Chlorophytum madagascariense Baker. The 1878

18. Chlorophytum madagascariense Baker Figs 6F, 7F–H, 29–30, Tables 3–4 Anthericum gramineum Baker (Baker 1877: 302), nom. illeg. Chlorophytum madagascariense Baker (Baker 1878: 326). Etymology The species is named for its country of origin, Madagascar, it was the first Malagasy species to be formally described. Type material MADAGASCAR – s.loc.; s.d.; fl; Hilsenberg & Bojer s.n.; holotype: BM [BM013839962] image!. Description Plant herbaceous, with a subterranean part consisting of a rhizome, with thickened roots bearing ovoid tubercles, 7–30 × 2–8 mm; leaves 5–10, graminoid, 10–60 × 0.4–1.9 cm, often tapering into a pseudo-petiole except in C. madagascariense var. boinense var. nov., with a sheathing base surrounded by the remnants of old leaves forming a fibrous sheath, margin scabrous, pseudo-midrib present, veins, 15–36 visible, with a tapered apex; inflorescence erect and rigid, with a glabrous axis, 27–94 cm tall, peduncle 20–77 cm long, branched or unbranched, with numerous upright branches often arising from the same basal node, leaf-like bracts 1(–2) with a triangular base and a tapered tip, rachis 6–17 cm long, flowers 1–3 per node; flowers, 8–12 mm long, tepals white, narrowly ovate to narrowly elliptical, with veins spaced or clustered at the centre (depending on the variety); stamens equal or subequal, somewhat shorter than tepals, frequently arranged in 2 groups (4–2), filament 3–4.5 mm long, with a broad, flat base, narrower above, basifixed, anther narrowly triangular, apiculate, 4–5(–7.5) mm; gynoecium: ovary sub-spherical, ovules 6 or 8 per locule, style filiform, 10–13 mm long, curved at the tip, exceeding the perianth, with a thickened stigma; capsule broader or as long as wide, 5–7 × 7–9 mm, transversely wrinkled with thickened sutures; seed disc-shaped, black, shiny, with a finely granular surface, a narrow notch, and a broad, prominent radicle. Provisional IUCN Red List assessment Chlorophytum madagascariense Baker is endemic to Madagascar, where it has a highly disjunct known distribution, the species is however only known from a single recent (2013) collection, Ralimanana et al. 1812, which is referred to the typical variety, while three other recognised varieties are only known from old collections. The assessment can only be based on this single recent occurrence from near Ambalakida “along the road to La Grotte Anjiabe” in the Boeny Region. Given the extent of the known range of the species, including its three different varieties, it is likely that it persists at other sites where it was collected in the past, that include certain protected areas, but we are obliged to assess the species, including its recognised varieties as DD (data deficient). A targetted search for the species across its range is needed. Illustrations Perrier de la Bâthie 1937 [1938]: fig. VIII 8–10. Taxonomic and morphological remarks 1) Anthericum gramineum Baker (1877: 302) was transferred to the genus Chlorophytum by Perrier de la Bâthie (1935), giving Chlorophytum gramineum (Baker) H.Perrier priority over C. madagascariense Baker (1878: 326), described a year later. However, the name A. gramineum Baker is illegitimate, since it is pre-dated by Anthericum gramineum Vell. (da Conceição Velloso 1825: 143), a species from Brazil. We therefore re-establish C. madagascariense Baker as the correct, valid name for this species. The varieties described by Perrier de la Bâthie are transferred accordingly to the latter taxon. 2) Thirteen collections, mostly old and sometimes incomplete, are attributed to C. madagascariense. Despite the disparity in their morphology (see Table 4) and their geographical locations (when known), we have essentially retained the treatment published by Perrier de la Bâthie in the Flore de Madagascar (Perrier de la Bâthie 1935, 1937 [1938]), but with certain modifications (see Table 4). Notably, we recognise three varieties within C. madagascariense. It is important to note that the varieties (including the typical variety) are known from only a few specimens, so additional collections are needed in order to refine the infraspecific taxonomy of C. madagascariense. 3)At first glance, Chlorophytum madagascariense and C. meridionale sp. nov. appear similar. However, in addition to their different distributions, they are separated by several notable characteristics, as presented in Table 3. Key to the varieties 1. Leaf surface glabrous ........................................................................................................................ 2 – Leaf surface scabrous .......... C. madagascariense var. boinense Bard.-Vauc. & M.Pignal var. nov. 2. Floral bract shorter than the pedicel; leaf blade on average less than 1 cm wide ............................... ............................................. C. madagascariense var. pervillei Bard.-Vauc. & M.Pignal nom. nov. – Floral bract equal or longer than the pedicel; leaf-blade more than 1 cm wide on average ............. 3 3. Length of the pseudo-petiole ca 1/3 the length of the blade ............................................................... .................... C. madagascariense var. sciaphilum (H.Perrier) Bard.-Vauc. & M.Pignal comb. nov. – Length of the pseudo-petiole equal to or less than 1/4 the length of the blade .................................. ............................................................................. C. madagascariense Baker var. madagascariense