Introduction

A species widespread in tropical Asia from Assam, Burma to Vietnam, Malay Peninsula, Sumatra and Borneo is generally known as Schumannianthus dichotomus Gagnep. (Marantaceae), the Indian mat cane or patidoi. Its nomenclatural history is an example of the perpetual confusion between nomenclature and taxonomy.

It was first very briefly diagnosed by Roxburgh (1810: 324) and subsequently more extensively described (1820: 2 – 3) as Phrynium dichotomum and is currently represented by specimens in at least B-W, BM, LINN and LIV and unpublished illustrations (Icon. ined. 1013; CAL (Sanjappa et al. 1994), K (Sealy 1956)). There is also a Roxburgh specimen in K that came from the Forsyth Herbarium with a ticket bearing the name Thalia dichotoma in Roxburgh’s hand.

This was the beginning of a confusion that has lasted until today. Judging from the synonymy cited by Roxburgh (1810: 324), he tried to identify his specimens using literature at hand: Rumphius (1743), Willdenow (1797: 16), which actually is Forster (1786), and Loureiro (1790). In fact he had another genus and species before him: Rumphius, Forster and Loureiro described what is now known as Donax canniformis (G. Forst.) G. Forst. ex K. Schum. As Roxburgh (1810) cited Thalia canniformis G. Forst. (indirectly via Willdenow 1797) and Donax arundastrum Lour. in the synonymy of Phrynium dichotomum, according to ICN (McNeill et al. 2012) Art. 7.5 this combination is superfluous for and homotypic with the oldest legitimate synonym, Thalia canniformis G. Forst. Roxburgh also referred with doubt to Maranta tonckat Aubl. (Aublet 1775: 3), which was based on Aublet’s own observations in South America. It is obvious that Aublet wrongly equated this species with the Rumphian description and plate of an Asian species, and this reference is to be deleted here, even when the epithet is of Rumphian derivation. The combination therefore does not play a role in the current story. It is presently regarded as Stromanthe tonckat (Aubl.) Eichl. (Eichler 1884: 80).

Salisbury (1812: 276) seemed to have had an inkling of Roxburgh’s misinterpretation, but on the other hand he had very controversial ideas about plants and their names. Salisbury cited page 7 of Roxburgh (1810) for Phrynium dichotomum, which may indicate that he was using a proof or reprint copy of Roxburgh’s paper paginated from 1. He proposed Clinogyne dichotoma (Roxb.) Salisb., but the genus is invalid, and thus the combination as well. The remark that the species is a shrub, while Maranta arundinacea L. is a herb has generally been regarded as insufficient for a validating diagnostic remark. The reference to the specific description of Phrynium dichotomum Roxb. cannot be the basis for the erection of a genus (ICN Art. 41.2(b)) and so there cannot be a valid combination under it. The generic name Clinogyne and the combination were validated by Bentham & Hooker (1883: 651).

It is clear that Kuntze (1891: 683 – 684) also realised that Phrynium dichotomum consisted of two elements. The nomenclatural part is that of Forster and Loureiro (cited under Arundastrum canniforme Kuntze), the taxonomic part is a different species, which he called Arundastrum benthamianum Kuntze and for which he gave a descriptio in clave. No type is indicated. What a possible candidate might be is the hint to Clinogyne dichotoma “Bth. in BHgp, non Roxb.” Under current practice Kuntze’s remark might better be rephrased as: “Bentham in Bentham & Hook. f., Gen. Pl., pro specim., excl. synon.” We here designate Roxburgh s.n. in BM as the lectotype of Arundastrum benthamianum Kuntze.

Schumann (1902: 32) confused things even more when he recognised the genus Donax which included Phrynium dichotomum Roxb., but his Donax is not the one described by Loureiro, while the new genus Actoplanes K. Schum. is. It is beyond comprehension how this expert could make such a mistake.

Gagnepain (1904: 169 – 179) tried to explain the situation and proposed a new genus, Schumannianthus Gagnep. for Donax sensu K. Schum. We accept it as validly published although there is no generic diagnosis or description, but because of the many, more or less direct references to Schumann’s works, we think sufficient data are given to the diagnoses and descriptions there. Gagnepain included only one species in Schumannianthus, S. dichotomus Gagnep. This is not a new combination for Phrynium dichotomum Roxb., as cited by some, even today, but a “new” species. Gagnepain erroneously called it a “nom. nov.” From the rather garbled list of synonyms (pp. 178 – 179) it is clear that he was uncertain about the application of the Forster combination, and not aware of Kuntze’s similar conclusion. If Gagnepain had taken a new epithet as well, this would have become much more evident and less confusing. As he did not appoint a type, we here designate Gallatly 954 from Burma in the Paris Herbarium as lectotype.

Suksathan & Borchsenius (2005: 1084) also realised this mix-up, and equated Schumannianthus dichotomus Gagnep. erroneously with Phrynium dichotomum Roxb. … excl. syn.” as the purported basionym. They selected as lectotype from amongst the Roxburgh specimens one in BM (BM 000820319), with possible isotypes in LINN and LIV. This choice is rejected here, as these specimens were not among the ones cited or referred to by Gagnepain. This choice seems to stretch the meaning of ICN Art. 9.3 Note 2 too far.

A synonym occasionally cited is Thalia dichotoma [Roxb.] Roxb. ex Link (1820: 21). This is clearly an invalid name, as it was not accepted by the author.

The combination Maranta dichotoma A. Dietr. (Dietrich 1831: 17) has been overlooked (on 8 June 2016 it was not recorded by IPNI nor found on the internet). Dietrich cited Donax arundastrum, Phrynium dichotomum Roxb. and Thalia canniformis and his combination is therefore superfluous and homotypic with the latter. Instead, it is generally attributed to Wallich (Wallich 1832a: no. 6614) but there it is a nomen nudum as no Roxburgh element is cited, unless perhaps it was no. 6614F from the Botanic Garden in Calcutta where Roxburgh cultivated the species after 1795.

Rolfe (1907: 244) gave a list of synonyms for Schumannianthus dichotomus Gagnep., all of which are superfluous and are homotypic with Thalia canniformis except for the heterotypic synonym Maranta ramosissima Wall. (Wallich 1832b: 51). This is obviously valid and typified by Herb. East India Company 6615 (K-W). However the specimen is not Schumannianthus dichotomus, it is Maranta arundinacea. The leaves are larger and more lanceolate than in S. dichotomus; as is also clear from Wallich’s illustration.

Schumannianthus benthamianus (Kuntze) Veldkamp & I. M. Turner comb. nov.

http://www.ipni.org/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:60472824-2

Basionym: Arundastrum benthamianum Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 684 (1891), based on Clinogyne dichotoma sensu Bentham & Hooker (1883: 651), non Roxb. (1810). Type: Herb. Roxburgh s.n. (lectotype, selected here, BM (barcode no. BM000820319), possible isolectotypes in B-W, LINN, LIV), see note.

Schumannianthus dichotomus Gagnep. (Gagnepain 1904: 169). Type: Burma, Tenasserim, Chu Ku Plains, 27 April 1877, G. Gallatly 954 (lectotype, selected here, P (barcode no. P02202289); perhaps with duplicates in B, CAL, MANCH; not in L).

note. Of the following combinations, the specimens/illustrations belong here, but the combinations are synonyms of Donax canniformis.

Phrynium dichotomum Roxb. (Roxburgh 1810: 324). Thalia dichotoma Roxb. ex Link (1820: 21), nom. inval. Clinogyne dichotoma Salisb. [Salisbury 1812: 276, nom. inval.] ex Benth. & Hook. f. (Bentham & Hooker 1883: 651). Vouchers: W. Roxburgh s.n. (B-W [×2], BM, LINN, LIV), Icon. ined. 1013 (CAL, K).

Schumannianthus benthamianus is of some local use in weaving mats, hats, boxes, etc., and magic against crocodiles (Rumphius 1743: 23). Because of these minor economic importances a proposal for conservation of Schumannianthus dichotomus seemed likely to fail.

Donax canniformis (G. Forst.) G. Forst. ex K. Schum. (Schumann 1892: 440). Type: [Vanuatu], Mallicolo Insula oceani pacifies, Herb. Forster s.n. (lectotype, selected as the first step by Rolfe (1907: 243), and as the second step here, BM (barcode no. BM000632825); possible isolectotypes BM, GOET, LIV, M, MW, P, UPS-T (see Nicolson & Fosberg 2004: 203)).

Arundastrum, tonckat seytam [Devil’s staff] Rumph. (Rumphius 1743: 22, t. 7). Vouchers: Robinson Pl. Rumph. Amboin. 520 [A, B (lost?), BM, BO, CAL, F, GH, K, L, MO, NSW, NY, P, U (= L), UC, US (main set), W], Boerlage 191, 516 (BO).

Thalia canniformis G. Forst. (Forster 1786: 1). Phrynium canniforme (G. Forst.) Schrank (1824: 178). Ilythuria canniformis (G. Forst.) Raf. (Rafinesque 1838: 51). Arundastrum canniforme (G. Forst.) Kuntze (1891: 683). Clinogyne canniformis (G. Forst.) K. Schum. (Schumann 1897: 96). Actoplanes canniformis (G. Forst.) K. Schum. (Schumann 1902: 34).

The following combinations are superfluous and homotypic with the preceding:

Phrynium dichotomum Roxb. (Roxburgh 1810: 324). Clinogyne dichotoma Salisb. ex Benth. & Hook. f. (Bentham & Hooker 1883: 651). Maranta dichotoma A. Dietr. (Dietrich 1831: 17).

Refer to Suksathan & Borchsenius (2005: 1084) for further heterotypic synonyms.

Maranta arundinacea L. (Linnaeus 1753: 2). Type: Herb. Clifford: 2, Maranta 1 (lectotype, selected by Andersson (1986: 739), BM (barcode no. BM000557503)).

Maranta ramosissima Wall. (Wallich 1832a: no. 6615, nom. nud.) (Wallich 1832b: 51, t. 286). Type: Hortus Botanicus Calcuttensis [EIC 6615] (holotype K-W (barcode no. K001124307)).