Thyrsacanthus ramosus Cortes & Rapini 2010
Creators: name: Chagas, Earl Celestino De Oliveira
name: Costa-Lima, James Lucas Da
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Plantae
Tracheophyta
Magnoliopsida
Lamiales
Acanthaceae
Thyrsacanthus
Thyrsacanthus ramosus

description: Thyrsacanthus ramosus (Nees von Esenbeck 1847a: 112) Côrtes & Rapini (2010: 970).
≡ Drejera ramosa Nees von Esenbeck (1847a: 112).
Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. “Prov. Goyazana” [Minas Gerais]: “Allegres” [Mun. João Pinheiro], s.d., J. B. E. Pohl 1905 (GZU (GZU000249898)!; isolectotypes BR (BR0000006943295)!, K (K000529298)!, W (W0056712)!, W (W0056713)!).
= Anisacanthus pohlii Lindau (1897: 663). syn. nov.
Lectotype (designated here):— BRAZIL. “Prov. Goyazana” [Minas Gerais]: “Allegres” [Mun. João Pinheiro], s.d., J. B. E. Pohl 1905 (W (W0056711)!; holotype B † = F negative No. 8760!).
Distribution and habitat: — Thyrsacanthus ramosus is endemic to Brazil, recorded for the States of Goiás, Minas Gerais (the type collection), and São Paulo. This species is a scandent shrub inhabiting riverine forests along the tributary water bodies from the Paraná River in the Cerrado domain.
Additional specimens: — BRAZIL. Goiás: Mun. Corumbaíba, margem esquerda do rio Corumbá, próximo ao eixo da barragem, 25 June 1993 (fl, fr), H. G.P. Santos et al. 122 (CEN, SPF – 2 sheets). São Paulo: Mun. Mogi-Guaçu, Reserva Biológica e Estação Experimental de Mogi-Guaçu, Mata do Cassimiro, 20 July 1992 (fl), C. E.O. Lohmann et al. 21 (HUEFS, SP, US).
Notes: —The Nees von Esenbeck’s Acanthaceae monographs in Martius’ “ Flora Brasiliensis ” (Nees von Esenbeck 1847a) and in De Candolle’s “ Prodromus ” (Nees von Esenbeck 1847b) were published a few months apart (see Stafleu & Cowan 1976: 446, 1981: 336, 708). Because “ Flora Brasiliensis ” was published first, the names treated there have priority over the same names in the “ Prodromus,” which are isonyms (see Principle III and Art. 6 Note 2; Turland et al. 2018) although Nees von Esenbeck (1847a) hardly mentions the collections he relied on to describe his new names. In contrast, in “ Prodromus,” Nees von Esenbeck (1847b) almost always names the herbarium where he saw the specimens. Côrtes et al. (2010) mentioned that the “ holotype ” of Drejera ramosa is housed at GZU. Four specimens that correspond to the original material annotated by Nees von Esenbeck (1847a) were found at BR, GZU, K and W. However, according to Art. 9.4 of the ICN, all the specimens belonging to the type collection are syntypes, because a single specimen was not designated as the type in the protologue Nees von Esenbeck (e.g., Nees von Esenbeck 1847a). To avoid future confusion, the same specimen at GZU (GZU000249898) formerly cited by Côrtes et al. (2010) as “ holotype ” has been chosen as the lectotype.
After we studied specimens at W, we realized that the types of Anisacanthus pohlii and Drejera ramosa correspond to a single J.E. Pohl’s gathering from the collection of the Austrian expedition to Brazil (1817–1835). All specimens have branches and leaves with hispid indumentum, leaf-blades with markedly impressed secondary veins, and inflorescences with secund flowers (originally decussate but with one flower per node aborted and alternately arranged, giving the impression of being secund). The number “1905,” cited by Lindau (1897) for A. pohlii, matches the Pohl’s diary number; while the number “2944,” cited by Nees von Esenbeck (1847b) for D. ramosa, to the “Herbarium Brasiliense” series.
Therefore, Anisacanthus pohlii is here proposed as a synonym of D. ramosa. Additionally, we chose one of the three specimens at W (Fig. 2B) as the lectotype for A. pohlii because its holotype was destroyed in World War II (Art. 9.3; Turland et al. 2018).
description: Published as part of Chagas, Earl Celestino De Oliveira & Costa-Lima, James Lucas Da, 2022, A new combination in Justicia and a new synonym in Thyrsacanthus results in the restriction of Anisacanthus s. str. (Acanthaceae) to Central and North America, pp. 117-121 in Phytotaxa 549 (1) on pages 119-120, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.549.1.11, http://zenodo.org/record/6605240