Morphological and environmental variation within Hibiscus krichauffianus (Malvaceae), and the recognition of two new species, H. verecundus and H. calcareus Author McLay, Todd G. B. Author Barker, Robyn M. Author Albrecht, David E. text Australian Systematic Botany 2023 2023-12-15 36 6 457 477 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/sb23003 journal article 303636 10.1071/SB23003 45893a38-17f2-4bba-9122-80a3c65ea551 1446-5701 13835582
Table 2. Specimens identified as possible type material of Hibiscus krichauffianus, and arguments for and against nominating these samples as original material.
AccessionProConDecision
K000659853Attributed to Babbage, a small fragment. Sent to Kew by Schomburgk in Sep.1871.Includes fruit (label in Schomburgk’s hand).Likely not seen by Mueller as this lacks an identification but part of original material.
K000659852Annotated by Mueller.A single fruit with seeds annotated as H. krichauffii, not krichauffianus. Dated 1885 by Mueller therefore too late for consideration.Not a syntype.
AD 97611531H. krichauffianus, in the Schomburgk herbarium, collected in South Australia. No further collecting information. Buds and flower, no fruit.A large branched specimen with minimal flowering material. Connection to Babbage tenuous and looks different from the material at K.Probably not a syntype.
MEL 0068091ALocality of Darling River, annotated by Mueller as H. krichauffianus, collected by Goodwin. Mentioned in protologue.A collection of six small fragments, one of which has a young capsule. Description in protologue does not (appear to) encompass these.Syntype, as part of the type gathering but not material used in describing the species.
Herb. F. Mueller: five branches from different collectors mounted on same K sheet as those above. Without barcode.Herbarium of the author of the species. Includes a specimen locality of Darling River. All but the one on the right have flowers and no fruit. These specimens are all from the Mueller Herb. Bentham cites a Babbage collection in Flora australiensis supporting the concept that one of these five is the original Babbage collection used by Mueller.As discussed in text, specimens 1, 2, and 5 can be excluded. Either or both specimens 3 and 4 represent original material used by Mueller to describe the species and could be chosen.Specimens 3 and 4 are possible syntypes, possibly matching either the Babbage or Goodwin material.