Type : "4.
Laurus (
globosa) fructu nigro, calice rubente.
Borbonia fructu globoso, nigro, calice è viridi rubente. Plum[ier, Nov. Pl. Amer]. Gen.
4[. 1703, fide TL-2,
8067]. " [protologue].
Guyane française, s. loc., 07/1762-07/1764, stérile, J.B.C. Fusée Aublet s.n. (LT:
BM000947248 [sur
Global plants; cité comme holotype par J.G. Rohwer, Fl. Neotrop. Monogr., 60:
245. 1993;
Nectandra vaga Meisn., det. C. Mez, 1887-1888]).
Autre matériel original: Hispaniola, Haiti "plantam etiam reperi apud insulam Sandominicanam", 1689-1695, fleurs et fruits, C. Plumier (planche originale de Plumier
in Botanicon Amer., 6: t. 99 [
MS6, éléments 222-223], copie de C. Aubriet du codex de Boerhaave publiée
in Burman, Pl. Amer., 3:
50,
tab. 60. 1756 [04/06/1756, fide TL-2,
8069]).
Type : Ce nom a été diversement appliqué à une espèce des Antilles (en
considérant que le type était la plante de Plumier, par ex. Lamarck 1792, Sprengel 1825, Kostermans 1936, Allen 1964, Howard 1981) ou des Guyanes (en
considérant que le type était la plante d'Aublet, par ex. Mez 1889, Rohwer 1993). Il semble que cette
espèce n'ait pas été typifiée avant J.G. Rohwer (Fl. Neotrop.
Monogr., 60:
249. 1993) qui argumente largement sa décision: "I accept
Laurus globosa
Aubl. as a validly published name in its own right, typified by the
Aublet material in BM. Kostermans (1936a) stated that "Aublet, .... gave
no description of his
Laurus globosa, but referred to Plumier, Gen. 4." If this were the case, then
L. globosa
would have to be typified by Plumier's drawing, which is of West Indian
material and does not correspond to the species discussed here.
Kostermans therefore accepted
Nectandra pisi as the correct name
of this species. Aublet, however, did give a description: "fructu nigro,
calice rubente." Although this is derived from Plumier's Borbonia
fructu globoso .... it nevertheless constitutes a valid description in
the sense of the Code. So
Laurus globosa is not validated solely
by reference to a pre-starting point description (cf. Art 32.3 Ex. 3 and
Recommendation 32 A), and therefore Art 7.13 does not apply. Lourteig's
(1987) statement that Aublet did not see any material is incorrect.
Most types for his Flora are preserved in BM, and in some cases it is
even possible to match them with his illustrations.
Laurus globosa was not illustrated, but among the Aublet material there is a specimen annotated as
Laurus globosa, and there is no reason to doubt that this is the type of the species." Voir aussi Mez (Jahrb. Königl. Bot. Gart. Berlin, 5:
415-
416. 1889), A.J.G.H. Kostermans (Meded. Bot. Mus. Herb. Rijks Univ. Utrecht, 25:
19-21. 13/01/1936), C.K. Allen (Mem. New York Bot. Gard., 10(5): [
44-]
118-
120[-
123]. 1964), R.A. Howard (J. Arnold Arb., 62:
51-
52. 1981).
