Xerospermum noronhianum
Content
Description
Tree, up to 25(-30) m high, dbh up to 30(-75) en, (with buttresses).
Leaves:
Inflorescences up to 25 cm long if solitary, much shorter if tufted;
Flowers 4-merous.
Sepals free or slightly connate, the outer two usually slightly smaller than the inner ones, ovate to obovate, 1—2(—3) by 1-2.4 mm, outside and inside glabrous or hairy (nearly always inside at the base), ciliate.
Petals obovate to broadly spathulate, 1-2.8 by 0.5-1.7 mm, short- to long-clawed with an ovate to transversely elliptic blade, variably woolly, nearly always with the exception of the base outside, inside often sparsely hairy to glabrous.
Stamens 8 (9);
Fruit lobes ellipsoid to subglobular (or obovoid), 1.75-5 by 1.25-5 cm, aculeate or tuberculate (and/or colliculate to granulate), red or darkbrown;
Notes
1. The variation in leaves, flowers, and especially the fruits, is extensive but continuous in this species. At first sight it is difficult to imagine that a rough fruit without any appendages could belong to the same species as a fairly densely spiny fruit. However, the rough fruit shows a basic pattern corresponding with bundles of spines in the aculeate fruits, moreover, fruits with short spines are still rough in the grooves between the bundles of spines. As to the flowers, the greatest variation is in the hairiness of the sepals and petals. The only entity that is reasonably well characterized is 'Xerospermum wallichiV. It has relatively broad leaflets with a laxly reticulate venation; the sepals are glabrous on both sides, the petals are glabrous inside, and the fruits are rough and without spines. The only one of these characters that seems to be exclusive is that of the petals; all other characters are extremes in a continuous series. Typical 'X. wallichi' is only known from the Malay Peninsula where it appears to be rather common. It is undesirable to segregate such a local, morphologically rather extreme but hardly sharply delimited form from the rest of the species.
2. The two combinations under Euphoria, viz. E. noronhiana and E. xerocarpa, are illegitimate as Euphoria is illegitimate; see .
3. Blume's Euphoria xerocarpa was based upon both flowering and fruiting material. Both the importance Blume attached to the fruit characters in the Sapindaceae in general and the specific epithet point to the fruiting part as the most logical choice for a lectotype. This is fully in accordance with Blume's own choice: in 1847 () he recognized the fruiting part as belonging to his new genus Xerospermum, where he placed it in the synonymy of X. noronhianum. The flowering part became the basis of a new genus and species, Arytera litoralis. A century later, Adelbert () made a different choice. The fruiting part remained under X. noronhianum, and the flowering part became the lectotype of Euphoria xerocarpa. Accordingly, Euphoria xerocarpa became synonymous with Arytera litoralis, and as the epithet xerocarpa was older than litoralis, a new combination had to be made, Arytera xerocarpa. As Blume's lectotypification was much earlier and more in accordance with all evidence available, the combination Arytera xerocarpa was superfluous and hence illegitimate.
4. The 1879 publication of Xerospermum muri-catum was invalid as it was actually a nomen nudum. The few characters mentioned were only differences between Nephelium and Xerospermum, and lead to the conclusion that the species belongs to Xerospermum. The references to older publications are either to nomina nuda or to mixtures. See .
2. The two combinations under Euphoria, viz. E. noronhiana and E. xerocarpa, are illegitimate as Euphoria is illegitimate; see .
3. Blume's Euphoria xerocarpa was based upon both flowering and fruiting material. Both the importance Blume attached to the fruit characters in the Sapindaceae in general and the specific epithet point to the fruiting part as the most logical choice for a lectotype. This is fully in accordance with Blume's own choice: in 1847 () he recognized the fruiting part as belonging to his new genus Xerospermum, where he placed it in the synonymy of X. noronhianum. The flowering part became the basis of a new genus and species, Arytera litoralis. A century later, Adelbert () made a different choice. The fruiting part remained under X. noronhianum, and the flowering part became the lectotype of Euphoria xerocarpa. Accordingly, Euphoria xerocarpa became synonymous with Arytera litoralis, and as the epithet xerocarpa was older than litoralis, a new combination had to be made, Arytera xerocarpa. As Blume's lectotypification was much earlier and more in accordance with all evidence available, the combination Arytera xerocarpa was superfluous and hence illegitimate.
4. The 1879 publication of Xerospermum muri-catum was invalid as it was actually a nomen nudum. The few characters mentioned were only differences between Nephelium and Xerospermum, and lead to the conclusion that the species belongs to Xerospermum. The references to older publications are either to nomina nuda or to mixtures. See .
Citation
Miq. 1859 – In: Fl. Ind. Bat.: 552
Corner 1940: Wayside Trees: 596: f. 215
Craib 1926 – In: Fl. Siam. Enum.: 329
Radlk. 1932 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 98: 946
Craib 1926 – In: Fl. Siam. Enum.: 329
Kurz 1877 – In: For. Fl. Burma: 295
Radlk. 1932 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 98: 946
Jansen et al. 1991 – In: Verheij & Coronel (eds.), Pl. Res. SE Asia (PROSEA Handb.) 2, Edible fruits and nuts: 365
Backer & Bakh. f. 1965 – In: Fl. Java: 137
Radlk. 1932 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 98: 942
Radlk. 1932 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 98: 944
Radlk. 1879: Sapind. Holl.-Ind.: 23
Adelb. 1948 – In: Blumea: 324
Yap 1989 – In: Tree Fl. Malaya: 461
Leenh. 1983: p. 394. – In: Blumea: f. lc, 2a-c, e
Radlk. 1932 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 98: 942
Ridley 1922 – In: Fl. Malay Penins.: 498
Radlk. 1932 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 98: 942
Radlk. 1932 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 98: 943
M.R. Henderson 1939 – In: J. Mal. Br. As. Soc.: 42
Kan-jilal, Das & Purkay. 1936 – In: Fl. Assam: 322
Ridley 1922 – In: Fl. Malay Penins.: 497
Radlk. 1932 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 98: 943
Hiern 1875 – In: Hook. f., Fl. Br. India 1: 686
Radlk. 1895: p. 331. – In: Engl. & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. 3: f. 168
Ridley 1893 – In: Trans. Linn. Soc. London, Bot.: 289
Ridley 1922 – In: Fl. Malay Penins.: 497
Gagnep. 1950: Fl. Indo-Chine: 958
Radlk. 1932 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 98: 941
Blume 1918 – In: Atlas: pl. 797
Radlk. 1932 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 98: 941
Gagnep. 1950: Fl. Indo-Chine: 957
Radlk. 1932: p. 940. – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 98: f. 23
Koord. & Valeton 1903 – In: Bijdr. Booms. Java: 182
Radlk. 1932 – In: Engl., Pflanzenr. 98: 944
Chin 1973: Limest. Fl. Malaya: 483