Cotylelobiopsis beccariana
Placement status: name or taxon excluded (unspecific)
Taxonomy
Heim based this monotypic genus on a Beccari specimen consisting of sterile material only, the number of which he did not cite. Heim annotated many of his types at Kew, but Brandis, who conjectured that Beccari 467 was the type, was clearly unsure from which it may be guessed that this specimen, now lost, was not annotated. The Florence duplicate of this number fits Heim's description, and represents the fallen leaflets of the Leguminosae Pseudosindora palustris Sym. (); the specimen, mounted with another of the same species numbered 3468, is quoted by de Wit when he made his new combination Copaifera palustris (Sym.) de Wit (). Heim's detailed description of leaf morphology, and especially petiole anatomy, conforms with that of this species and he noted that the lattet was atypical of Dipterocarpaceae. Heim's genus and species antedates that of Symington. Nevertheless the Paris duplicate of Beccari 467, now also lost, was referred to Cotylelobium melanoxylon (Hook. f.) Pierre by the latter (). There must therefore remain some question as to the real identity of the Kew duplicate of Beccari 467, which anyway cannot with certainty be accepted as the holotype of Cotylelobiopsis. Until refound this name must be regarded as doubtful.