A note on the typification of Capparis roxburghii DC. (Capparaceae)

As Capparis corymbosa Roxb. [Hort. Beng. (1814) 93 nom. nud. et Fl. Ind. 2 (1832) 569 ed. Carey] was a later homonym of Capparis corymbosa Lamk. (1785), an African plant, Decandolle in Prod. I (1824) 247—248 had proposed the new name of C. roxburghii for the former basing it on Roxburgh’s specimen in the Banks herbarium under the manuscript name of ‘C. aguba’. Incidentally, ‘aguba’ is also the vernacular name used by Roxburgh in his Flora Indica and this manuscript name was used only by Roxburgh before he described the species as Capparis corymbosa. De Candolle mentions of having seen a type specimen in the Banks Herbarium, now in the British Museum, but this specimen could not be traced. Subsequently Jacobs (1965) while monographing the Asiatic species of Capparis Linn., designed Roxburgh’s description and unpublished plate as type. This plate No. 158 in the Roxburgh Icones was then appointed as the type by Sundara Raghavan & Rolla S. Rao (1966) and for the first time reproduced in print. While recently studying the specimens of Capparis at Kew it was observed that two specimens referable to C. roxburghii DC. were mounted on the same sheet, the left one bearing the label Thwaites CP 2480 and the right one ‘Capparis aguba’ Herb. Roxb. Jacobs has annotated the Ceylonese specimen but possibly overlooked Roxburgh’s specimen. This specimen is undoubtedly one of Roxburgh’s collection, is fairly well preserved, and bears his earliest manuscript name of Capparis aguba. As one of Roxburgh’s specimens could now be located, the specimen in Kew herbarium bearing the manuscript name can now be definitely designated as the type. No alteration of botanical identity is, however, involved. Incidentally there is also another specimen labelled as ‘Capparis aguba Roxb.’ in the Komarov Botanical Institute at Leningrad which is readily identified as C. roxburghii only. Evidently this specimen has been acquired by the Russians from one of the lots through exchange or purchase in auctions. However, this specimen is in a rather poor condition and except that it was procured during Fischer’s period forming part of his herbarium no other data is available. From the smudged letters it appears that the specimen formerly belonged to Herb. Heyne before it was procured by Fischer.