Monographs Details: Calycolpus goetheanus (DC.) O.Berg
Authority: Maguire, Bassett. 1969. The botany of the Guayana Highland-part VIII. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 18: 1-290.
Family:Myrtaceae
Description:Distribution and Ecology - V E N E Z U E L A . Delta Amacuro?: Sacupana, Apr 1896 (fl), Rusby & Squires 82( M I C H , N Y ) ; Rio Amacuro, Sa. Imataca, elev 65-80 m, 1 Nov 1960 (fl), Steyermark87201 ( M I C H ) ; Bolivar: Rio Chicanan, Alto Cuyuni, elev 160 m , Feb 1949 (fl),Cardona 2770 ( N Y ) ; Sabanas del Rio Uriman, Rio Caroni, elev 350 m, Apr 1945(fl), Cardona 1199 ( N Y ) ; Rio Caroni near Uriman, elev 400 m, 15 Jan 1948 (fl),Phelps & Hitchcock 301 ( N Y ) ; large savanna, vicinity of Uriman, elev 300 m, 30 Apr 1953 (fl), Steyermark 75277 (MICH); between Kavanayen and base ofSororopan-tepui, elev 1300 m, 12 Dec 1952 {i\), Maguire & Wurdack 33777 ( M I C H );Guayaraca, above Kamarata, expedicion Auyan-tepui, elev 1000 m, 18 M a y 1964 (bud),Steyermark 94190 ( M I C H ) ; along Rio Paragua, elev 70 m, 26 Mar 1940 (imm fr),Williams 12710 {¥); Sierra Imataca, Rio Toro, N of El Palmar, elev 200-250 m,7 Dec 1960 (fl), Steyermark 87870 ( M I C H ) ; Rio Nichare (afl. de Rio Caura), elev200-250 m, 25 Apr 1966 (fl), Steyermark & Gibson 95685 (MICH). BRITISHGUIANA. ["On the Essequibo," according to Bentham], Schomburgk 2 (K, tj^e,and B M , C G E , G, W , isotypes of Campomanesia glabra); ["Pirara," according toBerg], Schomburgk 302 (BM, M I C H , W , paratypes of C. schomburgkianus ^ recurvatus);["ad flumen Essequibo," according to Berg], Schomburgk 289 (K, ex hb.Berol. 1859, annotated by Berg, lectotype of C. schomburgkianus and of its [var]/3 recurvatus); "Roraima," Schomburgk 866 (BM, M I C H ) ; Demerara, Parker (GDC,paratype; K, type of C. glaber var angustilobus). S U R I N A M E . "In campisarenosis pr. stationem Victoriam," Oct 1844 (bud), Kappler 1700 (W, M I C H ).

Discussion:

Myrtus goetheana DC, DC Prodr.3: 40. 1828.

Campomanesia glabra Benth., Jour. Bot. Hook. 2: 319. 1840.

Calycolpus glaber (Benth.) Berg, Linnaea 27: 379. 1856.

Calycolpus ovalifolius Berg, Linnaea 27: 379. 1856.

Calycolpus schomburgkianus Berg, Linnaea 27: 380. 1856.

Calycolpus angustifolius Riley, Kew Bull 1926: 151. 1926.

Calycolpus cordatus Riley,Kew Bull. 1926: 152. 1926.

Calycolpus glaber var angustilobus Riley,Kew Bull. 1926: 152. 1926.

Calycolpus glaber var angustilobus Riley,Kew Bull. 1926: 152. 1926. This is the best known and most widely distributed species of its genus, ranging from Trinidad and the Guianas to Maranhao, and up the Amazon at least to the vicinity of Manaus. It seems to be unknown from the upper Orinoco, where the genus is represented by Calycolpus calophyllus. For description and additional discussion see Amshoff (Fl. Suriname 3(2): 155. 1951), or Riley (Kew Buh 1926- 152. 1926).

Since Berg's time the plant of the Guianas and eastern Brazil has always been known as Calycolpus glaber, but I do not find any way to distinguish C. glaber from C. goetheanus. Berg, and other authors, have recognized C goetheanus on the basis of its "oblong-oval" calyx-lobes, as contrasted to the "ovate-oblong" or "suborbicular" lobes of C. glaber. Berg also (in the Flora Brasiliensis) distinguished the two as having the leaves "reticulate-veiny" {glaber) or merely "veiny" (goetheanus). Riley, in his revision of Calycolpus (Kew Buh. 1926: 147-153. 1926), made the fohowing separation:

Calyx-lobes as long as wide or a little longer, usually obtuse; leaves with conspicuous net of veinlets. C. glaber.

Calyx-lobes twice as long as wide, or longer, usually acute.

Leaves strongly reticulate beneath; calyx-lobes about twice as long as wide, usually acute. C. glaber var angustilobus.

Leaves not manifestly reticulate beneath or only at the margins; calyx-lobes hardly twice as long as weide, often obtuse.

The ample series of specimens now available for study shows that in what may be called the Calycolpus goetheanus-glaber complex, a) the calyx-lobes are usually considerably longer than wide, but vary in width, and in shape from oblong to suborbicular, without any obvious geographical or morphological correlation; and b) there is apparently but one basic pattern of venation in the complex; so-called "reticulate' venation is suggested to the observer when the leaves shrink in drying in such a way as to bring the tiny reticulate veinlets into prominence.

The original material of Calycolpus goetheanus was a mixture; de Candolle wrote: "circa Demerari. Parker, in Brasilia ad Rio-Negro. Martius." Berg, who saw and cited the Martius specimen, without mentioning Parker's collection, in effect typified the name in this way. Riley, in the paper cited above, accepted this conclusion but supposed (without actually seeing the specimens cited by de Candolle) that Parker's collections represented another species, viz, C. glaber; he said: "DeCandohe associates with Martius' specimen a plant collected by Parker near Demerara [i.e., Georgetown, B. G. R. McV.]. Berg does not cite Parker's specimen under C. goetheanus. In the K e w Herbarium there are three sheets of a Calycolpus collected by Parker at Demerara, but these represent a variety of C. glaber and certainly cannot be referred to C. goetheanus on account of the quite different venatio

I have examined the specimens at Munich from the herbarium of Martius, and also Parker's specimens from the herbarium of de Candolle and Parker's specimens at Kew. It seems likely that those at Kew, that formed the original material of Calycolpus glaber var angustilobus Riley, also constituted a part of the same gathering as Parker's specimens at Geneva. Although it is true that in the collections of Martius the leaf-venation is relatively inconspicuous, this seems to have resulted rather from the method of drying than from anything inherent; it m a y be remarked in passing that various other Myrtaceae in the herbarium of Martius have similarly blackened and almost featureless leaves. The Martius specimens that constitute the lectotj^e of C. goetheanus can be precisely matched with respect to leaf-venation, and also in other respects, with modern specimens from near the mouth of the Amazon, from British Guiana, and from southern Venezuela. There would seem to be no justification for the recognition of more than one species—and that not a particularly variable one—in the C. goetheanus-glaber complex.

Distribution:Venezuela South America| Guyana South America| Suriname South America|