1953] 



REVISION OF BRACHYOTUM 



345 



polypetala R.P." Rhexia polystachya is now referred to Aciotis as A. polystachya 

 (Bonpl.) Triana. 



The only complete treatment of Brachyotum subsequent to that of Triana was 

 byCogniaux (1891) who recognized 32 species. Cogniaux, Danguy and Chermezon, 

 Gleason, Macbride, and Markgraf all described additional species after 1900, bring- 

 ing the total number up to 45* In the present treatment, synonymization, coupled 

 with the proposal of several additional species, leaves this total unchanged. The 

 only extensive regional treatment of the genus was that of Macbride (1941) who 

 tabulated and keyed the Peruvian species. 



COLLECTIONS, TYPIFIC ATIONS, AND PUBLICATIONS 



The establishment of the place of collection and place of deposition of most 

 of the type collections of species of Brachyotum has usually not been difficult; 

 however, several such problems have not been satisfactorily solved. Killip (1932) 

 has indicated the problems inherent in establishing the localities of many Lobb 

 collections; the Lobb specimen of B. tyrianthinum (K) although labeled "Columbia" 

 is certainly from central Peru, and his "Peru" collection of B. fictum (W) prob- 

 ably came from near Cuenca, Ecuador, where he is known to have stayed for some 

 time. Several Andre collections (B. andreanum, B. rotundi folium) probably came 

 from southern Ecuador, but the definite localities could not be established; Dr. 

 McVaugh orally confirmed the assumption that most of the Andre collections with 

 numbers above 4000 were from this area. Ruiz and Pavon never visited Ecuador 

 but one of their collectors, Juan Tafalla, was sent there (Die Is 1937, Ruiz 1940); 

 the Herb. Ruiz and Pavon specimens of B. ledifolium (F) and B. alpinum (F) are 

 probably Tafalla collections. Dombey collections (as in B. rostratum) may also be 

 found mixed with those of Ruiz and Pavon (Deleuze 1806). A series of Jameson 

 specimens (US) are annotated (in an unfamiliar script) "No. — of a set of speci- 

 mens taken out and numbered by Dr. Gray for Cogniaux," and a partial duplicate 

 set (labeled as received from Asa Gray) is in the Cogniaux herbarium (BR); a few 

 of these specimens have also been seen from Wien. No connection between Gray 

 and Jameson has been established; unfortunately these specimens were very 

 poorly sorted, with several species often mounted on the same sheet, and the lo- 

 calities were not given. Species seen from these collections included B. bentha- 

 mianum, B. campanulare , B. trichocalyx , B. andreanum, and B. campy lanthum; 

 those of B. campylanthum and B. trichocalyx may well be parts of the type collec- 

 tions of those species, but evidence at present is too scanty for any conclusions. 



Triana visited England at least twice before the publication of his monograph 

 of the Melastomaceae, once in 1866-67 (Schumacher 1873, p. 397), and again in 

 1870 during the German occupation of France (Jackson 1906, pp. 218-219). It is 

 probable that his conclusions on the species of Brachyotum were reached during 

 the earlier visit, since he was awarded a prize for the familial monograph in Sep- 

 tember 1869 (Schumacher 1873, p. 401) and his paper was presented before the 

 Linnean Society of London (in final form ?) by J. D. Hooker on March 21, 1867. 

 Certainly his ideas concerning the validity of Brachyotum as a genus were crys- 

 tallized during the earlier visit since the generic name was published in 1867. At 

 this time he cited the number of species as 24, but the treatment in 1871 included 

 28. Triana 's preliminary treatment of the family (1865) did not include Brachyotum. 

 The Kew specimens apparently represent the holotypes of most of the species 

 described by him in 1871. His annotations on these sheets are in pencil, with or 

 without his initials tf Tr. " Triana was so erratic in citation of herbaria in his 

 monograph that no reliance can be placed on the absence of such citations as in- 

 dicating that the cited specimens are not these Kew sheets. Additional evidence 



