Aloe mutans Reynolds 1936
Creators: name: Smith, Gideon F.
name: Figueiredo, Estrela
name: Klopper, Ronell R.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Plantae
Tracheophyta
Liliopsida
Asparagales
Asphodelaceae
Aloe
Aloe mutans

description: Aloe mutans Reynolds (1936: t. 602) (Figs 1 and 3).
Also treated in: Groenewald (1941: 85, 105, 117, 135), Reynolds (1950: 261), Judd (1967: 55, plate 14, top, second from the left), Jeppe (1969: 91, plate on following, unnumbered page), Bornman & Hardy (1971: 122–123), Jacobsen (1977: 90), Jacobsen (1986: 182), Grace et al. (2011: 107), Van Wyk & Smith (2014: 256–257), and Klopper (2015: 348, 602).
Type: — SOUTH AFRICA. Limpopo province. Pietersburg [Polokwane] district, Boschplaats, [Mphathleles Location, 20 miles [32 km] south of Chunies Poort [Chuenespoort], fl. 11] August 1935, G. W. Reynolds 1527, “ and in Nat. Herb. 20215” (holotype, PRE barcodes PRE0086199-1! and PRE0086199-2! [2 sheet gathering]; isotypes PRE [3 sheets, but not labelled “20215” as in the holotype], BOL barcodes BOL140154!, BOL140155!, and BOL140156!, K barcodes K000256634! and K000256635!, SRGH barcode SRGH0106230 -0!, W barcode W19610000092!).
Notes on the typification of the name Aloe mutans:— Reynolds (1936: t. 602) indicated the type of the name A. mutans as “TRANSVAAL: Pietersburg distr.; Boschplaats, Aug. 1935, Reynolds 1527 (typus), and in Nat. Herb. 20215”. Crucially, the number ‘20215’, which refers to the PRE accession number given to this gathering, was unambiguously mentioned in the protologue (Reynolds 1936: first text page accompanying plate 602). This particular G. W. Reynolds 1527 specimen is the only one mentioned and can be regarded as the holotype, following Turland et al. (2018: Art. 9.1). This was also the only specimen later mentioned in Reynolds (1950: 261), albeit with additional locality detail, thus providing additional evidence that its status is that of holotype. The holotype consists of two sheets, indicated as ‘Sheet I’ and ‘Sheet II’ written in pen on the mounting boards (available online at https://plants.jstor.org/stable/ viewer/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.pre0086199-1 and https://plants.jstor.org/stable/viewer/10.5555/al.ap.specimen. pre0086199-2). Duplicates of this collection were cited from Herbs. BOL and SRGH in Glen & Hardy (2000) and further duplicates are known from Herbs. K and W (JSTOR Global Plants 2023).
The three duplicates of G. W. Reynolds 1527 in Herb. BOL are treated as three specimens, since they were not accessioned as sheets of the same collection.All three have a label affixed that reads ‘Type No.’ and all three specimens bear the date ‘ 10 Aug 1935 ’. The holotype and protologue (Reynolds 1936: t. 602) only cite ‘ Aug 1935 ’ as the date of collecting, but Reynolds (1950: 261) indicates that the material flowered on 11 August 1935. Two of the specimens (BOL 140154 and BOL 140155; available online at https://plants.jstor.org/stable/viewer/10.5555/al.ap.specimen. bol140154 and https://plants.jstor.org/stable/viewer/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.bol140155)have the locality ‘Boschplaats, Transvaal’, while the third cites the locality as “Boschplaats, 14 m. [miles] S [south] of Chunes Poort [Chuenespoort] Police Post, – 7 m. [miles] N [north] of Olifants River Bridge” (BOL 140156; available online at https://plants.jstor. org/stable/viewer/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.bol140156). Reynolds (1950: 261) indicates the type locality as “ Northeastern Transvaal: Pietersburg Dist. [Polokwane]: Boschplaats, Mphathleles Location, 20 miles south of Chunies Poort [Chuenespoort]”, while the protologue only mentions “TRANSVAAL: Pietersburg distr.; Boschplaats” in the type citation and further on in the text it is stated that the material was collected “at Boschplaats, Mphathlele’s Location, 42 miles south of Pietersburg [Polokwane] in the northern Transvaal [now the Limpopo province of South Africa]” (Reynolds 1936: t. 602). Despite these minor discrepancies, the Herb. BOL duplicates are here regarded as isotypes.
The two duplicates at Herb. K were also not accessioned or indicated to be sheets of the same collection and are regarded as two specimens (K000256634 and K000256635; available online at https://plants.jstor.org/stable/ viewer/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000256634 and at https://plants.jstor.org/stable/viewer/10.5555/al.ap.specimen. k000256635). Both coNtaiN a SimiLar Herb. PRE LabeL with the date “10-8-35” aNd the LocaLity “BoSchpLaatS, 19½ miles S [south] of Chuniespoort [Chuenespoort] + 7 m. [miles] N [north] of Olifants River Bridge”. The PRE accession number (20215) linked to the holotype is not present on these specimens. There is no indication of type status on the Herb. K specimens. The Herbs. SRGH and W duplicates have similar labels to those of the Herb. K specimens with corresponding information, and also lack the PRE accession number (20215). The Herb. SRGH duplicate further bears a label stating “ ISOTYPUS ” (SRGH0106230 -0; available online at https://plants.jstor.org/stable/viewer/10.5555/al.ap. specimen.srgh0106230-0), while the Herb. W duplicate bears a 2005 determinavit slip by H. Rainer with “ TYPUS ” added in red ink (W19610000092; available online at https://plants.jstor.org/stable/viewer/10.5555/al.ap.specimen. w19610000092). These are all considered to be isotypes.
In addition, a further duplicate of the type (consisting of three sheets) is also present at Herb. PRE. This specimen has the same label information as the duplicates held at Herbs. K, SRGH, and W but, importantly, lack the uniquely defining Herb. PRE accession number, “20215”, that Reynolds (1936: t. 602) cited in the protologue. This particular specimen contains a note in the handwriting of Reynolds that indicates that this three-sheet gathering was deposited together with the holotype material, but with an instruction to the herbarium curator that the holotype material was wrapped separately from it. The somewhat illegible text, written vertically on the note that is attached to the G. W. Reynolds 1527 isotype (i.e., not the holotype qualified by “20215”) reads: “What [I would?] like[?] as the type please is wrapped up separately”.
Description:—Plants small, low-growing, solitary or forming clumps of up to 10(–14) rosettes, rosette erect, up to (15–) 20 cm tall. Stem ± absent, short, simple or once-branched, thickened lower down if present, clothed in persistent, twisted, dried leaves. Leaves densely rosulate, at first erect, then horizontally spreading, 10–20 cm long, 5–7(–8) cm wide at base, brownish to yellowish green, deltoid-lanceolate, abaxially uniformly light green to greyish green, longitudinally indistinctly dark green-lined, lines narrow, not confluent, sometimes obscurely white-spotted, adaxially usually densely white-spotted, white spots ± H-shaped-oblong, in interrupted, wavy transverse bands or haphazardly arranged, rarely confluent to yield green-striped appearance, texture smooth; margins shiny-dark brown especially abaxially, sometimes concolorous, armed with short, prominent, very pungent, deltoid, shiny-brown, dark orangetipped teeth, ± 4–5(–6) mm long, 5–7(–8) mm apart, straight or more rarely variously curved towards leaf base; leaf sap drying dark purplish. Inflorescence a 3- or 4- to 7-branched panicle, usually one produced per season, (0.5–)0.6– 0.9(–1.2) m tall, erect, branched below or at middle, branches erect at ± 45° from peduncle, terminal raceme longer than others; peduncle rather stout, lacking sterile bracts below racemes, panicle branches subtended by prominent, rapidly-drying fertile bracts of ± 15–30 mm long; peduncular bracts creamy white, irregularly lanceolate-triangular, longitudinally brownish-lined. Racemes cylindrical-acuminate, rather narrow, very gradually tapering upwards, 15–30 cm long, 7–8 cm wide where flowers are at anthesis, sparsely flowered; buds erect to erectly spreading. Floral bracts 10–22(–30) mm long, whitish grey, many-nerved, not prominent, as long as or slightly longer than pedicels, drying rapidly, narrowly lanceolate, variously twisted, much narrower than fertile bracts. Pedicels 14–16 mm long, light pinkish when young, dark pinkish with age, sometimes lengthening when in fruit. Flowers pendulous at anthesis; perianth: covered in a bloom, buds strawberry pink, with alternating light greenish and white longitudinal stripes; opeN fLowerS copiouSLy NectariferouS, apicaL ⅓ to ½ yeLLow, traNSitioNiNg through oraNge to baSaLLy Strawberry piNk, longitudinally white-striped, (28–)32(–33) mm long, 6–7(–8) mm across ovary, narrowed above ovary to yield distinct bulbous base, distinctly enlarged towards mouth from below middle, then constricted towards mouth; tips of segments Very SLightLy fLared, outer SegmeNtS free for ± ⅓ of their LeNgth; stamens with filiform-flattened filaments, uniformly light yellowish green, hardly exserted, visible at mouth; ovary 6–7 mm long, 2–4 mm in diam., mid-green, distinctly grooved; style included to hardly exserted, uniformly light yellow; stigma tiny, very slightly capitate, same colour as style. Fruit a loculicidal capsule, 25(–28) × 14–16 mm, light green turning light brown-purplish with age, dry remains of perianth variously persistent. Seed not seen. Chromosome number: unknown.
Distribution:— Aloe mutans essentially occurs in the northern parts of the Springbokvlakte of the Limpopo province (note that there are several locations in South Africa with the name ‘Springbokvlakte’, see Leistner & Morris 1976: 467–468), where it is a component of Combretum -Acacia veld (Fig. 5). Plants grow in open places among rocks or, often, in the shade of low-growing shrubs and small trees that act as nurse plants.
Aloe mutans is reasonably common around Morotse and Malekapane south of Lebowakgomo, and further south towards Jane Furse (Fig. 5). The area is subject to extensive urban development.
Additional specimen investigated:— SOUTH AFRICA. Limpopo. Adriaansdraai, F.Z. van der Merwe 75 (PRE).
description: Published as part of Smith, Gideon F., Figueiredo, Estrela & Klopper, Ronell R., 2024, Reinstatement of Aloe mutans (Asphodelaceae subfam. Alooideae), a distinctive, endemic, maculate aloe from the central Limpopo province of South Africa, pp. 265-274 in Phytotaxa 640 (3) on pages 267-272, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.640.3.4, http://zenodo.org/record/13213669