Unknown.

As the original protologue for E. laurifolia (Todaro 1860) could not be found, it is not possible to determine if this name was validly published and thus illegitimate, as it was already validly published by Jacquin (1768), or it can be considered as a nomen nudum. Moreover, the protologue is cited on digital databases as being published in 1860, but according to TL-2 it was published either in 1859 or 1862. Todaro (1862) later published the variety E. crista-galli var. laurifolia based on his previous E. laurifolia, but made no additional informative description that could help confirm the identity of the mentioned specimen.

Unknown.

As the original protologue for E. speciosa (Todaro 1860) could not be found, it is not possible to determine if this name was validly published and thus illegitimate, as it was already validly published by Andrews (1807), or it can be considered as a nomen nudum. Moreover, the protologue is cited on digital databases as being published in 1860, but according to TL-2 it was published either in 1859 or 1862. Todaro (1862) later published the variety E. crista-galli var. speciosa based on his previous E. speciosa, but made no additional informative description that could help confirm the identity of the mentioned specimen.

Unknown.

As the original protologue (Mattos 1977) could not be found, nor any collection made by Mattos was found in any herbaria, this variety could not be confirmed as a valid name or synonym.

Brazil. Maranhão: “in sylvis ad flumen Itapicurú prov. Maragnanensis”, s.d., Martius s.n. (lectotype, designated by Krukoff 1938, pg. 233 [first-step]; and Martins and Tozzi 2018, pg. 399 [second-step]: M [M0213337]; isolectotypes: M [M0213336, M0213338]). Residual syntypes: Brazil. Bahia: “in campis prov. Bahiensis australis”, s.d., Wied-Neuwied s.n., BR (BR0000006584023); Minas Gerais: “in prov. Minarum ad Caxoeira do Campo”, 1839, Claussen 119, K (K000930965); “prope Barbacena”, s.d., Saint-Hilaire 155 P (P00758901); 158, P (P00758955); 159, P (P00758954).

Martius (1859) published E. falcata by Bentham mentioning four different collections from Brazil: one from the state of Maranhão (Martius s.n.), one from Bahia (Wied-Neuwied s.n.), and two from Minas Gerais (Claussen s.n. and Saint-Hilaire s.n.), but without mentioning any herbaria. Krukoff and Barneby (1974) accessed the collection by Martius in herbarium M and selected it as the type specimen. Because there are three different exsiccatae in the mentioned herbarium, Martins and Tozzi (2018) designated one of them as a second-step lectotype (Fig. 3). Despite not mentioning the herbaria of the other syntypes from Bahia and Minas Gerais, some collections are cited here with what was found in digital herbaria and believed to be the original ones. Kuntze (1891) published Corallodendron mentioning E. falcata as a synonym of C. falcatum, but the genus was later synonymized under Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894). Additional material: BR (BR0000013473808, photo n.v.), F (neg. 6301, negative of M0213337), IAN (IAN001758, photo of F neg. 6301), MO (MO-1680376, photo of F neg. 6301), P (P02951457, photo of M0213337).

Figure 3. 

Lectotype of Erythrina falcata Benth., in von Martius (1859: 172), designated by Krukoff (1938: 233, first-step) and Martins and Tozzi (2018: 399, second-step). Source: Botanische Staatssammlung München (M) via JSTOR Global Plants, M0213337.

(1) Colla (1834) published E. martii as a doubtful species from Brazil with a short description that resembles E. falcata, but without mentioning any collections. Krukoff (1938) already placed it as a doubtful synonym of E. falcata, but did not see the type specimen, which he believed could be at herbarium TO. Moraes et al. (2013), in a treatment of Brazilian plants distributed by Martius in 1827 and published by Colla in “Herbarium Pedemontanum” (Piedmont, Italy), confirmed the synonymy and designated a collection in herbarium TO, where the original material was deposited, as the lectotype of the name. We got access to an image of the TO collection and agree with the synonymy. Furthermore, as the name E. martii had priority over E. falcata due to its date of publication, as specified in Article 11 of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018), Martins and Tozzi (2015) proposed to conserve E. falcata since it was a very well-established name for the species. The proposal was approved by the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants of the ICN at the XIX International Botanical Congress (Applequist 2016; Turland et al. 2017; Wilson 2017).

(2) Spegazzini and Girola (1910) published the variety E. crista-galli var. inermis, which was doubtfully synonymized under E. falcata by Krukoff (1938), who did not see the type specimen. The synonymy was later confirmed by Lozano and Zapater (2010). Furthermore, Gutiérrez et al. (2002) investigated the type collections by Spegazzini in herbarium LP and found that only wood samples were collected for some species. As those samples could not be found anywhere in the LP collections, the holotype for this name is presumably lost. The protologue also could not be found online, but we had access to an image of the isotype’s exsiccata at LIL and designated it here as the lectotype.

The specific epithet “falcata” is derived from Latin, meaning “curved” or “sickle-shaped”, and was presumably chosen due to its corolla falcate shape, especially the standard and keel petals.

According to herbaria labels and Carvalho (2003), E. falcata is generally known as “mulungu” or “corticeira” in Brazil, and also “bico-de-papagaio”, “bico-de-pato”, “canivete”, “corticeiro-de-mato”, “marrequeira”, “mochoco” (and spelling variations), “moxoqueiro” (and spelling variations), “mulungu-coral”, “mutuqueiro” (and spelling variations), “pau-cebola”, “sanandú” (and spelling variations), “sananduí”, “sananduba” (and spelling variations), “sapato-de-judeu”, “suinã” (and spelling variations), “suinã-do-brejo” or “sumaúma” in the state of Minas Gerais; “bico-de-papagaio”, “canivete”, “coral”, “corticeira-ceboleiro”, “corticeira-da-serra”, “corticeiro-de-mato”, “marrequeira”, “mochoco” (and spelling variations), “mochoqueiro” (and spelling variations) or “letuíno” in Paraná; “canivete”, “mulungú tijolo”, “mulungú suinã”, “sanandú” (and spelling variations) or “sanandú do brejo” in Rio de Janeiro; “bituqueiro (and spelling variations), “camarão-assado”, “ceibo”, “corticeira-da-serra” or “corticeira-do-mato” in Rio Grande do Sul; “bico-de-papagaio”, “bituqueira” (and spelling variations), “corticeira”, “corticeira-da-serra”, “facãozinho”, “mituqueira” (and spelling variations) or “sinhanduva” in Santa Catarina; and “bico-de-arara”, “bico-de-papagaio”, “canivete”, “corticeira”, “feijão-bravo”, “machoco” (and spelling variations), “mulungu-coral”, “mutuqueiro” (and spelling variations), “sapatinho-de-judeu”, “sanandu” (and spelling variations), “sananduí”, “sananduva” (and spelling variations), “suinã” (and spelling variations), “suinã-da-mata”, “suinã-da-serra”, “suinã-mulambo” or “vermelheira” in São Paulo.

Indonesia. “In Amboina raro occurrit. Arborescens in Lariqua & Hitoe, longa vero ſeu fruteſcens juxta ripas fluminis Elephantis, ubique non longe a mari. Magna vero copia reperitur in Java, Baleya, Borneo & Sumatra, uti & modicum in Ceramæ ora Orientali”, s.d., s.leg., s.n. (lectotype, designated by Martins and Tozzi 2018, pg. 399: illustration in Rumphius 1741, tab. 78).

Rumphius (1741) published descriptions and illustrations of three species from Ambon Island (Indonesia) that he called “Gelala”, before Linnaeus’ binomial system. Then, Loureiro (1790) published E. fusca from Vietnam mentioning the name “Gelala Aquatica” as a synonym, and Rumphius’ illustration was correctly designated by Martins and Tozzi (2018) as the lectotype of the name (Fig. 4). Kuntze (1891) published Corallodendron mentioning E. fusca as a synonym of C. fuscum, but the genus was later synonymized under Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894).

Figure 4. 

Lectotype of Erythrina fusca Lour. (1790: 427), designated by Martins and Tozzi (2018: 399). Source: Missouri Botanical Garden – Peter H. Raven Library via Biodiversity Heritage Library, available at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/187502.

(1) Willdenow (1801) published E. glauca from Caracas (Venezuela), but did not mention any type specimen. A collection from Caracas labeled as E. glauca was found in Willdenow’s type specimens’ section in herbarium B with the same description given by him, and it was thus designated here as the lectotype. The name has been considered a synonym of E. fusca since Krukoff and Barneby (1974). Walpers (1851, not 1850) published Duchassaingia mentioning E. glauca as a synonym of D. glauca, but the genus was later synonymized under Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894). Kuntze (1891) published Corallodendron, mentioning E. glauca as a synonym of C. glaucum, but the genus was also synonymized into Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894). Additional material: F (neg. 2372, photo of B-W13101-010), IAN (IAN001757, photo of F neg. 2372).

(2) Roxburgh (1814) mentioned E. ovalifolia from India, but did not describe the species, so this name was first considered a nomen nudum. However, he fully described the species in Flora Indica (Roxburgh 1832), although no type specimen was assigned. Wight (1839, not 1840) published a redrawing of Roxburgh’s unpublished plates of species described in 1832, and his illustration for E. ovalifolia was designated here as the lectotype. The name has been considered a synonym of E. fusca since Krukoff and Barneby (1974). Walpers (1851, not 1850) published Duchassaingia mentioning E. ovalifolia as a synonym of D. ovalifolia, but the genus was later synonymized under Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894).

(3) De Candolle (1825) published E. patens based on a plate made by Sessé and Mociño for the Flora Mexicana, later published by Alph. De Candolle (De Candolle 1874). As stated by Krukoff and Barneby (1974), the species does not occur in Mexico and must have been collected somewhere in the Caribbean. The authors mentioned a collection by Sessé, Mociño, Castillo and Maldonado as the type, but did not mention any herbaria. Three exsiccatae of this collection were found in herbarium MA and one of them was designated here as the lectotype, in a second-step lectotypification. Kuntze (1891) published Corallodendron mentioning E. patens as a synonym of C. patens, but the genus was later synonymized under Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894).

(4) Blanco’s description (Blanco 1845) of E. caffra from the Philippines matches E. fusca, but as the name was already validly published by Thunberg (1800), Blanco’s publication was considered illegitimate. Martins and Tozzi (2018) correctly designated his illustration in Flora de Filipinas 3^rd edn. (Blanco et al. 1883?) as the lectotype, but according to TL-2 (Stafleu 1976), both its publication date and plate number remain doubtful.

(5) Pulle (1912) published the variety E. ovalifolia var. inermis from Indonesia based only on the absence of spines, a character with well-documented morphological plasticity in Erythrina species (Guedes-Oliveira et al. manuscript in preparation). The exsiccatae found in herbarium L undoubtedly place the name as a synonym of E. fusca. The variety was already synonymized in Krukoff and Barneby (1974), but as the authors mistakenly cited it as “E. fusca Lour. var inermis”, the correct name is designated here as a new synonym.

(6) Rock (1920) published the variety E. fusca var. inermis from a specimen being cultivated in Hawaii after seeds brought from Manila (the Philippines), based only on the absence of spines, which is a character with well-documented morphological plasticity in Erythrina species (Guedes-Oliveira et al. manuscript in preparation). His photograph was designated here as the lectotype of the name, which has been considered a synonym since Krukoff and Barneby (1974).

The specific epithet “fusca” is derived from Latin, meaning “dark” or “dusky”, and it was presumably chosen due to the dark-orange color of the petals in some individuals, described as “fuſco-ruber” in the protologue of the species. It is important to point out that the color of the petals varies a lot in this species, from shades of light-yellow to dark-orange and even vinaceous-red (Guedes-Oliveira et al. manuscript in preparation).

According to herbaria labels, E. fusca is generally known in Brazil as “mulungu”, and also as “alecrim” in the state of Acre; “açacurana” (and spelling variations) or “assacu branco” in Amazonas; “assacurana” (and spelling variations) in Amapá; “eritrina-da-baixa” or “sumaúma” in Bahia; “abobinha” or “flor-de-aboboreira” in Mato Grosso; “abobreiro” in Mato Grosso do Sul; “assacuhy”, “parica” or “pau angico” in Pará; and “assacurana” in Rio de Janeiro.

Unknown.

Blanco (1837) published E. picta from the Philippines with a short description but without mentioning any type specimen. However, as Linnaeus (1763) had already validly published it before, it is an illegitimate name. The name was synonymized by Krukoff and Barneby (1974) as E. fusca, but could not be confirmed and thus remains here as a doubtful synonym.

Malaysia. Kedah: Lankawi on the sea shore at Kwah; common round Alor Sta; Bukit Pinang, January 1897, Ridley 15134; 15135.

Ridley (1911) published E. atrosanguinea from Malaysia with a full description and type specimens, but without mentioning any herbaria. Krukoff (1939) considered this a synonym of E. fusca, but he could not see the type specimens. As Ridley described its flowers as “deep red black”, and the type collections were not found on digital databases, it remains as a doubtful synonym.

Brazil. Minas Gerais: “in silvis Catingas prope Contendas [Águas de Contendas] prov. Minarum”, s.d., Martius 1582 (lectotype, designated by Krukoff 1938, pg. 241 [first-step]; and Martins and Tozzi 2018, pg. 399 [second-step]: M [M0240565]; isolectotype: M [M0240564]).

Bentham published a treatment of Brazilian Erythrina in Martius’ Flora Brasiliensis (Martius 1859). He included the name E. mulungu, given by Martius, citing a collection from the state of Minas Gerais but without mentioning any herbaria. Krukoff and Barneby (1974) located a collection by Martius in herbarium M and designated it as the type specimen. However, as there were two different exsiccatae in the mentioned herbarium, Martins and Tozzi (2018) correctly selected one of them as a second-step lectotypification (Fig. 5). Some databases give the authorship of the name only to Martius, but Bentham is the author of this species in Flora Brasiliensis. Kuntze (1891) published Corallodendron mentioning E. mulungu as a synonym of C. mulungu, but the genus was later synonymized under Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894). Additional material: F (neg. 6302, negative of M0240565), IAN001759 (photo of F neg. 6302).

Figure 5. 

Lectotype of Erythrina mulungu Mart. ex Benth., in Martius (1859: 173), designated by Krukoff (1938: 241, first-step); and Martins and Tozzi (2018: 399, second-step). Source: Botanische Staatssammlung München (M) via JSTOR Global Plants, M0240565.

(1) Spegazzini published E. chacoënsis in Spegazzini and Girola (1910), but the original protologue could not be found online. However, Lillo (1924 [reprint from 1917]) published Notas sobre el Herbario Venturi, mentioning the name and the original collection of Venturi in Argentina. An exsiccata from the same location was found at herbarium LP, which has the inscription “Erythrina chacoënsis Speg. (n. sp.)” and follows the description given by Lillo; hence it is believed to be the original material cited by Spegazzini. The name has been considered as a synonym of E. dominguezii since Krukoff (1938), who believed E. mulungu was a synonym of E. verna Vell., which was later found to be a different and accepted species by Martins and Tozzi (2018).

(2) Hassler (1922) published E. dominguezii mentioning three collections, one from Argentina (Jörgensen 3215) and two from Paraguay (Rojas 2061 and 2122), but without citing any herbaria. Lozano and Zapater (2010) then correctly designated the collection from Jörgensen as the lectotype of the name. The name was considered accepted until Martins and Tozzi (2018), who correctly synonymized it under E. mulungu. As for the remaining syntypes, some collections are cited here with what was found on digital herbaria and believed to be the original ones. Additional material: MO (MO-1624248, photo n.v.), P (P02934647, photo of GH00066286).

(3) Ducke (1922) published E. xinguensis from Brazil, with a full description and correctly citing the type specimen. However, as there were two exsiccatae in herbarium RB with the same number but without any information regarding a possible division of the same collection in different sheets (e.g. part 1 of 2), one of them was designated here as the lectotype. This name has been synonymized under E. ulei Harms since Krukoff (1938), and it caused much confusion in herbaria as the subsequent taxonomists could not properly identify the species. Ducke’s collections, in fact, correctly represent E. mulungu (Guedes-Oliveira et al. manuscript in preparation) and the name is thus synonymized here. Additional material: F (neg. 2379, negative of B), IAN001764 (photo of F neg. 2379), MO-1680465 (photo of F neg. 2379).

The specific epithet “mulungu” is derived from the most common vernacular name applied to all Erythrina species in Brazil. The origin is unknown, and it has many different meanings in African languages, most referring to a deity or a god creator of everything, father of all gods (e.g. Frankl 1990).

According to herbaria labels, E. mulungu is generally known as “mulungu” in Brazil, and also “pau-de-tiriça” in the state of Minas Gerais; “abobreira” (and spelling variations) or “maleitoso” in Mato Grosso do Sul; “açacurana” (and spelling variations) in Pará; and “bico-de-papagaio” in São Paulo.

Peru. “Peruvia subandina. In sylvis”, September 1829, Poeppig 1306 (lectotype, designated by Martins and Tozzi 2018, pg. 400: NY [NY00016336]; isolectotypes: B [presumably destroyed], F [V0043502F, frag. and photo of F neg. 2373; V0059555F, frag.?]).

Walpers (1851, not 1850) published Micropteryx with a new species from Peru (M. poeppigiana), which was based on Erythrina micropteryx, a name given by Poeppig that was never published. This mention also resulted in the publication of E. micropteryx itself, although it is considered a nomen nudum. Urban (1899) validly published the name E. micropteryx from Poeppig again. As the genus Micropteryx proposed by Walpers was later synonymized under Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894), Cook (1901) published E. poeppigiana based on M. poeppigiana by Walpers, which is the name that has been used for the species ever since. Krukoff (1938) designated the collection of Poeppig in herbarium B as the lectotype, but it was presumably destroyed in the bombing raid in 1943 (Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin 2022). Thus, Martins and Tozzi (2018) correctly designated the remaining available material in herbarium NY as the new lectotype (Fig. 6). Skeels (Galloway 1912) again published E. poeppigiana based on M. poeppigiana by Walpers, but as the name was already validly published by Cook (1901), it is considered illegitimate. Additional material: F (neg. 2373, negative of B), IAN001761 (photo of F neg. 2373), MO-1684973 (photo n.v.).

Figure 6. 

Lectotype of Erythrina poeppigiana (Walpers) O.F.Cook (1901: 57), designated by Martins and Tozzi (2018: 400). Source: William and Lynda Steere Herbarium (NY) – The New York Botanical Garden via C. V. Starr Virtual Herbarium, NY00016336.

(1) Spruce (1859) published E. amasisa from Peru, but did not mention any type specimen. Krukoff (1938) cited a collection from Spruce in herbarium K as the type, but as there were three different exsiccatae in the mentioned herbarium, one of them was designated here as a second-step lectotypification.

(2) Posada-Arango (1909) published E. pisamo from Colombia but did not assign any type specimen. It was subsequently correctly designated by Martins and Tozzi (2018) as his illustration in the same publication. The name was already synonymized under E. poeppigiana by Krukoff (1938).

(3) Standley (1916) validly published E. darienensis from Panama with a full description mentioning the type specimen, and the name was already synonymized under E. poeppigiana by Krukoff (1938). Additional material: P (P02951340, photo of US00004481), W (W19390013217, photo of US00004481).

(4) Steyermarkii and Lasser (1981) published the form E. poeppigiana f. redmondii from Venezuela based only on some specimens with yellow flowers, and correctly cited the type specimen. As no other known characteristics support the distinction between forms (Guedes-Oliveira et al. manuscript in preparation), nor is this variation reported from elsewhere, it is designated here as a new synonym.

The specific epithet “poeppigiana” was a homage to Eduard Friedrich Poeppig (1798–1868), a German botanist, zoologist, and explorer who collected the type specimen attributed to the species.

There are no other known vernacular names for E. poeppigiana in Brazil besides the commonly used “mulungu”.

Paraguay. Central: In the region of Lake Ypacaray, Februrary 1913, Hassler 11450 (holotype: MO [MO-2050072]; isotypes: A [A00066288], BM [BM000538332], G [G00381487; G00381504, two sheets; G00381507, two sheets], K [K000502765], L [L0018977], NY [NY00008005, frag. slide, top left envelope; NY00008006], US [US00004504]).

There are no nomenclature issues with E. similis, as the name was validly published and the type was specimen correctly cited (Fig. 7). However, all databases and studies of the genus state that the protologue was published in 1939. Still, according to the journal’s website, the publication date is October 1938. Additional material: P (P02960062, photo of MO-2050072).

Figure 7. 

Holotype of Erythrina similis Krukoff (1938: 271). Source: Missouri Botanical Garden (MO) via Tropicos, MO-2050072.

The specific epithet “similis” is derived from Latin, meaning “similar to”, and was chosen due to E. similis similarity with E. amazonica, especially in dried specimens.

There are no other known vernacular names for E. similis in Brazil besides the commonly used “mulungu”.

England. s.loc., ex hort., s.d., s.leg., s.n. (lectotype, designated by Martins and Tozzi 2018, pg. 400: illustration in Andrews 1807, tab. 443).

Andrews (1807) published E. speciosa, a name communicated by Lambert from a cultivated specimen in British greenhouses, with a short description and a well-made illustration of a leaf, inflorescence, and flowers. As Andrews did not mention any type specimen, only citing that the species is “supposed to be a native of South America”, Martins and Tozzi (2018) correctly designated his illustration as the lectotype (Fig. 8).

Figure 8. 

Lectotype of Erythrina speciosa Lamb. ex Andrews (1807: tab. 443), designated by Martins and Tozzi (2018: 400). Source: Missouri Botanical Garden – Peter H. Raven Library via Biodiversity Heritage Library, available at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35501082.

(1) Brotero (1824) published E. poianthes from a cultivated specimen in the Jardim Botânico de Lisboa (Portugal), with a complete description and two very detailed illustrations of leaves, inflorescences, and dissected flowers, but without mentioning any type specimen. However, his description was published in the previous year by Tilloch and Taylor (1823) as a resumed version for the Proceedings of Learned Societies. This publication takes place due to the principles of priority as specified in Article 11 of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018), meaning the name published by Brotero is illegitimate. The name has been treated as a synonym since Krukoff (1938), and Martins and Tozzi (2018) correctly designated one of Brotero’s illustrations as the lectotype. Hasskarl (1855) published Stenotropis berteroi based on E. poianthes by Brotero, but the genus was later synonymized under Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894).

(2) Lindley (1833) published the variety E. poianthes var. subnermis, with a short description and a well-made illustration of a leaflet and inflorescence from a cultivated specimen in a greenhouse in London (England). The variety was based solely on the absence of spines and the leafy habit in anthesis, which are characters with well-documented morphological plasticity in the species (Guedes-Oliveira et al. manuscript in preparation). The name was already synonymized under E. speciosa by Krukoff (1938). Lindley did not assign any type specimen, so Martins and Tozzi (2018) correctly designated his illustration as the lectotype for the name.

(3) Presl (1834) published E. reticulata from a specimen in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), with a full description and a detailed illustration of leaves, inflorescence and dissected flowers, but without mentioning any type specimen. The name was already synonymized under E. speciosa by Krukoff (1938), but as he also did not designate any type specimen, Martins and Tozzi (2018) correctly designated Presl illustration as the lectotype. Walpers (1851, not 1850) published Micropteryx mentioning E. reticulata as a synonym of M. reticulata, but the genus was later synonymized into Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894). Kuntze (1891) published Corallodendron mentioning E. reticulata as a synonym of C. reticulatum, but the genus was synonymized under Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894) as well.

(4) Mattos (1967) published the variety E. speciosa var. rosea from a cultivated specimen in the Jardim Botânico de São Paulo (Brazil), based on the pinkish color of its flowers. The original protologue could not be found online, but the type specimens were seen. As there are no other morphological characters to support this variety besides the corolla’s color, which is a common mutation observed in cultivated specimens of E. speciosa (Guedes-Oliveira et al. manuscript in preparation), the name was already synonymized under E. speciosa by Martins and Tozzi (2018).

The specific epithet “speciosa” is derived from Latin, meaning “handsome” or “splendid”, and was presumably given by horticulturists who were amazed by the showy appearance of its flowers when the species was introduced to the United Kingdom.

According to Carvalho (2010) and herbarium records, E. speciosa is generally known as “mulungu” in Brazil, and also as “canivete”, “eritrina-anã”, “mulungu-da-várzea”, “mulungu-do-pequeno” or “suinã” (and spelling variations) in the state of Minas Gerais; “facãozinho”, “mulungu-do-litoral”, “suinã” (and spelling variations) or “unha-do-diabo” in Paraná; “bico-de-papagaio”, “candelabro-vermelho”, “corticeira”, “eritrina”, “eritrina-candelabro”, “mulungu-do-litoral”, “suinã” (and spelling variations) or “suinã-reticulata” in São Paulo, and “bico-de-papagaio” in Santa Catarina.

Peru. Loreto: Yurimaguas, August 1902, Ule 6300 (lectotype, designated here: K [K000502764]; isolectotypes: B [presumably destroyed], HBG [HBG519848], L [L0018978], NY [NY00008009, frag., bottom envelope; NY00521212, frag. slide, left envelope], RB [RB00540258!, mixture! fls. in packet are of E. mulungu Mart. ex Benth.]). Remaining syntype: Peru. Puno: “Provinz Sandia, Chunchusmayo, in der Nähe des Flusses”, 900 m, July 1902, Weberbauer 1249).

Ule (1907) published a complete description of a species named by Harms mentioning two different collections in Peru (Ule 6300 and Weberbauer 1249), but without citing any herbaria. Krukoff (1938) correctly designated the collection from Ule in herbarium B as the lectotype, but it was presumably destroyed in the bombing raid in 1943 (Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin 2022). Therefore, here we select one of the remaining available specimens in herbarium K as the new lectotype (Fig. 9). The remaining syntype collection could not be found online. Additional material: F (neg. 2376, photo of B), IAN (IAN001760, photo of F neg. 2376), MG (MG006169, photo n.v.), MO (MO-1680466, photo n.v.; MO-1680467, photo n.v.).

Figure 9. 

Lectotype of Erythrina ulei Harms, in Ule (1907: 172), designated here. Source: Kew Herbarium – Royal Botanic Gardens (K) via Kew Herbarium Catalogue, K000502764.

The specific epithet “ulei” was a homage to Ernst Heinrich Georg Ule (1854–1915), a German botanist who collected one of the syntype specimens attributed to the species.

According to herbarium records, E. ulei is generally known as “mulungu” in Brazil, and also as “mandiocão” in the state of Mato Grosso.

Venezuela. Distrito Capital: Caracas, s.d., Humboldt 653 (lectotype [not holotype], designated by Martins and Tozzi 2018, pg. 400: B [BW13100010, sheet I; BW13100020, sheet II; BW13100030, sheet III]; isolectotype: P [P00660125]).

Willdenow (1801) published E. velutina with a complete description of a specimen from Venezuela, but without mentioning any type specimen. Martins and Tozzi (2018) then designated, from the Willdenow’s type specimens in herbarium B, a collection from Humboldt composed of three sheets as the type of this name. However, as the authors mistakenly stated it as a holotype, the typification is corrected here to lectotype (Fig. 10). Walpers (1853, not 1854) published Chirocalyx mentioning E. velutina as a synonym of C. velutinus, but the genus was later synonymized under Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894). Kuntze (1891) published Corallodendron mentioning E. velutina as a synonym of C. velutinum, but the genus was also synonymized into Erythrina in Engler and Prantl (1894). Additional material: F (neg. 2378, photo of BW13100010), IAN (IAN001755, photo of F neg. 2378), MO (MO-1624337, photo n.v.; MO-1624338, photo n.v.).

Figure 10. 

Lectotype of Erythrina velutina Willd. (1801: 426), designated by Martins and Tozzi (2018: 400). Source: Herbarium Berolinense (B) – Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin, BW13100010, BW13100020, BW13100030.

(1) Desfontaines (1804) only mentioned the name E. aculeatissima in the Tableau de l’École de Botanique du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle without giving any description, hence it is considered a nomen nudum. The name was considered doubtful by Krukoff (1938), but then was treated as a synonym of E. velutina by Krukoff and Barneby (1974), where the authors designated a collection in herbarium P as the type specimen.

(2) Diels (1937) published E. splendida from Ecuador mentioning a collection from the province of Guayas in herbarium B (Diels 1230) as the type specimen, which was presumably destroyed in the bombing raid in 1943 (Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin 2022). No duplicate or any other collection by Diels could be found on digital databases, so a collection from the same locality was designated as the neotype.

(3) Ridley (1890) published E. aurantiaca from a specimen in the archipelago of Fernando de Noronha (Pernambuco, Brazil), with a full description and an illustration of a leaf, inflorescence, dissected flowers, fruit and seeds. The name was later synonymized under E. velutina f. aurantiaca by Krukoff (1938) based solely on a different coloring of the seeds of some specimens in the archipelago. As there were no other morphological characters to support this form, as the seeds vary in color both in the archipelago and on the mainland in Pernambuco and other Brazilian states (Guedes-Oliveira et al. manuscript in preparation), the name was synonymized into E. velutina by Martins and Tozzi (2018). Additional material: HUEFS (HUEFS000248863, photo of K000206207).

The specific epithet “velutina” is derived from Latin, meaning “velvety”, and was presumably chosen due to the abundance of trichomes in the species, especially on the petiole, abaxial leaflet surface, peduncle, pedicel, and calyx.

According to Carvalho (2008) and herbarium records, E. velutina is generally known as “mulungu” in Brazil, and also as “mulungu-do-ceará” in the state of Amazonas; “bucaré” or “mulungu-da-flor-amarela” in Ceará, where it is also the motive for the name of the municipality of Mulungu; “muchôco” or “mulungá” in Minas Gerais; and “mulungu-da-caatinga”, “pau-de-coral”, “sanandiú”, “sananduva” or “suinã” (and spelling variations) in São Paulo.

Brazil. Rio de Janeiro: “Maritimis habitat”, s.d., s.leg., s.n. (lectotype, designated by Martins and Tozzi 2018, pg. 401: illustration in Biblioteca Nacional Digital Brasil [mss1198656_106]; also in Vellozo 1831, tab. 102); Brazil. Rio de Janeiro: Sta. Maria Magdalena, September 1913, Constantino s.n. (epitype, designated by Martins and Tozzi 2018, pg. 401: RB [RB00176986!]; isoepitypes: K [K000931001], NY [NY00600987], U [U.1243354, U.1243356], US [US02339391]).

Vellozo (1829) published E. verna with a complete description, but without mentioning any type specimen. His illustration was published in Vellozo (1831), and Martins and Tozzi (2018) correctly designated it as the lectotype. However, as Vellozo’s illustration was an incomplete drawing of some inflorescences and dissected flowers that could be easily mistaken for some other Erythrina species, Martins and Tozzi (2018) also correctly designated an epitype to represent the species better (Fig. 11).

Figure 11. 

Left: Lectotype of Erythrina verna Vell. (1829: 304; 1831: tab. 102), designated by Martins and Tozzi (2018: 401). Source: Biblioteca Nacional Digital Brasil - Fundação Biblioteca Nacional, available at http://objdigital.bn.br/acervo_digital/div_manuscritos/mss1198656/mss1198656_106.html; Right: Epitype of E. verna Vell., designated by Martins and Tozzi (2018: 401). Source: Dimitri Sucre Herbarium (RB) – Botanical Garden of Rio de Janeiro via Reflora Virtual Herbarium, RB00176986.

(1) Herzog (1909) validly published E. flammea from Bolivia with a complete description and mentioning the type specimen. The name was already synonymized under E. verna by Krukoff and Barneby (1974).

The specific epithet “verna” is derived from Latin, meaning “related to spring”, and it was presumably chosen due to the association of the flowering period of the species to the beginning of the spring season in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (September).

According to Carvalho (2014) and herbarium records, E. verna is generally known as “mulungu” in Brazil, and also as “corticeira” in the state of Bahia; “bico-de-papagaio”, “corticeira-ceboleiro”, “mulungu-de-flor-branca” or “suinã” (and spelling variations) in Minas Gerais; and “mulungú-de-várzea”, “suinã” or “suinã-da-Argentina” in São Paulo.

Brazil. Rio de Janeiro: “Guanabara, Horto Experimental do Aterro Glória-Flamengo; Culta de sementes recebidas de Bureau of Plant Introduction (U.S.A.). Cresceu no Horto do Museu Nacional e depois foi transplantada para o Aterro da Glória”, 26 August 1963, Mello Filho 2025 (holotype: R [R000117879, two sheets]; isotype: NY [NY00007994]).

There are no nomenclature issues with E. × fluminensis, as the name was validly published, and the type specimen was correctly cited (Fig. 12). The species is a hybrid between E. fusca Lour. and E. speciosa Andrews (Guedes-Oliveira et al. manuscript in preparation).

Figure 12. 

Holotype of Erythrina × fluminensis Barneby & Krukoff, in Krukoff and Barneby (1974: 446). Source: National Museum Herbarium (R) – Federal University of Rio de Janeiro via speciesLink, R000117879.

The specific epithet “fluminensis” was based on the Portuguese word “fluminense”, which is derived from Latin meaning “inhabitant of river”. It was presumably chosen as a homage to the denomination of people born in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where the hybrid species was first cultivated in the country and still exists to the day of this publication.

There are no other known vernacular names for E. × fluminensis in Brazil besides the commonly used “mulungu”.

Jacquin (1804) described E. velutina Willd. from a specimen cultivated in Schloss Schönbrunn (Austria), and this mention has been mistakenly considered as a new publication of this name. Moreover, his description matches E. velutina and even mentions Willdenow’s publication. However, the accompanying illustration represents a different species, so the name authored by Jacquin remains unplaced.

Portugal. Lisbon: “in Horto Regio Olisiponensi [Jardim Botânico de Lisboa], ad Aulam Regiam in Ajuda sitio, et alibi in Lusitania, ubi Martio Aprilique floret. Indigenam e Brasilia esse fertur”, ex hort., s.d., s.leg. s.n. (lectotype, designated here: illustration in Brotero 1824, tab. 12).

Brotero (1824) published the species with a full description and a detailed illustration of leaves, inflorescence and dissected flowers. The description was based on a specimen cultivated at the Jardim Botânico de Lisboa and believed to have a native origin in Brazil. However, according to Krukoff (1938), the calyx as described and illustrated could indicate an association with the African Erythrina species, and not the American ones. Still, he pointed out that some characteristics depicted might be incorrect, so the name remains unplaced.

The species was poorly described in De Candolle (1825) and remained as doubtful ever since its publication. Bentham in Martius (1859) believed it could be a native Brazilian species, but still maintained it as doubtful. According to Krukoff and Barneby (1974), this name is better placed as a synonym of Callichlamys latifolia (A.Rich) K.Schum. (Bignoniaceae).

Vellozo (1829) included a species called “E. corallodendrum” in his treatment of Brazilian Erythrina in Florae Fluminensis, with a description and an illustration published later in Vellozo (1831), but without mentioning any type specimen. This citation was then considered to be a record of the occurrence of E. corallodendrum L. in Brazil rather than a new publication of the same name. Hence, there is no record of this name in any digital databases. However, Lima (1995) mentioned this name as being authored by Vellozo and placed it as a synonym of E. speciosa. The description and illustration given by Vellozo undoubtedly depict the unique morphological features of E. speciosa, but according to Recommendation 50D of Chapter VI of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018), “misidentifications should not be included in synonymies but added after them”, so we exclude the name here.

Brazil. São Paulo: “silvis mediterraneis transalpinis prope praedium Boavista”, s.d., s.leg. s.n. (lectotype, designated here: illustration in Biblioteca Nacional Digital Brasil [mss1198656_107]; also in Vellozo 1831, tab. 103).

The species was poorly described in Vellozo (1829) and the accompanying illustration in Vellozo (1831) depicts a sterile branch from a specimen growing in the municipality of Cunha, state of São Paulo (Pastore et al. 2021). According to Krukoff (1938), it could represent either E. crista-galli L. or E. falcata Benth. As it is impossible to even confirm it as Erythrina, the name remains unplaced.

Colla (1834) mentioned E. adansonii Hortul as a doubtful synonym of E. crista-galli L. However, as no other valid publication or description of this name was found elsewhere, it was excluded here as a nomen nudum.

Miquel (1855) mentioned E. argentea by Blume as synonym of E. ovalifolia Roxb. without any further information. As there was no other valid publication of this name elsewhere, it was excluded here as a nomen nudum.

Bull (1871) briefly described the aesthetic characteristics of a cultivated plant named E. compacta by horticulturists. Later in the same year, Koch (1871) mentioned the specimen cited by Bull, but only repeated his description. It was later also described by Carrière and André (1882), who observed that the specimen was just a more compact cultivated variety of E. crista-galli. According to Article 38 of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018), a name cannot be effectively published using a description of purely aesthetic features, which is the case for all three publications related to this name, thus all of them are excluded here as nomen nudum.

Krukoff and Barneby (1974) mentioned “E. fusca var. inermis” as a synonym of E. fusca, resulting in the publication of this name. However, as Pulle (1912) did not base his variety on E. fusca Lour. but on E. ovalifolia Roxb., the name is excluded here as misapplied.

Guillaumin and Beauvisage (1914) cited E. moelebei by Vieillard in a list of species from New Caledonia, but without giving any additional information. As there was no description of this name elsewhere and the type specimen cited (Vieillard 60) could not be found, the name remains unplaced. Krukoff (1939) treated it as a “hyponym” of E. fusca Lour. without seeing the type specimen as well.

Perkins and Payne (1970) misspelled E. darienensis Standl. as “E. dariensis”, which resulted in the publication of this name as well, so it is excluded here as misapplied.

This name was mentioned by Du Puy et al. (2002) as a synonym of E. fusca Lour. in their treatment of Erythrina in The Leguminosae of Madagascar. The protologue is cited by the authors as being published in 1944, but according to BHP these publications by Viguier ranged only from 1927 to 1936. Moreover, some databases state that this name was used to refer to E. fusca Lour. As the original protologue could not be found, it remains unplaced.