at G, the former specimen is not considered as original material. These uncertainties would have partly been dismissed if the handwritten catalogue of Leblond's herbarium (which was part of Ventenat's personal copy of the Actes) received by the SHNP in 1792 had been located.
When necessary, we have designated lectotypes from among the uncited specimens that clearly belong to original material (following Art. 9.3, 9.12). Additional specimens available to Richard are cited here as “other original material”. Despite the fact that uncited original material cannot be considered as syntypes following Art. 9.6, this material has nevertheless been annotated as such by MWC and JC in G and P for practical reasons and databasing. Nonetheless, names published by Richard in the Actes should be as far as possible typified on Leblond's collection at G, since these specimens represent Leblond's first set collection as revealed by the original labels and numeration that they bear (see above).
Drawings and descriptions made by Louis Claude are still attached to several of his collections at P (Fig. 6, 7), whereas others have very scanty annotations on separated labels (Fig. 8). In some cases, the printed label “Louis Claude Richard. Herbarium Guyanensi-Antillanum”, which was added when his herbarium was incorporated at P, is found with no further handwriting by Louis Claude. The Richard family herbarium is known to include specimens by many collectors (see Stafleu & Cowan, 1983), but in most cases it is impossible to trace collectors of individual specimens. A few recent annotations on labels indicate the assumption that some of Leblond's specimens were incorporated in Richard's herbarium, but this is erroneous in all cases. After having seen and studied all the available original material, we have encountered only a single case in which a printed Leblond label in P is glued on a collection orginating from Richard's herbarium (see under Lecythis pedicellata Rich. [no 43], Lecythidaceae), and we conclude that this was most likely by error. To avoid unsupported conjecture, we do not consider any of the collections deposited in Richard's herbarium to have been collected by Leblond.
Concluding remarks
Interpreting correctly the ICN is essential in such an endeavour. Prior to 1 January 2001, ICN Art. 7.11 rules that “for purposes of priority, designation of a type is achieved only if the type is definitely accepted as such by the typifying author, if the type element is clearly indicated by direct citation including the term “type” (typus) or an equivalent”. Because the historical background of the names published by Richard based on the Leblond material in 1792 has mostly been misunderstood, some inaccurate typifications made before 2001 cannot be accepted following Art. 7.11 because of the clear unawareness on the part of the typifying authors of the complicated nature of the original material used by Richard and the names published in 1792 in the Actes (see ICN recommendations 9A.1 and 9A.2 and the case of Nepeta mutabilis Rich. [no 39], Lamiaceae).
Fig. 5.
Page 485 of the manuscript Catalogus Plantarum in Guyanna et Antillis collectarum a Ludovico Claudio Richard: a fine anni 1781, ad medium annum 1789 in Louis Claude Richard's hand dated 1790. [Ms 1320; © Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Bibliothèque centrale, Paris]
Fig. 6.
Lectotype of Panicum tenax Rich. in P.
[Richard s.n., P02246938; © Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris]
Fig. 7.
Lectotype of Bignonia tomentosa Rich. in P.
[Richard s.n., P02848257; © Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris]
Fig. 8.
Lectotype of Lophidium latifolium Rich. in P.
[Richard s.n., P00573989; © Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris]
Nevertheless, typifications by previous authors were accepted for 65 names (in majority following ICN Art. 9.10 in agreement with Art. 7.11, 9.22, and 9.23). Among those, 15 required a second step lectotype designation as provided in Art. 9.17. Only 8 names out of the 50 previously typified required further explanations, i.e., Blondea latifolia Rich. [no 36] (Elaeocarpaceae), Cyperus planifolius Rich. [no 4] (Cyperaceae), Epidendrum labiosum Rich. [no 13] and E. macrocarpum Rich. [no 14] (Orchidaceae), Eugenia polystachya Rich. [no 67] (Myrtaceae), Gomphia guyannensis Rich. [no 70] (Ochnaceae), Panicum myosuron Rich. [no 17] (Poaceae), and Solanum juripeba Rich. [no 91] (Solanaceae). Those are presented below and the other are detailed in the Appendix. In total, lectotypes are designated for 82 names, including 15 second step lectotype designations. One neotype is also designated. These are presented below by alphabetical order of families within the main groups Pteridophyta, Monocotyledons, and Dicotyledons. All the names, including those previously typified by other authors, are listed in the Appendix.
Richard (1792) published five genera in the Actes: Blondea Rich. (= Sloanea L., Elaeocarpaceae), Lophidium Rich. (= Schizaea Sm., Schizaeaceae), Nematospermum Rich. (= Lacistema Sw., Lacistemataceae), Patrisa Rich. (= Ryania Vahl, Salicaceae), and Markea Rich. (Solanaceae), the only one that is currently accepted. In three cases, Richard published a new species name but provided in synonymy a monotypic genus published by Fusée Aublet (1775). In these cases, Richard's name is an illegitimate superfluous name to be typified on the Fusée Aublet original material: Pterocarpus apalatoa Rich. (≡ Crudia spicata (Aubl.) Schreb. ex Forsyth f., Leguminosae), Samyda iroucana Rich. (≡ Casearia guianensis (Aubl.) Urb., Salicaceae), and Terminalia tabibouca Rich. (= T. dichotoma G. Mey., Combretaceae). Richard also published two nomenclaturally superfluous replacement names that are illegitimate under ICN Art. 52.1: Gaultheria sphagnicola Rich. (= Gaultheria domingensis Urb., Ericaceae) and Laurus ocotea Rich. (≡ Ocotea guianensis Aubl., Lauraceae). Among the 138 species names that were validated in the Actes, four remain doubtful because no original material has been traced and 76 (55 %) names of taxa are still in use today either as originally published or as basionyms of later combinations.
Not all the species described in the Actes were collected in French Guiana. Cassia nitida Rich. (≡ Senna nitida (Rich.) H.S. Irwin & Barneby, Leguminosae) is, for example, endemic to the Antilles and its original material was collected by Richard during his travel to these islands between 1786 and 1787. Some of Leblond's collections were also collected in the Lesser Antilles during his travels to those islands. This is clearly the case for Justicia brachiata Rich. [no 21] (= Odontonema nitidum (Jacq.) Kuntze, Acanthaceae) and Cyperus planifolius Rich. [no 4] (Cyperaceae), which does not occur in French Guiana. These Leblond collections were probably collected in Martinique, as we located several Leblond collections on which this island is clearly indicated as the provenance of the material (see for example Trichomanes crispum L. in P-LA [P00565001]). A total of eight names are based on original material originating from Richard's herbarium that was not collected in French Guiana (Appendix).
Two new combinations and one replacement name are further published herein: Fridericia pilulifera (Rich.) L.G. Lohmann & Callm. (Bignoniaceae), Monteverdia ramiflora (Rich.) Biral & Callm. (Celastraceae), and Ouratea richardii Callm. & J. Calvo (Ochnaceae).
Materials and methods
The first author made a thorough search for Leblond original material in G. The typical footer labels are easily recognizable and some collections bear Leblond's descriptions (Fig. 9). Most specimens have a printed label dated 1792, the year they arrived at the SHNP and were described in the Actes. Very few bear a collecting date. However, the lectotypes of Combretum rotundifolium Rich. [no 33] and Terminalia nitidissima Rich. [no 34] (both Combretaceae) have labels indicating that they were collected in August 1789 while Leblond was traveling upstream the Oyapok river during his third expedition in the mainland of French Guiana (Pouliquen, 2001).
MWC, BO, and JC also investigated the general herbarium in P, including the historical herbaria P-LA and P-JU. We also received images from C and W. For 27 names, no Leblond original material has been traced in G. For these names, if a lectotypification is needed, original material at P collected either by Leblond or Richard has been used. In a few cases, the G material was poor and the best-preserved material at P was chosen as lectotype over G (see for example the case of Bignonia tomentosa Rich. [no 28], Bignoniaceae).
Additionally, herbarium virtual databases helped to trace original material, including specimens from G (CHG, 2024), F (Botanical Collections, 2024), FI (Parlatore, 2024), MPU and P (Recolnat, 2024; Sonnerat, 2024), W (Jacq, 2024), and JSTOR (2024a). Online name databases were essential to trace synonymies, including International Plant Names Index (IPNI, 2024), TROPICOS (2024), Plants of the World Online (POWO, 2024), and World Flora Online (WFO, 2024). All of the literature was consulted at the library of the Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques in Geneva (Swisscovery VDG, 2024) and online via BHL (2024), whereas unpublished sources were retreived through online databases, i.e., Archives nationales d'outre-mer (ANOM, 2024), Archives of the Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques in Geneva (Archives CJBG, 2024), Calames (2024), and the Bibliothèque royale de Belgique (KBR, 2024).
Nomenclature
Pteridophytes
Schizaeaceae
1. Lophidium latifolium Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 114. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: “ad saltum amnis Kourou” [in the ravine of Kourou stream], s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00573989]!) (Fig. 8).
= Schizaea elegans (Vahl) Sw.
Notes. – Lellinger (1989: 97) cited the type as “French Guiana, Le Blond s.n. (P? not seen)”. No Leblond original material has been located in G or P. Cremers & Boudrie (2007: 34–35) located a specimen in Richard's herbarium at P but did not typify the name.This single element of original material in Richard's herbarium is designated here as the lectotype.
Monocotyledons Cyperaceae
2. Cyperus brizaeus Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Strong): French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Leblond 40 (P [P00582079]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00582078]!).
= Cyperus surinamensis Rottb.
Notes. – Cyperus brizaeus was not treated by Kuekenthal (1935–1936) in his monograph of Cyperus L. nor was it cited by Koyama (1979) for the Lesser Antilles or Strong & Acevedo-Rodríguez (2012) for the West Indies. However, it is currently being treated in on-line databases as a synonym of C. planifolius Rich., a species with its center of distribution in the West Indies that is not currently known to occur in French Guiana. The origin of this application is unknown.
However, the discovery of original material of Cyperus brizaeus shows it to be a new synonym of C. surinamensis, a species widely distributed in the Neotropics. Leblond 40 at P from French Guiana is designated here as the lectotype.
3. Cyperus conoideus Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Strong): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 437 (G [G00341789]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00563632]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00542048, P00800372]!).
= Cyperus luzulae (L.) Retz.
Notes. – Leblond 437 at G is designated here as the lectotype with a probable duplicate in P-LA. Two specimens originating from Richard's herbarium have also been located at P and are considered as other original material.
4. Cyperus planifolius Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated by Koyama, 1979: 268): U.S. Virgin Islands: [St Croix], “in rivulo horti Dui [?] v. Rohr [in a small stream in the garden of Dr. [?] v. Rohr]”, [1786–1787], s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00251255]!). Other original material: Lesser Antilles: sine loco, [1767 – 1773], Leblond 433 (G [G00341807]!). British Virgin Islands: Tortola, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00251256]!). U.S. Virgin Islands: “St Croix”, [1786–1787], s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00614611, P00251241, P00251242, P00251243, P00251244]!).
Notes. – The original material of Cyperus planifolius Rich. was collected by Richard in the island of Saint Croix and by Leblond in the Lesser Antilles. Koyama (1979: 268) cited the type as “von Rohr, French Guiana, Cayenne”. Julius von Rohr (1737 – 1793) was a Danish botanist known to have made the first collection of nutmeg (Myristica fragrans Houtt.) in America in 1784 (Zumbroich, 2005) and established a botanical garden on the island of St. Croix in 1773 when he was appointed government land surveyor in the Danish West Indies (now U.S. Virgin Islands) (JSTOR, 2024b). Von Rohr corresponded with several naturalists and is known to have given plants to Richard while the latter was visiting St. Croix (see lectotype of Dysodium divaricatum Rich., P02441548). A single specimen in Richard's herbarium mentions von Rohr's garden and consequently, Koyama's type citation is treated as an error to be corrected to lectotype following ICN Art. 9.10.
More recently, Adams (1994: 429) cited the type as “Leblond s.n.” and Strong & Acevedo-Rodríguez (2012: 269) considered a Richard s.n. specimen at P to be the type.
5. Cyperus scopellatus Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Strong): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 434 (G [G00341805]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00254684]!).
= Cyperus polystachyos Rottb.
Notes. – Three collections at P [P00254685, P00254686, P00254687] have recently been annotated with a pen as Leblond specimens.There is no evidence that those specimens were collected by Leblond and, therefore, are not considered here as original material for Cyperus scopellatus. Strong & Acevedo-Rodríguez (2012: 269) considered a Leblond s.n. specimen at P to be the type but no lectotypification was made. Therefore, Leblond 434 deposited at G is designated here as the lectotype.
6. Schoenus holoschoenoides Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
≡ Rhynchospora holoschoenoides (Rich.) Herter
Lectotypus (first step designated by Thomas, 1992: 42; second step designated here by Callmander & Strong): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 36 (P [P00265907]!; isolecto-: P [P00265908]!, P-LA [P00563513]!).
Notes. – No original material of Schoenus holoschoenoides has been located in G. Thomas (1992: 42, 1994: 421) cited a Leblond s.n. specimen in P as the holotype. Two Leblond collections are deposited in P and the better preserved specimen [P00265907] is formally designated here as the second step lectotype.
Strong (2006: 207) and Strong & Acevedo-Rodríguez (2012: 287) considered the specimen Leblond 36 at P to be the holotype.
7. Scirpus longifolius Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
≡ Hypolytrum longifolium (Rich.) Nees
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Strong): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 426 (G [G00341834]!).
Notes. – Koyama (1970: 71) considered the type collection to be in P. No original material has been located in P. Interestingly, this name does not appear in Richard's Catalogus, so it is probable that Richard never collected it. Leblond 426 deposited at G is designated here as the lectotype.
With the discovery of original material, the taxonomy of Hypolytrum longifolium changes from that circumscribed by Koyama (1967, 1970) and subsequent authors. Hypolytrum sylvaticum Poepp. ex Kunth becomes a new synonym of H. longifolium and H. fuscum Nees becomes the earliest available name for the plant wrongly treated as H. longifolium by Koyama and subsequent authors.
8. Scirpus reptans Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
≡ Rhynchospora reptans (Rich.) Boeckeler
Lectotypus (first step designated by THOMAS, 1984: 45; second step designated here by Callmander & Strong): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00271547]!; isolecto-: C [C10010602] image!, P [P00271548]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00563531]!).
Notes. – No original material of Scirpus reptans has been located in G. Thomas (1984: 45) cited the type as “Domino Le blond s.n., P, holotype, not seen”. Thomas did in fact annotate the sheet P00271547 in 1984 as “W. Thomas!”, although it is likely impossible to know if this occurred before or after the cited publication. This specimen was collected by Richard and not by Leblond as cited by Thomas. This type citation is treated as an error to be corrected following ICN Art. 9.10, but a second step typification is still needed to restrict the lectotype to one specimen. Therefore, the best-preserved material bearing a description and line drawings by Richard, i.e., P00271547, is designated here as the lectotype.
9. Scleria gracilis Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 113. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Strong): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 432 (G [G00341808]!). Other original material: Haiti: “Saint-Domingue”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00274865]!). U.S. Virgin Islands: St Croix, [1786–1787], Richard s.n. (P [P00274855]!); St. Thomas, [1786–1787], P-JU [P00668893]!). Sine loco: s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00274860]!).
= Scleria lithosperma (L.) Sw.
Notes. – Core (1936: 27) treated Scleria gracilis as a synonym of S. lithosperma and cited the type material as “Type locality, French Guiana (Leblond)”. This was later followed verbatim by Koyama (1965: 59). The only original material collected by Leblond is deposited at G and designated here as the lectotype. Four specimens at P in Richard's herbarium represent uncited original material. Only P00668893 bears the name S. gracilis in Jussieu's hand.
10. Scleria interrupta Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 113. 1792.
Lectotypus (first step designated by Raynal, 1976: 17; second step designated here by Callmander & Strong): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond s.n. (P [P00169709]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond 425 (G [G00341790]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00169971]!).
Notes. – Core (1936: 13) cited the type material of Scleria interrupta as “Type Locality: French Guiana (Leblond)”. This was later followed verbatim by Koyama (1965: 57). Strong & Acevedo-Rodríguez (2012: 296) considered a Leblond s.n. collection at P to be the holotype following Raynal (1976), who cited the type as “Leblond s.n., Guyane française (holo-, P!; iso, P!, B)”. The two specimens annotated as “type” by Raynal in P actually represent other original material because P00169971 was collected by Richard and P00169709 by Leblond. The latter specimen is designated here as the second step lectotype because it is better preserved than the probable isolectotype at G numbered Leblond 425.
Heliconiaceae
11. Heliconia ballia Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond 413 (G [G00341784]!).
= Heliconia psittacorum L. f.
Notes. – Maas (1985: 17) cited a Richard collection at P as type and Andersson (1985: 50) designated this collection as lectotype. P00438490 has “leg. Leblond” subsequently added to the specimen and does not represent original material because it was not collected either by Leblond or Richard, but rather by Joseph Martin (c. 1760–1826) (see for example original material of the name Casearia martinii Benoist in P [P00789991]). On this basis, Andersson's use of the term “lectotype” should be corrected to “neotype” according to ICN Art. 9.10. Since we found a specimen that certainly corresponds to original material, the previous typification is superseded (ICN Art. 9.19). We therefore designate here Leblond 413 at G as the lectotype.
Orchidaceae
12. Epidendrum biserrum Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 112 [105]. 1792.
≡ Lockhartia biserra (Rich.) Christenson & Garay
Lectotypus (first step designated by Christenson, 1996: 17; second step designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00456058]!; isolecto-: P [P00456059]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 414 (G [G00343718]!).
Notes. – Christenson (1996: 17) considered a specimen in Richard's herbarium at P as the holotype without further specifications. This citation of original material of Epidendrum biserrum as the holotype should be followed and corrected to lectotype (ICN Art. 7.11, 9.10).
Since two specimens originating from Richard's herbarium are kept at P, we designate here the better preserved material with a description in Richard's hand as the second step lectotype. Other original material of Epidendrum biserrum is deposited at G, i.e., Leblond 414.
13. Epidendrum labiosum Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 112 [105]. 1792.
≡ Zygosepalum labiosum (Rich.) Garay
Lectotypus (designated by Szlachetko et al., 2012: 293): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00612111]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 417 (G [G00341795]!). Probable original material: Leblonds.n. (P-LA [P00382678]!).
Notes. – Szlachetko et al. (2012: 293) cited “Type (here designated): French Guiana, s.n. (lectotype: P!)”. This specimen was collected by Richard and bears a description in his hand. Two Leblond specimens are deposited in G and P-LA.
14. Epidendrum macrocarpum Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 112 [105]. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated by Szlachetko et al., 2012: 147): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (W [W0215253] image!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 85 (G [G00413518]!).
Notes. – No material of Epidendrum macrocarpum has been located at P. A fragment packet on a Leblond s.n. specimen in P-LA [P00382676] may contain leaves of this species (Sambin, pers. comm.). Szlachetko et al. (2012: 147) designated a specimen at W presumably collected by Leblond as the lectotype. This specimen was collected by Richard and bears a description in his hand.
A poorly preserved specimen collected by Leblond has been located at G and is therefore considered as other original material.
15. Epidendrum marginatum Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 112 [105]. 1792.
≡ Muscarella marginata (Rich.) Luer
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 447 (G [G00341794]!).
Notes. – Luer (2006: 112) cited a Richard specimen at W as the holotype, but no specimen has been traced at W (Polansky, pers. comm.). More recently, Luer (2023: 448) cited a Leblond specimen at G as the holotype. This collection is formally designated here as the lectotype.
Szlachetko et al. (2012: 182) designated a Leblond specimen at P as the lectotype but this collection does not exist.
The accepted name for Epidendrum marginatum indicated above follows Luer (2006, 2023).
Poaceae
16. Panicum cenchroides Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): Martinique: “Divi Petri [Saint-Pierre]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P01939064]!; isolecto-: P [P01939061]!).
= Cenchrus setosus Sw.
Notes. – Judziewicz (1990: 518) cited the type of Panicum cenchroides as “French Guiana, Cayenne, Leblond s.n. (holotype P not seen)”. Judziewicz's type citation is not considered as an error to be corrected (following ICN Art. 9.10) because there is no specimen of Leblond deposited in P. Furthermore, none of the Richard collections at P originate from French Guiana.
The better preserved material bearing a description and drawings in Richard's hand is designated here as the lectotype. No Leblond material has been located at G or P.
17. Panicum myosuron Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792 [nom. illeg., superfl.]
≡ Panicum myuron Lam., Tabl. Encycl. 1: 172. 1791. ≡ Sacciolepis myuros (Lam.) Chase, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 21: 7, fig. 4. 1908.
Lectotypus (designated by Judziewicz, 1990: 572): French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00563880]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond 447 (G [G00341793]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02238870, P02238873, P02238874]!).
Notes. – As the type of Panicum myosuron, Judziewicz (1990: 572) cited “Type: French Guiana, Cayenne, Leblond s.n. (holotype P not seen, fragment and photograph US!)”. As the type of P. myuron Lam., Judziewicz cited “Leblond s.n. (Holotype P-LA)”; a single specimen collected by Leblond is deposited in P-LA but not in the general herbarium at P. A second Leblond specimen at G numbered 447 represents a probable duplicate. Since Judziewicz's type citation for P. myuron is considered as an error to be corrected to lectotype, the three Richard specimens at P represent other original material.
18. Panicum tenax Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
≡ Setaria tenax (Rich.) Desv.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02246938]!; isolecto-: P [P02246937, P02246946]!).
Notes. – Judziewicz (1990: 593) considered as holotype a specimen at FI [FI012316]. This type citation cannot be accepted as the specimen originates from Desfontaines' herbarium and does not represent original material. Renvoize (1998: 523) cited a Leblond s.n. as holotype in P but no original material of Leblond has been located either in G or P. The lectotype designated here in Richard's herbarium at P bears a drawing made by Richard (Fig. 6).
Smilacaceae
19. Smilax cordato-ovata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 113. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond 397 (G [G00090068]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00603658, P00603659, P00603660, P00603661, P00603662]!).
= Smilax cuspidata Poir.
Notes. – The name Smilax cordato-ovata is lectotypified on the single Leblond specimen that we located, which is deposited at G. This species seems to be restricted to French Guiana (Berry in Boggan et al., 1997).
Xyridaceae
20. Xyris jupicai Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 407 (G [G00177676]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00253194]!).
Notes. – Kral (1994: 53) cited the type as: “Cayenne, Leblond (lectotype P)” but no specimen of Leblond is extant at P or P-LA. Lisa M. Campbell rightly annotated a Richard s.n. specimen at P [P00253194] as “The type is J.B. Leblond 407 (G)”. This latter specimen at G is formally designated here as the lectotype.
Dicotyledons
Acanthaceae
21. Justicia brachiata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 105. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): Lesser Antilles: sine loco, s.d., Leblond 391 (G [G00341792]!). Other original material: Antigua and Barbuda: Antigua, [1786–1787], Richard s.n. (P [P02899200]!). Guadeloupe: “Bouillantes”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02899203, P02899219]!).
= Odontonema nitidum (Jacq.) Kuntze
Notes. – Justicia brachiata was not treated by Howard (1989a). Leblond 391 at G, part of the original set, is designated here as the lectotype. Several uncited original material in Richard's herbarium have been located in P.
This species does not occur in French Guiana, so it is reasonable to assume that Leblond collected it somewhere in the Lesser Antilles.
22. Justicia membranacea Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 105. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 394 (G [G00341815]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond s.n. (MPU [MPU019860]). Other original material: French Guiana: “Ad Montabo [in Montabo]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02845276]!).
= Justicia polystachia Lam.
Notes. – Wasshausen (2006: 68) cited Leblond 394 as the holotype of Justicia membranacea in G-DEL, which is an inaccurate reference to the general herbarium at G. This specimen is formally designated here as the lectotype.
Justicia polystachia was based on Leblond s.n. originating from Thouin's herbarium now at MPU (see Callmander et al., 2019; Fig. 10). The latter specimen may represent an isolectotype of J. membranacea.
23. Ruellia inflata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 272 (G [G00236480]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P03047370]!).
Notes. – Wasshausen (2006: 117) cited Leblond 272 as the holotype of Ruellia inflata in G-DC. This specimen, deposited in G but not in G-DC, is formally designated here as the lectotype.
24. Ruellia longifolia Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 271 (G [G00236479]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00650127]!).
Notes. – Wasshausen (2006: 118) cited Leblond 271 as the holotype of Ruellia longifolia in G-DC. This specimen deposited at G is formally designated here as the lectotype.
Bignoniaceae
25. Bignonia candicans Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792.
≡ Fridericia candicans (Rich.) L.G. Lohmann
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Lohmann): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 290 (G [G00008805]!); isolecto-: (F [F0361413F] image!). Other original material: French Guiana: “Matoury”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02848617, P02848618]!).
Notes. – Lohmann & Taylor (2014: 433) considered Leblond 290 at G as the holotype. This specimen is formally designated here as the lectotype.
26. Bignonia tomentosa Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792 [nom. illeg., non Thunb. 1784].
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Lohmann): French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02848257]!; isolecto-: P [P02848254]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 292 (G [G00341809]!).
= Fridericia mollis (Vahl) L.G. Lohmann
Notes. – Leblond 292 deposited at G is a poor specimen compared to one of Richard's specimens at P bearing a complete description and drawings in his hand. P02848257 is therefore designated here as the lectotype (Fig. 7).
27. Bignonia pilulifera Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 111. 1792.
≡ Fridericia pilulifera (Rich.) L.G. Lohmann & Callm., comb. nov.
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Lohmann): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 294 (G [G00009274]!).
= Arrabidaea tuberculata DC. in A. DC., Prodr. 9: 184. 1845. ≡ Fridericia tuberculata (DC.) L.G. Lohmann, Cat. Pl. Fung. Brasil 1: 766. 2010 [nom. inval.].
≡ Fridericia tuberculata (DC.) L.G. Lohmann in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 99: 446. 2014, syn. nov. Holotypus: BRAZIL. Pará: sine loco, s.d., von Martius s.n. (G-DC [G00133384]!).
Notes. – The only known original material of Bignonia pilulifera, deposited at G, is designated here as the lectotype (Fig. 9).
Lohmann & Taylor (2014: 446) were not aware of the existence of the name Bignonia pilulifera Rich. [1792] when publishing the new combination Fridericia tuberculata (DC.) L.G. Lohmann for Arrabidaea tuberculata DC. [1845]. The discovery of the original material of Richard's name at G confirmed that Bignonia pilulifera is an earlier name for that species, of which the epithet has priority of publication. The new combination Fridericia pilulifera is therefore published here.
Fig. 10.
Holotype of Justicia polystachia Lam. and probable isolectotype of J. membranacea Rich. in MPU. [Leblond s.n., MPU019860; © Université de Montpellier – Herbier MPU (SPH)]
28. Bignonia pyramidata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792.
≡ Tanaecium pyramidatum (Rich.) L.G. Lohmann
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Lohmann): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond 292 (P-LA [2-part specimen: P00358235, P00358236]!). Other original material: French Guiana: “in ripis fluvii Kourou [on the banks of the river Kourou]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P03576047, P03576048, P03576049]!).
Notes. – FRAZÃO & Lohmann (2019: 445) considered P00358235 collected by Leblond as the holotype. Leblond 292 mounted on two sheets at P is formally designated here as the lectotype.
Celastraceae
29. Hippocratea obovata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 210 (G [G00355861]!; isolecto-: F [F0041151F fragm.] image!). Other original material: French Guiana: “in ripis fluvii Kourou [on the banks of the river Kourou]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P06392870, P06392876]!).
= Salacia multiflora (Lam.) DC.
Notes. – Lombardi (2014: 140) considered Leblond 210 at G as the holotype. This specimen is formally designated here as the lectotype.
30. Rhamnus ramiflora Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
≡ Monteverdia ramiflora (Rich.) Biral & Callm., comb. nov.
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & Biral): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 242 (G [G00341942]!).
Notes. – The name Rhamnus ramiflora (published as “Rhamnus ? ramiflorus”) was a forgotten name, until we found the original material of Leblond at G in the Celastraceae undetermined material. This specimen is the only known original material and is designated here as the lectotype.
Biral et al. (2017) have shown based on phylogenetic inferences that Monteverdia A. Rich. and Maytenus Molina should be considered as two distinct genera. Careful study of Leblond 242 has shown that Rhamnus ramiflora undoubtedly represents a Monteverdia species and a new combination is provided here. Monteverdia ramiflora has precedence over the morphologically similar M. myrsinoides (Reissek) Biral, but the genus in French Guiana is in need of a taxonomic revision. Further investigations are necessary to confirm this probable synonymy.
Combretaceae
31. Combretum obtusifolium Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 108. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: Cayenne, 1792, Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00307676]; isolecto-: G [G00236016]!). Other original material: French Guiana: “in sylvis riparis remoti [in remote riverbank (riparian) forests]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P01901291]!).
= Combretum laxum Jacq.
Notes. – See below under Combretum puber Rich.
32. Combretum puber Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 108. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond 116 (G [G00410086]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00307684]!). Other original material: Guadeloupe: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P05046352]!).
= Combretum laxum Jacq.
Notes. – Stace (2009: 69–70, 2010: 128) cited a holotype in P and P-LA for Combretum obtusifolium and C. puber respectively. Leblond's original material is extant for both names at G. Leblond s.n. at G [G00236016] is sterile, so the duplicate in P-LA is designated as the lectotype of C. obtusifolium. The original material of C. puber deposited at G is, on the other hand, designated as the lectotype of that name.
33. Combretum rotundifolium Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 108. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, VIII.1789, Leblond 117 (G [G00341804]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00307682]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P06603745]!).
Notes. – Stace (2009: 77, 2010: 116) cited a holotype in P-LA and an isotype in G. Leblond 117 at G is formally designated here as the lectotype with another uncited original material in Richard's herbarium at P. The Leblond specimen in P-LA [P00307682] is considered here as a probable isolectotype.
34. Terminalia nitidissima Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 109. 1792.
≡ Buchenavia nitidissima (Rich.) Alwan & Stace
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 30.VIII.1789, Leblond s.n. (G [G00177930]!).
Notes. – Stace (2009: 52) and Stace & Alwan (2010: 304) considered Leblond s.n. at G as the holotype and Molino et al. (2022: 443) indicated that this specimen corresponds to original material. It is formally designated here as the lectotype.
Convolvulaceae
35. Convolvulus azureus Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792 (later than 9 March) [later isonym of Lam., 13 February].
Original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond 372 (G [G00227287]!). British Virgin Islands: “in insulis Danicis – Tortola [in Danish islands Tortola]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P03896003]!). Sine loco: Richard s.n. (P-LA [P00357561]!).
= Jacquemontia pentanthos (Jacq.) G. Don
Notes. – The original material deposited in P-LA is also the holotype of Convolvulus azureus Lam. (Wood & Clegg, 2021: 405; wrongly attributed to Desrousseaux), rendering C. azureus Rich. a later isonym with no nomenclatural status (ICN Art. 6.3 Note 2).
Elaeocarpaceae
36. Blondea latifolia Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792
≡ Sloanea latifolia (Rich.) K. Schum.
Lectotypus (designated by Molino et al., 2022: 453): French Guiana: “in ripis fluvii Kourou [on the banks of the river Kourou]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02440487]!; isolecto-: P [P02440488]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 209 (G [G00104361]!). Probable original material: Leblond s.n. (P [P02440486]!).
Notes. – Molino et al. (2022: 453) cited the type as “J.B. Leblond 209 (lecto-, P[P02440487], here designated; isolecto-, G[G00104361], P[P02440486, P02440488]).” P02440487 was actually collected by Richard. The Leblond collection at G corresponds to uncited original material with a possible duplicate at P.
Lacistemataceae
37. Nematospermum laevigatum Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 105. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: “in lacis suburbanis Cayenne [in suburban lakes of Cayenne]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P04845313]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 244 (G [G00165291]!).
= Lacistema aggregatum (P.J. Bergius) Rusby
Notes. – Sleumer (1980: 186) cited original material as “Leblond “452” (holotype P; isotypes F, G)”. No Leblond specimen with this number has been located in P but this collection has been located in F [V0244903F]. A Leblond specimen in G, part of the first set, bears number 266. Finally, a specimen collected by Richard bearing the name Nematospermum laevigatum in Richard's hand with a description is deposited at P.
Sleumer's type citation cannot be treated as an error to be corrected under ICN Art. 9.10 because the cited collection is not part of original material since it bears a different collection number than that in G.
Leblond 244 at G is a poor specimen and we therefore prefer designating the Richard specimen at P [P04845313] as the lectotype.
Lamiaceae
38. Nepeta aristata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 268 (G [G00341820]!).
= Mesosphaerum pectinatum (L.) Kuntze
Notes. – We have not found any previous typification for this neglected name. Leblond 268 at G, part of the original set, is designated here as the lectotype.
39. Nepeta mutabilis Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792.
≡ Cantinoa mutabilis (Rich.) Harley & J.F.B. Pastore
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 469 (G [G00437967]!).
Notes. – Howard (1989: 248) cited the type as “Leblond s.n. (P)”. No Leblond specimen is extant at P. Two specimens have been located in P originating from Richard's herbarium, but none bear the name Nepeta mutabilis. Furthermore, one of them [P00737195] is the original material of Hyptis spicata Poit. None of these specimens are annotated by Howard and for the reasons mentioned in the Introduction, his citation cannot be treated as an error to be corrected (ICN Art. 7.11, see also recommendations 9A.1 and 9A.2). More recently, Harley & Pastore (2012: 10) and O'leary (2015: 206) cited the type as “Cayenne, Le Blond s.n. (holotype P!; isotype G!)”.
Leblond 469 at G, part of the original set, is formally designated here as the lectotype.
Lauraceae
40. Laurus canaliculata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 108. 1792.
≡ Ocotea canaliculata (Rich.) Mez
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 216 (G [G00341819]!). Other original material: French Guiana: “in ripis fluvii Para [on the banks of the river Pará]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00756974, P00756975]!).
Notes. – Rohwer (1986: 160) cited the type as “Le Blond s.n., no 216 in G (Guyane Française: Cayenne), Holotyp P, iso C, G)”. This citation is inaccurate and actually includes two different gatherings, one by Leblond and the other by Richard. Because the holotype was cited at P rather than G, this typification cannot be treated as an error to be corrected to lectotype under ICN Art. 9.10. Molino et al. (2022: 484) considered a Leblond s.n. specimen at P as the holotype with two isotypes. The three collections deposited at P originate from Richard's herbarium and were most likely collected by him. The original material collected by Leblond has been located in G and is designated here as the lectotype.
A collection at G [G00369361] collected by Richard is not considered as original material as it was collected in Brazil.
41. Laurus difformis Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 108. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 219 (G [G00368706]!). Other original material: French Guiana: “in ripis fluvii Kourou [on the banks of the river Kourou]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00128375, P00128376, P00128377]!).
= Aiouea guianensis Aubl.
Notes. – Two collections representing original material have been located. Leblond 219, part of the first set, is designated here as the lectotype.
42. Laurus puberula Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 108. 1792.
≡ Ocotea puberula (Rich.) Nees
Lectotypus (first step designated by Rohwer, 1986: 175; second step designated here): French Guiana: “in ripis amnis La Comté [on the banks of the river La Comté]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00756767]; isolecto-: B-W [B -W 07792 -01 0] image!, G [G00021066]!, P [P00756768, P00756769, P00756770]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 215 (G [G00020781]!).
Notes. – Rohwer (1986: 175) cited the type as “Le Blond s.n., Herb. Willd. 7792 (Guyane Française: Cayenna), Holotyp P n.v., iso B-Willd.)”. This collection, known by duplicates in B-W, G, P, was indeed collected by Richard.The best preserved material in P with a description in Richard's hand and drawings is designated here as the second step lectotype.
Molino et al. (2022: 488) considered Leblond 215 at G as the “type”. This collection is part of the uncited original material.
Lecythidaceae
43. Lecythis pedicellata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 111. 1792.
≡ Eschweilera pedicellata (Rich.) S.A. Mori
Lectotypus (first step designted by Mori, 1987: 34; second step designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond s.n. ([P00789757]!; isolecto-: P [P00789758]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond 72 (G [G00341821]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00789759]!).
Notes. – Mori (1987: 34) and Mori & Prance (1993: 45) considered an unnumbered Leblond specimen as the holotype at P. Two Leblond specimens are extant at P. A third specimen [P00789757] bears a label with the species name in Richard's hand and a typical Leblond printed label.The latter has probably been glued on the specimen by error and we consider this specimen as a Richard collection.
The best preserved Leblond specimen at P is designated here as the second step lectotype with a probable duplicate deposited at G.
Leguminosae
44. Cassia multijuga Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 108. 1792.
= Senna multijuga (Rich.) H.S. Irwin & Barneby
Lectotypus (first step designated by Irwin & Barneby, 1982: 495; second step designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00798376]!; isolecto-: P [P00798377]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 168 (F [V0057614F fragm.] image!, G [G00341799]!). Probable original material: Leblond s.n. P-LA ([P00296957]!).
Notes. – Irwin & Barneby (1982: 495) cited the type specimen of Cassia multijuga as “Holotypus, Leblond s.n., P (hb. Richard, 2 sheets)! isotypus, P-Lam!)”. P00798376 was collected by Richard and P00798377 does not bear any indication of the collector. Molino et al. (2022: 537) cited Richard's collection P00798376 as holotype. The typification of C. multijuga is narrowed to this collection as a second step lectotype.
45. Dolichos scaber Rich. in in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 111. 1792.
≡ Macropsychanthus scaber (Rich.) L.P. Queiroz & Snak
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 183 (G [G00364886]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02752574]!).
Notes. – Amshoff (1939) was unable to locate original material of Dolichos scaber at P. Queiroz & Snak (2020: 107) considered the collection Leblond 183 at G [G00364886] as the holotype. This collection is formally designated here as the lectotype.
46. Dolichos virgatus Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 111. 1792.
≡ Dioclea virgata (Rich.) Amshoff
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 182 (G [G00364885]!).
Notes. – Amshoff (1939) was unable to locate original material of Dolichos virgatus at P. Queiroz & Snak (2020: 86) designated Leblond 182 as the lectotype at P [P00708485] with an isolectotype at G [G00364885]. P00708485 originates from the Desvaux herbarium and was not collected by either Leblond or Richard, and thus, it does not correspond to original material. Leblond 182 at G is therefore formally designated as the lectotype.
47. Hedysarum terminale Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 112 [105]. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 177 (G [G00341832]!). Other original material: U.S. Virgin Islands: “St. Croix [Santa Cruz]”, [1786–1787], Richard s.n. (P [P00706592, P00706593]!). HAITI: “Saint-Domingue”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02934221]!).
= Desmodium glabrum (Mill.) DC.
Notes. – Schubert (1980: 639) cited the type as “Cayenne. Leblond, (G, probable isotype)”. Leblond 177 at G is formally designated here as the lectotype. Two specimens in Richard's herbarium collected on the island of St. Croix also represent original material.
48. Mimosa pilosula Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 113. 1792.
≡ Inga pilosula (Rich.) J.F. Macbr.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 144 (G [G00371331]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P01818224]!). Guadeloupe: “La Motte”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P01818223]!).
Notes. – Three specimens belonging to original material have been located at P for Mimosa pilosula. Poncy (1985: 53) and Pennington (1997: 514) cited the type as a Leblond s.n. specimen at P. No Leblond specimen has been located in P. Barneby et al. (2011: 155) and Molino et al. (2022: 523) cited a Leblond specimen as holotype deposited in P-JU, but no Leblond specimen with this name is deposited in P-JU. Therefore, the Leblond specimen at G is designated here as the lectotype.
49. Mimosa rubiginosa Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 113. 1792.
≡ Inga rubiginosa (Rich.) DC.
Neotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Anon. s.n. (G-DC [G00651782]!).
Notes. – No original material has been located for Mimosa rubiginosa (see also Poncy, 1985; Pennington, 1997; Barneby et al., 2011). Pennington (1997) cited a Leblond s.n. specimen in G-DC as holotype. Two specimens are extant in G-DC under the name Inga rubiginosa: (1) G00651714 has no label data and it is a poor specimen overall; (2) G00651782 has the indication “Cayenne ou Guyane françoise. Museum de Paris 1821” and is a specimen in flower (Fig. 11). The Catalogue of Candolle's herbarium (CANDOLLE et al., 1794–1921: 30) does not help to establish the identity of the collectors, as it indicates only that Candolle received 150 collections from “Museum d'hist. nat de Paris, pl. de Cayenne ou Guiane” in August 1821. In the absence of original material, we designate G00651782, collected in French Guiana, as the neotype; this may or may not be the same specimen that Pennington cited as holotype because he did not annotate the specimens.
50. Tachigali purpurea Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 108. 1792.
≡ Diplotropis purpurea (Rich.) Amshoff
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: “in sylvis adjacentibus fluvio Kourou [in forests near the river Kourou]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P03101482]!; isolecto-: P [P03101475]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 160 (G [G00341800 fragm.]!).
Notes. – Amshoff (1939: 44) had Leblond 160 on loan at U in 1938. Oddly, the specimen currently at G is only a fragment of the material sent to U, as it can be read on the notes pinned to the specimen. Since it is a poor specimen, we prefer to designate the lectotype on the better preserved material at P collected by Richard.
Loranthaceae
51. Loranthus bracteatus Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here by Caires, Proença & Callmander): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 221 (G [G00308092]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00381778]!).
= Psittacanthus cucullaris (Lam.) G. Don
Notes. – Caires & Proença (2015: 198) considered the Leblond specimen at G as the holotype. This specimen is formally designated here as the lectotype.
52. Loranthus florulentus Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
≡ Oryctanthus florulentus (Rich.) Tiegh.
Lectotypus (designated here by Caires, Proença & Callmander): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 222 (G [G00308093]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, Richard s.n. (P [P05455472, P05455464]!).
Notes. – Kuijt (2007: 19) and Caires & Proença (2015: 199) considered the Leblond specimen deposited at G as the holotype. This specimen is formally designated here as the lectotype.
Malpighiaceae
53. Banisteria lucida Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 109. 1792.
≡ Diplopterys lucida (Rich.) W.R. Anderson & C. Davis
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 49 (G [G00352640]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond s.n. (P-LA ([P00287870, P00287871]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02428903]!).
Notes. – Gates (1982: 178) considered a Leblond s.n. collection at P as the holotype with duplicates at G and P-LA. The type citation by Gates cannot be treated as an error to be corrected under ICN Art. 9.10 because the author misinterpreted the cited collections, which belong to two different gatherings: a Richard collection at P (misinterpreted by Gates as Leblond), and Leblond 49 at G. More recently, Anderson & Davis (2006: 11) indicated the Leblond collection at G as the holotype; the formal lectotypification on this specimen is provided here.
The two Leblond collections deposited in P-LA may represent duplicates of the lectotype at G, while the Richard collection in P is considered as original material bearing the name Banisteria lucida in Richard's hand.
Malvaceae
54. Helicteres proniflora Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 111. 1792.
Lectotypus (first step designated by Cristóbal, 2001: 136; second step designated here): French Guiana: “Montis Anglici (Montagne Anglaise)”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P01900216]!; isolecto-: P [P01900217]!; probable isolecto-: G [G00358411]!).
= Helicteres pentandra L.
Notes. – No original material of Leblond has been located in G. Cristóbal (2001: 136) considered a Richard specimen at P as the holotype but two elements belonging to original material are deposited at P. The better preserved specimen P01900216 is formally designated here as the second step lectotype. A Richard specimen at G could possibly represent a duplicate.
Fig. 11.
Neotype of Mimosa rubiginosa in G-DC. [Anon. s.n., G00651782; Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques, Genève]
55. Sida gracilis Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 111. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): U.S. Virgin Islands: St. Croix, [1786–1787], Richard s.n. (P [P06725605]!; isolecto-: P [P06725590]!).
= Sida glabra Mill.
Notes. – No original material of Sida gracilis Rich. has been located at G. Krapovickas (2006: 39) cited the type specimen as “in campestribus, in fruticosis Sa. Crucis 8bri-9bri (holotypus P)”. Two Richard collections collected in St. Croix are deposited in P. The better preserved specimen P06725605 is formally designated here as the lectotype.
Two further Richard collections collected on the islands of Antigua [P06725582] and Guadeloupe [P06725592] are not considered as original material because they were left undetermined by Richard.
56. Sida graminifolia Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 111. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 130 (G [G00341827]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond s.n. (P [P0543541, P0543542]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P01900156, P01900157, P01900158]!).
= Sida linifolia Juss. ex Cav.
Notes. – Clement (1957: 83) and Howard (1989b: 251) did not cite a type for this name. Leblond 130 located at G is designated here as the lectotype with two probable duplicates in P. Three specimens in Richard's herbarium represent other original material.
57. Sida mollis Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 111. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 132 (G [G00341846]!). Other original material: U.S. Virgin Islands: St. Croix, [1786–1787], Richard s.n. (G [G00415924]!, P [P06658018, P06658019]!).
= Sida jamaicensis L.
Notes. – Neither Howard (1989b: 250) nor Fryxell (1988: 395) located the type. Leblond 132 at G is designated here as the lectotype. The uncited original material in Richard's herbarium was collected on St. Croix between 1786 and 1787.
58. Sterculia frondosa Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 111. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: Cayenne, 1792, Leblond 246 (G [G00341695]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00064804, P02286039]!).
Notes. – We have not found any previous lectotypification for this accepted name. Leblond 246 at G, part of the original set with a description in Leblond's hand, is designated here as the lectotype (Fig. 12).
59. Urena heterophylla Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 111. 1792. [nom. illeg., superfl.].
≡ Urena reticulata Cav., Diss. 6: 335, tab. 183, fig. 2. 1788.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00287535]!).
= Urena lobata L.
Notes. – Cavanilles (1788: 335) cited original material as “v.s. apud D. de Lamarck” and provided a copper engraving (tab. 183, fig. 2). Two specimens have been located in P-LA [P00287531, P00287535], both collected by Leblond. These specimens have very different leaf morphology from each other and only P00287535 can be linked to the illustration. Therefore, this specimen is designated here as the lectotype of Urena reticulata Cav.
Richard's diagnosis reads: “foliis caulinis palmato-trilobis [cauline leaves three-lobed]”. This diagnosis is also linked to P00287535 because the second specimen in P-LA, P00287531, bears a few young leaves with three lobes but most leaves have five lobes. Urena heterophylla is therefore a superfluous illegitimate name for U. reticulata.
Hochreutiner (1901: 143) considered Urena heterophylla as a doubtful taxon because he was not able to study any original material at G.
Melastomataceae
60. Melastoma ciliatum Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 109. 1792.
≡ Miconia ciliata (Rich.) DC.
Lectotypus (first step designated by Wurdack et al., 1993: 191); second step designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P01903881]!; isolecto-: P [P01903882, P01903883]!). Other original material: french Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 104 (G [G00353805]!).
Notes. – Wurdack et al. (1993: 191) cited the type as “French Guiana,Leblond s.n.(holotype,P)”.Three specimens originating from Richard's herbarium are deposited at P and were all collected by Richard. The type citation by Wurdack et al. can be treated as an error to be corrected to lectotype under ICN Art. 9.10, and the better preserved P01903881 is therefore designated as the second step lectotype. Leblond 104, part of the original set, consequently must be considered as other original material.
Fig. 12.
First sheet of the lectotype of Sterculia frondosa Rich. in G. [Leblond 246, G00341695; Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques, Genève]
61. Melastoma coccineum Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 109. 1792.
≡ Miconia coccinea (Rich.) Judd & Skean
Lectotypus (first step designated by Howard, 1989b: 539; second step designated here): Guadeloupe: “ad Sulphurariam Guadlupae, in pratis illius sphagnosis sylvulisque montosis adjacentibus [Guadeloupe sulfur baths (Thermes de Sofaïa?), in peaty meadows and adjacent montane forest patches]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02442125]!; isolecto-: P [P00141406, P02442126]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 91 (G [G00341788]!).
Notes. – Howard (1989b: 539) cited the type as “Guadeloupe, Richard s.n. (holotype, P!)”. Three Richard specimens are desposited in P originating from Guadeloupe. Among those specimens, the best preserved material is formally designated here as the second step lectotype.
62. Melastoma pendulifolium Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 109. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 90 (G [G00353752]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02442372]!).
= Miconia prasina (Sw.) DC.
Notes. – Howard (1989b: 563) wrote that “the type of this species should be a Leblond collection”. Wurdack et al. (1993: 227) indicated with hesitation the type as “?Guadeloupe, L.C. Richard s.n. (holotype P)”. Accordingly, this typification was not definitely accepted by Wurdack, and therefore, not achieved (ICN Art. 7.11). Several specimens are extant in Richard's herbarium in P from the Antilles (Guadeloupe, Haiti, and Martinique) and French Guyana but none but one bears the name Melastoma pendulifolium, which is considered as part of the original material.
Leblond 90 at G is designated here as the lectotype. Three Leblond collections in P [P05128372, P05128373, P05128374] are labelled Melastoma pendulifolium but are excluded from the original material because their overall appearance does not match that of the lectotype; furthermore, two of them bear a different Leblond collection number, whereas the third one is unnumbered.
63. Melastoma tomentosum Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 109. 1792.
≡ Miconia tomentosa (Rich.) D. Don ex DC.
Lectotypus (first step designated by Wurdack et al. 1993: 254; second step designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00761786]!; isolecto-: P00761787]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 64 (G [G00227574]!).
Notes. – Wurdack et al. (1993: 254) and Goldenberg et al. (2013: 120) cited a Richard specimen at P as the holotype. Subsequently, Molino et al. (2002: 569) cited Leblond 64 as “original material” without further specifications. Two specimens originating from Richard's herbarium are deposited at P. The type citation by Wurdack et al. can be treated as an error to be corrected to lectotype under ICN Art. 9.10. The better preserved specimen, P00761786, is therefore designated as the second step lectotype. Leblond 64, part of the original set, consequently must be considered as other original material.
Myrtaceae
64. Eugenia bracteata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792.
≡ Myrcia bracteata (Rich.) DC.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond 110 (G [G00223176]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond s.n. (BR [BR0000005238668] image!, P [P00545124, P00545125]!, P-LA [P00297814]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00545117, P00546146, P00546147, P00546148, P00546167]!). Probable original material: Richard s.n. (B-W [B -W 09535 -01 0] image!).
Notes. – Kawasaki et al. (2019: 116) cited the type as “Leblond s.n. (P holotype)” and Molino et al. (2022: 611) cited “original material at BR [BR0000005238668], G [G00223176]”. The lectotype is designated here on Leblond 110, part of the original set at G, with probable duplicates at BR, P, and P-LA.
A specimen probably sent by Richard to Carl Ludwig Willdenow (1765–1812) deposited in B-W [B -W 09535 -01 0] may also belong to original material.
65. Eugenia fallax Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond 114 (G [G00222392]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00547863, P00547864, P00547865, P00547866]!).
= Myrcia splendens (Sw.) DC.
Notes. – Mcvaugh (1969: 135) wrote that “the type […] collected by Leblond in French Guiana is represented in the general herbarium at Paris by several specimens”. Howard (1989b: 508) cited the type as “Cayenne, Leblond s.n. (P!)”. This specimen, P00547926, is labelled Leblond 297 and not considered as original material because the G material bears another collection number (114). Kawasaki et al. (2019: 116) cited the type as “Leblond s.n. (P holotype; G isotype”). Finally, Molino et al. (2022: 622) indicated Leblond 114 as original material.The lectotype is formally designated here on that specimen at G.
66. Eugenia multiflora Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792 [nom. illeg., non Lam. 1789].
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond s.n. (G [G00341825]!; probable isolecto-: P [P00550591, P00550592, P00550593]!, P-LA [P00297812]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00550563, P00550564]!, P-JU no 13883C [P00678218]!).
= Myrcia multiflora (Lam.) DC.
Notes. – Lamarck (1789: 202 – 203) described Eugenia multiflora Lam. based on Stoupy s.n. in his herbarium. This collection, P00297812, consists of a single branchlet but bears two labels: Stoupy's one and another that reads “de cayenne, Le Blond”. As written by Mcvaugh (1969), this specimen is possibly a duplicate of the Leblond collection deposited in P, which would render Richard's name a later isonym without nomenclatural status. Since we cannot prove this, we prefer to treat E. multiflora Rich. as an illegitimate later homonym. The lectotype of Richard's name is designated here on the Leblond specimen deposited in G.
67. Eugenia polystachya Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated by Mcvaugh, 1969: 203): French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00297799]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard 77 (P [P01902610, P01902611]!). Excluded other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1.IX.1789, Leblond 113 (G [G00415925]!); sine loco, Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00297785]!); sine loco, s.d., Richard 76 (P [P01902488]!).
Notes. – The taxonomic and nomenclatural background f the name Eugenia polystachya has been treated in detail by Mcvaugh (1969: 201–203). For describing this species Richard used material that actually corresponds to two distinct species. The specimen Leblond 113, which was identified by Richard as E. polystachya, served in 1861 as original material for describing E. muricata var. guyanensis O. Berg, a heterotypic synonym of E. muricata DC.
Mcvaugh (1969: 203) designated Leblond s.n. deposited in P-LA as the lectotype of Eugenia polystachya and the two specimens of Richard 77 at P are treated here as other original material. The remaining collections at G, P, and P-LA corresponding to E. muricata are excluded from the original material of E. polystachya.
Nyctaginaceae
68. Boerhavia paniculata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 105. 1792 [nom. illeg., non Lam. 1791]
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond 239 (G [G00439929]!). Other original material: Antilles: “Insulae caribaeae”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P04973049]!). French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00712501]!). Haiti: “Saint-Domingue”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00712502]!). U.S. Virgin Islands: “St. Croix [Santa Cruz]”, [1786–1787], s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P04973050]!).
= Boerhavia diffusa L.
Notes. – With regard to the type of Boerhavia paniculata Rich., Howard (1988: 177) cited “Cayenne, Leblond s.n. (P, not seen)” and Defilipps & Maina (2003: 27) indicated “French Guiana, Cayenne, Leblond s.n. (P, holotype, not seen)”. No Leblond material has been located at P. The Leblond collection at G numbered 239 is designated here as the lectotype, whereas two Richard collection at P are considered as other original material.
Boerhavia paniculata Lam. is based on a specimen deposited in P-LA [P00380852] whose origin is uncertain.
69. Boerhavia polymorpha Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 105. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond 238 (G [G00402300]!). Other original material: Guadaloupe: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P04972218]!).
= Boerhavia coccinea Mill.
Notes. – The name Boerhavia polymorpha was not mentioned by Defilipps & Maina (2003) in Flora of the Guianas. The single Leblond collection that we located at G is designated here as the lectotype.
Ochnaceae
70. Gomphia guyannensis Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 108. 1792.
≡ Camptouratea leblondii Tiegh. in Ann. des Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 8, 16: 205. 1902 [nom. illeg., superfl.].
Lectotypus (designated by Sastre & Offroy, 2016: 60). French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00542279]!; isolecto-: P [P00542278]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 11 (G [G00341857]!). Probable original material: Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00295246, P00295247, P00295248]!).
≡ Ouratea richardii Callm. & J. Calvo, nom. nov.
Notes. – Tieghem (1902) described Camptouratea leblondii based on all the original material of Gomphia guyannensis. He believed that Richard in 1792 made a new combination for Ouratea guianensis Aubl. in Gomphia Schreb. and that the material studied by Richard had not been named yet. In describing Camptouratea leblondii, Tieghem clearly referred to Richard's protologue, and although he did not directly cite the name Gomphia guyannensis, he indicated “les échantillons, étudiés aussitôt d'abord par L.-Cl. Richard . . . [the specimens, first studied by L.-Cl. Richard]” (Tieghem, 1902: 205), that is, all the specimens studied by Richard in preparing his protologue. This makes his name superflous and illegitimate under ICN Art. 52.2.
Lemée (1954: 8) provided an invalid new combination, Ouratea leblondii (Tiegh.) Lemée, following ICN Art. 41.5 because the “basionym” (or properly the replaced synonym since the illegitimate Camptouratea leblondi cannot serve as a basionym) was not clearly indicated with a full and direct reference to its author and place of valid publication. All Lemée's 37 new combinations published in Flore de la Guyane Française published in 1952 except those appearing in volume 2 are invalid under this article.
The typification of Gomphia guyannensis has been provided by Sastre & Offroy (2016: 60) when they typified the illegitimate Camptouratea leblondii.
Because of the existence of Ouratea guianensis, a replacement name is therefore published here for Gomphia guyannensis when transfered to Ouratea Aubl. The epithets guianensis and guyanensis (and, by extension, guyannensis) are treated as confusable (Brummitt, 2005: 1103).
Orobanchaceae
71. Pedicularis melampyroides Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 111. 1792.
≡ Melasma melampyroides (Rich.) Pennell
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 274 (G [G00012191]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond s.n. (P [P02980487]!).
Passifloraceae
72. Turnera odorata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
Lectotypus (first step designated by Arbo, 2000: 12; second step designated here): French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00715563]!; isolecto-: P [P00715564, P00715565]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 8 (G [G00357454]!); s.d., Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00307567, P00307568]!).
Notes. – Arbo (2000: 12) cited the type as “Richard L.C. s.n. (P!; isotipos: C!, P!)”. Three Richard specimens were annotated by Arbo in 1976. Among those specimens, only one bears the species name in Richard's hand and this is formally designated as the second step lectotype.
The collection Leblond 8 constitutes other original material, with two probable duplicates at P-LA.
Phyllanthaceae
73. Phyllanthus orbiculatus Rich in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 113. 1792.
Lectotypus (first step by Webster 1957: 372; second step designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 257 (P [P00609701]!; isolecto-: G [G00341826]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (C [C10021686] image!).
Notes. – Webster (1957: 372) cited the type “Cayenne, Leblond (P, holotype; C, isotype)”. Two collections of Leblond are extant at P. Leblond 257 [P00609701] with a duplicate at G [G00341826] and Leblond 640 [P00609700], which is not considered as original material because is numbered differently. P00609701 is designated here as the second step lectotype with an isolectotype at G. The C collection sent by Richard to Martin Vahl cited by Webster may represent original material of the name Phyllanthus orbiculatus.
Two specimens in P originating from Richard's herbarium [P04855619, P04855624] were collected by Ramón de la Sagra in the 19th century and therefore not considerd as original material.
Piperaceae
74. Piper asperifolium Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 105. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 237 (G [G00341858]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02141599, P02141600]!).
= Piper hispidum Sw.
Notes. – Görts-van Rijn (2007: 123) wrote “Type: not designated”.
75. Piper dilatatum Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 105. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 234 (G [G00341817]!). Other original material: Guadeloupe: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P01717699, P01717700, P01717701, P01717702]!).
Notes. – Tebbs (1983: 13) cited the type of Piper dilatatum Rich. as “Guadelupe, Bertero s.n. (G-holotype)”. This specimen does not correspond to original material. Howard (1988: 27) cited the type as “Guyana, Leblond s.n. (P)”. Finally, Görts-van Rijn (2007: 123) wrote “Type: not designated”. No Leblond specimen has been traced in P. In addition, the Richard specimens at P were not collected in Guiana but in Guadeloupe. Therefore Howard's typification is not accepted here. We designate Leblond 234 at G as the lectotype.
76. Piper nhandi Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 105. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 236 (G [G00341818]!). Other original material: Guadeloupe: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02024361]!).
= Piper marginatum Jacq. var. marginatum
Notes. – Görts-van Rijn (2007) did not mention this name.
Polygalaceae
77. Securidaca paniculata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 111. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Leblond s.n. (P-LA [2-part specimen: P00287078, P00287079]!; isolecto-: P-LA [P00287077]!). Other original material: French Guiana: “fluvio Kourou adjascentibus [near Kourou river]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00733654, P00733655]!).
Notes. – No original material of Securidaca paniculata Rich. has been located at G. Eriksen et al. (2000: 124) cited “orig. coll.” as Leblond s.n. in P-LA. This citation cannot be corrected following Art. 9.10 because of Art. 7.11, which requires the use of the term “type” or an equivalent. Two Leblond specimens are extant in P-LA. The better preserved material mounted on two sheets (one with two fertile branchlets and the second with two fragment packets with leaves and fruits) is formally designated here as lectotype (Fig. 13).
Two specimens at P [P00733652, P00733653] previously considered as original material are excluded. One originates from Poiret's herbarium and has no information on its provenance [P00733652], and the second was collected by Martin [P00733653].
Portulacaceae
78. Portulaca lanata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 109. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond 205 (G [G00341830]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P05196183]!).
= Portulaca pilosa L.
Notes. – Defilipps & Maina (2003) did not typify Portulaca lanata in the framework of the Flora of the Guianas, nor did we find any later typification. The collection made by Leblond and kept at G is designated here as the lectotype. The specimen bears a detailed description of the plant in Leblond's handwriting.
Proteaceae
79. Roupala sessilifolia Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
≡ Panopsis sessilifolia (Rich.) Sandwith
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 224 (G [G00341831]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond s.n. (P [P00750531]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00074089, P00074090]!).
Notes. – Prance et al. (2007: 91, 2009: 28) considered a Leblond s.n. collection at P as the holotype with an isotype at G. Molino et al. (2022: 647) cited Leblond 224 at P [P00750531] as original material without further specifications. The duplicate of the latter collection deposited at G is designated here as the lectotype. The P specimen labelled as Leblond s.n. may represent a duplicate of original material. Two specimens collected by Richard are also considered as original material and treated accordingly as other original material.
Rhamnaceae
80. Gouania striata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 113. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Leblond 203 (G [G00341828]!). Other original material: French Guiana: “in ripis fluvii Kourou [on the banks of the river Kourou]”, s.d., Richard s.n. (C [C10017763] image!, P [P01818954, P01818955]!).
Notes. – This is an accepted species putatively endemic to French Guiana (Boggan et al., 1997).
Rubiaceae
81. Genipa merianae Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & C.M. Taylor): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 308 (G [G00436230]!).
= Duroia eriopila L. f.
Notes. – The only element belonging to original material we found for Genipa merianae is Leblond 308 at G. This specimen is designated here as the lectotype.
82. Psychotria pedunculosa Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here by C.M. Taylor, Gereau & Callmander): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 319 (G [G00341845]!).
Notes. – The only element of original material that we found for Psychotria pedunculosa Rich. is Leblond 319 at G. Taylor et al. (2020: 1080, fig. 2) previously considered this G collection as the holotype, but it cannot be regarded as such based on the analysis in the Introduction here. Molino et al. (2022: 665) cited Leblond 319 as “J.B. Leblond 319 (original material G[G00341845])”. Following the conclusions in the present study, this specimen is formally designated here as the lectotype.
83. Psychotria racemosa Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & C.M. Taylor): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. [?] (P [P03824095]!).
= Palicourea racemosa (Aubl.) G. Nicholson
Notes. – Kirkbride (1997: 370) was not able to locate any original corresponding Leblond material for Psychotria racemosa in P or G. Accordingly, as a neotype for this name he designated a specimen originating from Richard's herbarium at P. Our thorough search at G was also unsuccessful. Kirkbride did not consider Richard's material as original and therefore designated it as a neotype, but following the arguments explained in the Introduction, Richard's material is indeed original and consequently the use of the term neotype is here treated as a misinterpretation to be corrected to lectotype (ICN Art. 9.10). Unfortunately, the neotype designated by Kirkbride (1997: fig. 7, 8) has not been relocated at P by any subsequent searches by Kirkbride (pers. comm.) or several other botanists. This collection is here considered lost, and a duplicate at P that also originates from Richard's herbarium is here designated as a new lectotype.
84. Tocoyena speciosa Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here by Callmander & C.M. Taylor): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P03820719]!).
= Posoqueria latifolia (Rudge) Schult.
Notes. – No original material collected by Leblond of Tocoyena speciosa has been located. A flowering specimen collected by Richard with a description in his handwriting in P [P03820719] is clearly also original material, and designated here as the lectotype.
Salicaeae
85. Patrisa pyrifera Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792.
≡ Ryania pyrifera (Rich.) Sleumer & Uittien
Lectotypus (first step designated by Monachino, 1949: 23; second step designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P02442081]!; isolecto-: NY [NY00108125 fragm.] image!, P [P02442082]!, P-JU no 12592C [P00672051]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 20 (G [G00364313]!).
Notes. – Monachino (1949: 23) considered as type a specimen in “L.C. Richard Her., Paris”. Sleumer (1980: 272) added that isotypes existed at G and P-JU. The original material collected by Leblond at G is a poor specimen. Two specimens originating from Richard's herbarium are deposited at P and a second step lectotype is designated here on P02442081, which bears fruits and flowers and a description in Richard's handwriting.
This lectotypification agrees with the subsequent citation by Molino (2022: 678): “Leblond s.n. (original material P [P02442081])”, although the indication of the collector is inaccurate.
Fig. 13.
First sheet of the lectotype of Securidaca paniculata Rich. in P-LA. [Leblond s.n., P00287078; © Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris]
86. Samyda arborea Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 109. 1792.
≡ Casearia arborea (Rich.) Urb.
Lectotypus (first step designated by Sleumer, 1980: 316; second step designated here): Saint lucia: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00371634]!). Other original material: French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (B-W [B -W 08355 -01 0] image!, P [P00371633]!). French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 241 (G [G00355989]!).
Notes. – Sleumer (1980: 316) indicated the type as “Leblond anno 1792, French Guiana, probably collected near Cayenne, fl (holotype, P-Richard; isotypes, B-Willd 8355 ex herb. Richard, G, P)”. This author overlooked the fact that two collectors, i.e., Leblond and Richard, are involved in the original material he cited. The original material collected by Leblond at G is a poor specimen compared to Richard's P00371634, which bears a description in Richard's hand. The latter specimen is designated as the second step lectotype following the recent citation by Molino (2022: 672): “Leblond s.n. (in herb. L.C. Richard) (type P[P00371634])”.
Sapindaceae
87. Cupania laevigata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 109. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 62 (G [G00415926]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond s.n. (P [P06671111]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P-JU [P00671699]!).
= Matayba arborescens (Aubl.) Radlk.
Notes. – Acevedo-Rodríguez (2012: 35) cited the type as “holotype P?”. The Leblond collection at G originating from the first set is designated here as the lectotype with a probable duplicate in P. A Richard collection corresponding to original material has also been located in P-JU.
Five further collections in Richard's herbarium are annotated “Cupania heterocarpa” [P00800373, P00800374, P00800375, P00800376, P04857304]. This name numbered “4” appears on p. 178 of Richard's Catalogus Plantarum [BC: MS 1320] with the annotation “conf. Sapindus arborescens, aubl. 347. T. 139”, whereareas Cupania laevigata Rich. is numbered “2”. Therefore, these collections are not considered as original material.
88. Cupania scrobiculata Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 109. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 63 (G [G00341823]!). Probable isolecto-: Leblond s.n. (P [P02297415, P02297416]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (C [10018582] image!, P [P00117101, P00117102, P00117103, P00117104, P00117105, P00117106]!).
Notes. – Acevedo-Rodríguez (2012: 28) considered one of the Richard s.n. specimens at P [P00117101] as the holotype with seven duplicates at P as isotypes. Eight specimens at P can effectively be considered as original material including six duplicates originating from Richard's herbarium and two unnumbered Leblond specimens, which are probably duplicates of the lectotype designated here at G (Fig. 14).
Simaroubaceae
89. Quassia officinalis Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 108. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P01817256]!; isolecto-: P [P01817257]!). Probable original material: Leblond [?] (P [P01817258]!).
= Quassia amara L.
Notes. – Howard (1988: 573) cited the type as “Cayenne, Leblond”. A single recently mounted specimen in P bears two labels: one printed mentioning “Leblond” and a second mentioning “Quassia Cayenne”, an annotation typical of Martin's specimens. This specimen includes a fragment packet with leaflets. Because of the uncertainty of its origin and the fragmentary sterile material, we refrain from treating Howard's citation as an error to be corrected following ICN Art. 9.10.
Two duplicates of Richard's collection were located at P. The specimen P01817256 is designated as the lectotype because the material is very complete and the specimen bears original drawings made by Richard.
Powo (2024) wrongly places the name Quassia officinalis in the synonymy of Simarouba amara Aubl. Richard's collection clearly has a conspicuously winged leaf rachis, which is a character that distinguishes Quassia L. from Simarouba Aubl. (Cronquist, 1944; Pirani et al., 2021).
Solanaceae
90. Markea coccinea Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: sine loco, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00444204]!; isolecto-: P [P00444205, P00444206]!; probable isolecto-: P-LA [P00357754]!, P-JU [P00675640]!).
Notes. – No original material collected by Leblond has been located. The best preserved material in Richard's herbarium is designated here as the lectotype with probable duplicates in P-LA and P-JU (Fig. 15).
Fig. 14.
Lectotype of Cupania scrobiculata Rich. in G. [Leblond 63, G00341823; Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques, Genève]
91. Solanum juripeba Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated by D'arcy, 1973: 707): French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (C [C10019314] image!; isolecto-: F [F0073304F fragm.] image!, P [P00383451, P00383452, P00383453]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 361 (G [G00341813]!); Cayenne, s.d., Leblond s.n. (P-LA [P00357618]!).
= Solanum subinerme Jacq.
Notes. – D'arcy (1973: 707) cited as type “Leblond s.n. at C, ex herb. Rich.). Despite the fact that d'Arcy wrongly attributed the collector to Leblond, he clearly stated that the specimen originated from Richard's herbarium and annotated it at C accordingly. Therefore, this typification is treated as an error to be corrected following ICN Art. 9.10. Three duplicates have been located at P and a type fragment at F. The Leblond collections at G and P-LA represent uncited original material.
92. Solanum toxicarium Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 107. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P00371761]!; isolecto-: P [P00371762]!). Other original material: French Guiana: sine loco, 1792, Leblond 360 (G [G00341812]!).
= Solanum stramoniifolium Jacq.
Notes. – Two collections by Richard in his herbarium at P bear flowers, buds, and fruit and are better preserved than Leblond 360 at G. The best preserved of these two specimens [P00371761] is designated here as the lectotype.
Urticaceae
93. Urtica latifolia Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 113. 1792.
Lectotypus (designated here): French Guiana: Cayenne, s.d., Richard s.n. (P [P06817208]!; isolecto-: P [P06817064]!).
= Laportea aestuans (L.) Chew
Notes. – No original material has been located at G. Two elements corresponding to original material eligible to be designated as the lectotype are deposited at P and originate from Richard's herbarium. The better preserved material with a description in Richard's hand is designated here as the lectotype.
Nomina dubia
Burseraceae
94. Icica rufa Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 108. 1792.
Notes. – No original material has been located for Icica rufa and the identity of this name remains uncertain.
Commelinaceae
95. Commelina cayennensis Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 106. 1792.
Notes. – Howard (1979: 432) cited the type as “Leblond” but no specimen of Leblond with this name has been located either in G or P. Only a single specimen of Commelina L. has been located in Richard's herbarium at P [P01741994]. This collection bears the name “Commelina lineolata punctulata” in Richard's hand with a Latin description. The name C. cayennensis was already present in Richard's Catalogus in 1790. We refrain from typifying this name, which has been considered as a synonym of C. diffusa Burm. (Hassemer, 2019).
Lamiaceae
96. Clinopodium capitatum Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 110. 1792 [nom. illeg., non (Jacq.) Sw. 1788].
Notes. – No original material has been located for the illegitimate Clinopodium capitatum and its identity remains uncertain.
Lauraceae
97. Laurus discolor Rich. in Actes Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 1: 108. 1792.
Notes. – Two Leblond collections of Lauraceae are desposited in P-LA [P00381541, P00381561]. P00381541 most likely belongs to the genus Nectandra Rol. ex Rottb. and P00381561 to Endlicheria Nees (van der Werff, pers. comm.). Richard's diagnosis possibily refers to Endlicheria (van der Werff, pers. comm.). The identity of Laurus discolor Rich. remains uncertain.
Acknowledgements
MC and JC are indebted to Cécile Aupic in charge of the historical collections at P for her help and interest in our study and to Nicolas Fumeaux for his help and knowledge of the collections at G. MC would like to thank the whole team of the Library and Archives at G for their tremendous help while working on this manuscript. He also would like to thank the librarians and archivists at the Archives nationales d'outre-mer (Aix-en-Provence), Bibliothèque centrale (MNHN, Paris), Bibliothèque de l'Institut de France (Paris), and the Bibliothèque royale de Belgique (Bruxelles) for their assistance and kindness. Finally, MC thanks Olof Ryding for his help at C, Fred Barrie and Kimberly Hansen at F, Aurélien Sambin for sharing his knowledge of Guyana's orchids, Henk van der Werff for advice on South American Lauraceae, Gustavo Hassemer for fruitfull discussion on Commelinaceae, Claudenir Simões Caires and Carolyn E.B. Proença for their participation in the Loranthaceae typification, Joseph Kirkbride for sharing the history of the typification of Psychotria racemosa, and Michael Polansky for providing images from W. We finally thank Nick Turland for helping us to sort out some complicated nomenclatural issues and Pedro Acevedo-Rodríguez and an anonymous reviewer who greatly improved an earlier version of this manucript.
Published by the Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève Open access article under Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0)
Unpublished sources
ANOM: Archives nationales d'outre-mer, Aix-en-Provence: col. E 350bis.
BC: Bibliothèque centrale, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris: Ms Jus 23, Ms 464, Ms 1320, Ms 3522.
BIF: Fonds manuscrits de la Bibliothèque de l'Institut de France, Paris: Ms 2450.
Candolle, A.P. de, A. de Candolle, C. de Candolle & Aug. de Candolle (1794–1921). Catalogue de l'herbier d'après les époques et les origines des échantillons qui le composent. Archives de Candolle, Genève.
KBR: Bibliothèque royale de Belgique: VH21.657.
References
Appendices
Appendix.
Complete list of the 138 species described by Richard in the Actes. The first column refers to the entry number in this contribution. Page numbers correspond to Richard's original publication in the Actes in 1792. Abbreviations: LT: lectotype; ILT: isolectotype; NT: neotype; OM: original material; OOM: other original material; Prob.: probable.
Continued
Continued
Continued
Continued
Continued
Continued
Continued
