[Taxacom] Tetrastigma tuberculatum: nom. illeg.?
Paul van Rijckevorsel
dipteryx at freeler.nl
Tue Aug 28 09:59:34 CDT 2007
From: "Veldkamp, J.F. (Jan Frits)" <Veldkamp at nhn.leidenuniv.nl>
> I'm afraid this is not the correct solution. The type material of Cissus
> mutabilis is hardly identifiable, as was already stated by Miquel [Ann.
> Mus. Bot. Lugd. Bat. 1 (1863) 75]: (my translation) "The specimens
> available surely are incomplete, with the tendrils and flowers being
> totally absent. It seems close to V. landuk. I have therefore little to
> add to the diagnosis cited ... The form of the stigma and the number of
> seeds seem to provide the essential characters".
> There are no sheets in Leiden on which Blume wrote this name. See our
> site http://126.96.36.199:81/c8 Go to All collections. Enter Vitis
> mutabilis (error by the person who entered data in this database).
I am finding the sheet only under the name Tetrastigma mutabile
* * *
> We do have two labeled as Cissus montana Blume, an unpublished name,
> which were later labeled by Miquel as Vitis mutabilis. One has the note
> "Decbr.", which is against Blume's remark "Floret: Julio -- Sept."
> Latiff has not labeled these specimens. Meijer, the Rafflesia
> specialist, labeled it as the type, but I suggest to treat this name as
> a nomen dubium.
> The correct name, according to Latiff's summary is Tetrastigma
> rafflesiae (Miq.) Planchon. This material is but slightly better than
> that of C. montana, but it has been seen by Latiff and was later
> confirmed by Meijer. It is mentioned in Korthals's unpublished diary and
> we have two drawings of the Rafflesia, which is R. hasseltii, which is
> known to prefer Tetrastigma leucostaphylum auct. I am therefore fairly
> sure of the identity of this material, and of course the name is
> extremely suitable.
> I have just finished a note on this problem, which I will send to Latiff
> for review. I hope he will agree with my conclusions.
It does look like the kind of issue that needs to be considered at some
leisure, preferably by a specialist. It appears that the only thing that is
safe to conclude at this stage is that Tetrastigma tuberculatum is indeed an
BTW: I do promise to try and stop myself from posting in future when I am as
tired as I was when I made my first post on the 21st (or the second post for
More information about the Taxacom