Calycampe latifolia Berg, Linnaea 27: 130. 1856, non Myrcia latifolia Berg.
Calycampe angustifolia Berg, Linnaea 27: 131. 1856, non M. angustifolia (Berg) Niedenzu.
Myrtus latifolia (Berg) Badillo in Pittier et al. Cat. Fl. Venez. 2: 196. 1947.
According to Berg (Linnaea 27: 467) the distinguishing feature of the genus
Calycampe lies in the rounded sinuses between the calyx-lobes; he contrasted thesewith the acute sinuses in Myrcia. In the Schomburgk specimens cited by Berg the
calyx-lobes seem to overlap in the bud as usual in Myrcia. In some flowering specimens,
on the other hand (e.g., Schomburgk 320, F ) , the lobes are partly deciduous
as in sect Armeriela, and have been spread from the mature hypanthium in such a
way as to suggest the existence of broad sinuses between them. A similar specimen
may have persuaded Berg that a new genus was involved. I agree with Amshoff
that "this species has all the characters of Myrcia D C . and there seems therefore
to be no reason to retain the genus Calycampe.'' The two species proposed by Berg
are seemingly nothing more than two not very different leaf-forms. The one species
represented is apparently a local one in the mountains of British Guiana and Suriname;
Amshoff also cited specimens from Rio Branco, Brazil. For a description of
this plant see Fl. Suriname 3(2): 96. 1951. BRITISH G U I A N A : Kanuku Mts.,
Iramaipang, rain forest, Dec 1948 (bud), Wilson-Browne 633 (U). S U R I N A M E:
Wilhelmina Gebergte, 7 k m S S W of Juliana Top, elev 450 m, 1 Sep 1963 (bud),
Irwin et al 55328 (MICH).
Berg based Calycampe latifolia on what he took to be specimens of three gatherings
from three different localities in British Guiana, viz, Rob. Schomburgk 320
and 927, and Rich. Schomburgk 1272. H e saw these "in hb. Berol. et Vindob." At
the same time he based C. angustifolia on "Rich. Schomb., coll. no. 342 et 548," of
which he said only "v.s. in hb. Berol."; in the synonymy of C. angustifolia he referred
to Bentham's publication of the same plant under the name of Myrcia hebepetala
D C . It is probable that all the above numbers represent three gatherings
only; for an explanation of the numbering system used by the Schomburgk brothers,
see the introduction to this paper. Two sheets at K e w are numbered, respectively
320/342B, and 927/1272B indicating that these two pairs of numbers apply to two gatherings;
the other number, 548, is that under which Bentham (Jour. Bot. Hook. 2:
324. 1840) had reported a Schomburgk collection as M . hebepetala. It is possible
that Berg never saw a specimen of this latter number, but merely reported it from
Bentham's publication. I have never seen a specimen annotated by Berg as C.
angustifolia, and it is to be assumed that all the material he saw at Berlin has been
destroyed. The sheet of no. 548 at Kew, named by Bentham as ''Myrcia hebepetala
DC. ?" may be designated as lectotype. Other sheets of this number are at C G E,
F, and G, and a sheet annotated by Berg himself may eventually be discovered.
Two Schomburgk specimens at W , nos. 320 and 927, are named Calycampe
latifolia by Berg. No. 927, a somewhat better-preserved specimen, is here designated
lectotype. Presumably no. 1272 was seen by Berg at Berlin; it is assumed to have
When Amshoff published the name Myrcia calycampa she did not attempt to
typify it, merely citing as synonyms Calycampe angustifolia (exemplified by Schomburgk
548) and C. latifolia (exemphfied by Schomburgk 1272). As no' 1272 is
presumably a part of the same gathering as no. 927, and as C. latifolia has already
been designated as lectotype-species of its genus (Taxon 5: 138. 1956), it is appropriate
to name the lectotype of C. latifolia, no. 927 ( W ) , as lectotype'of M . calycampa.
Isotypes have been seen at B M (as no. 927) and G (as nos.'927 and 1272).