Robert Merrill King (1930–2007) was associated with the Smithsonian Institution from 1962 until 1998. During that time he organized many collecting trips to gather Compositae, mostly in the Neotropics. Among the most successful trips made by King, were those with Luther Earl Bishop (1943–1993). Thus, it was during a trip to Peru in early 1983 that Bishop, who frequently left the roadside and hiked into nearby areas, walked up a trail beside a small shop with hanging potted plants and returned within a half hour with a plant that has caused us problems for 30 years.

Problem 1) The collection arrived at the US National Herbarium (Smithsonian Institution) only a short time before the publication of a monograph by Robinson (1983a) that was supposed to be a complete summary of the Asteraceous tribe Liabeae. The collection was immediately recognized as a new genus (by HR) and, in effect, it made the monograph he had completed obsolete before it was published. Bishopanthus was published later that year in Phytologia (Robinson 1983b).

Problem 2) The original five ample sheets of the gathering were destroyed except for a few small scraps hidden under a bookcase that ultimately became the type.

Problem 3) Attempts by Michael Dillon (F) to collect the plant, based on information from King provided to Robinson, failed to find any sign of the species.

Problem 4) The locality data were skimpy and the original collector, Bishop, and the leader of the expedition, King, have since died, so it is not possible to obtain any additional information.

Problem 5) Morphological analyses have failed to definitively place the species in a subtribe (Funk et al. 2012). Some of the characters link it to the Liabinae and others to a more remote position, as yet undefined. As a result, the genus is currently designated insertae sedis.

Problem 6) Dried leaf material that was collected for chemical analysis (Singh et al. 1985) was apparently discarded after the retirement of both Bohlmann & Jakupovic.

Problem 7) During the King & Bishop expeditions the herbarium material was placed in alcohol before being dried and so it is not suitable for current methods of DNA analysis.

In summary, what survives of the species is the herbarium specimen that has only the small scraps that became the type (Fig. 1), a color photograph taken by Earl Bishop (Fig. 2; Funk et al. 1996: 550, in black and white), a microscope slide prepared by Robinson from material before the specimens were destroyed (remade from the original Hoyer’s solution slide during this study), the results of the chemical analysis by Singh et al. (1985) from a sample sent to him by R.M. King, and a picture of the pollen published in the pollen study of the Liabeae (Robinson and Marticorena 1986). From this material we have reconstructed the plant and an illustration has been produced (Fig. 3).

The dried specimen material of Bishopanthus (what remained of the type specimen after it was destroyed) consisted of small fragments of leaves, a few small stems, an immature head and one mature head with three broken ray flowers (Fig. 1). The disk flowers faired better because they were protected if somewhat compressed. Additional material consisted of one slide of the dissected disk flowers with a complete ray and a sectioned disk flower showing the anthers and style. From this material Tangerini was able to piece together the leaf fragments to form a few almost whole leaves and mounted these and other fragments and stems on two archival 4” by 5” cards (Fig. 1). Tiny mylar packets were made to hold the two heads and dissected disk flowers. Drawings of all of the floral details were made using a combination of the dried and slide material and the habit was reconstructed from the single photograph which provided an invaluable reference for the structure of the habit and leaf insertion. Conversations with Robinson (who had seen all of the original five duplicates) provided information on the flower position on the stem. The final drawing was done with a variety of polycarbonate pencils (Turquoise Filmograph, Mars Duralar and Mars Dynagraph, and L. & C. Hardtmuth Koh-I-Lar pencils) on Grafix double matte drafting film. These pencils produce a denser black than regular graphite pencils and the subtle gray tones give the impression of the bullate leaf surface and the woolly texture of the involucres. Shading is applied with the softer leads first followed by the harder leads to add fine lines and smaller details. The polycarbonate leads are waxier and do not smudge as much as graphite. Unfortunately the polycarbonate leads went out of production in the mid 1990’s so this technique has a limited lifetime dependent on acquisition of the remaining stock of pencils. Some botanical art schools have supplies for illustration classes and perhaps resurgence in interest will spur new production.

The microscope slide was made using Hoyer’s solution with a formula as given by Anderson (1954): Distilled water 50 cc; Gum arabic (U.S.P. Flake) 30 grams; Chloral hydrate 200 grams; Glycerin 20 cc. Since the original application of this method, Chloral hydrate has become a controlled substance, which limits access. More important is the impermanent nature of Hoyer’s slides unless the cover slips are ringed with waterproof sealant (e.g., clear fingernail polish). The fact that microscope slides in Hoyer’s solution can dry up does not mean they should be discarded. The water miscible solution that makes the medium so useful as a rapid mounting medium also allows for recovery of any material on old dried slides. This should be noted by anyone inclined to discard old slides that often contain valuable type material.

Until this paper, Bishopanthus was the only genus of the Liabeae that had not been illustrated by Tangerini using the method described above (Robinson 1983a, Funk and Robinson 2001, 2009, Robinson and Funk 2011). Now that we have this final drawing it is possible to look at all of the genera and compare the morphology.

In their 2012 paper Funk et al. suggested that the shrubby habit and bullate leaves of Bishopanthus were similar to the taxa found in the basal grade of the subtribe Liabinae (e.g., Ferreyranthus), but those genera lack latex and have pinnate venation and long style branches, in contrast to Bishopanthus (Table 1). Bishopanthus shares a number of characters with Cacosmia which is sometimes placed as the sister group of the Liabinae (Table 1). But Cacosmia has lost its pappus and has a unique (to Liabeae) achene (Table 1; first placement). In addition, Cacosmia is unique in the tribe in that it has a small cylindrical head (5 ray flowers and 5–6 disc flowers) with a highly imbricate involucre (5 series and mostly ranked) while Bishopanthus has a broadly campanulate head (like most of the other genera in the tribe) that is larger (20/25) and an involucre of two subequal series; it also has a very different habit. Now that we have the additional information on Bishopanthus, it looks as though it may be related to the Austroliabum element of Microliabum (Table 1; second placement) except that it does not have bullate leaves. Such a relationship would place it in the Paranepheliinae subtribe. Typical Austroliabum has been placed with some doubt as a synonym of Microliabum. Two of the typical species of Microliabum have been sequenced and now we need fresh material of Bishopanthus so we can see if either of our predictions is correct.