Nectandra globosa (Aubl.) Mez

  • Authority

    Rohwer, Jens G. 1993. Lauraceae: . Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 60: 1-332. (Published by NYBG Press)

  • Family

    Lauraceae

  • Scientific Name

    Nectandra globosa (Aubl.) Mez

  • Synonyms

    Laurus globosa Lam., Persea globosa Spreng., Ocotea globosa Schltr. & Cham., Nectandra pisi Miq., Nectandra vaga Meisn., Nectandra vaga var. major Meisn., Nectandra vaga var. sprucei Meisn., Nectandra vaga var. vulgaris Meisn., Nectandra globosa var. barbeyana Mez

  • Description

    Species Description - Trees to 30 m (but mostly collected from much smaller individuals), rarely tall shrubs. Branchlets 5 cm below terminal bud 1.8-3.8 mm in diam., initially irregularly angular/furrowed but without sharp angles, with a dense, ± grey-brown cover of very short, ± appressed hairs (or hairs erect but so short as to be papillae-like), plus occasionally a few longer hairs, older twigs becoming roundish, the indument ± persistent as a grey cover, slowly wearing off; terminal buds narrowly lanceolate to rarely ovoid, (3-)4-7 mm long and 1-3 mm thick, densely covered with short, appressed, (grey-)brown hairs. Petioles (7-)9-17(-21) mm long, l.l-2.5(3.8) mm thick, roundish below, often longitudinally ridged, almost flat to distinctly canaliculate above, indument ± as on twigs, more persistent above than below. Leaves alternate, ± elliptic to lanceolate-elliptic, less often ovate-elliptic or lanceolate, widest at the middle or slightly below, (8-)12-23(-36) cm long, 3.3-10(-11.5) cm wide, (2-)2.3-3.5(-4.8) times longer than wide, tip acuminate, base broadly attenuate to obtuse, margin at the base usually narrowly bent down to narrowly recurved, rarely flat or almost rolled, midrib ± impressed above, distinctly prominent below, secondary veins level to slightly impressed above, sometimes convex, prominent below, (4-)5-7(-9) pairs, diverging at 35-50(-60)°, in midlamina running at an angle of 15-35° to the midrib, tertiary venation finely scalariform, sometimes inconspicuous, level to very slightly raised above, ± raised below. Indument consisting of short, ± appressed hairs, initially moderately sparse to (often) dense above, often ± curled when dense, more tightly appressed below, moderately sparse to moderately dense, less dense than above, hairs ± pointing towards the leaf tip, the axils of some of the secondary veins mostly with dense tufts of ± straight, ± thick, erect hairs (but see discussion), older leaves glabrescent above, indument becoming ± sparse below. Gland dots invisible to distinct above. Inflorescences in the axils of foliage leaves, 0.8-2 mm in diam. at the base, on a twig of 2-4 mm diam., (2.5-)4-11(-15) cm long, reaching ca. 1/3 to slightly more than the length of the subtending leaf; peduncle (1.5-)2-6 cm long, reaching ca. 2/5-2/3 the length of the inflorescence, lateral branches 0-2(-6) below the terminal cluster of cymes, branched 2-3(-5) times, indument ± as on twigs, slightly less appressed, ± dense. Pedicels l-2.5(-6.5) mm long, 0.3-0.6 mm thick. Flowers 5.5-8(-9) mm in diam., tepals ± elliptic, 2-3.5 mm long and 1.2-2.4 mm wide, heavily papillose on the inside surface. Stamens (Fig. 6P) ca. 0.7-1.2 mm long including a filament of 0.10.3 mm, anthers heavily papillose, in the first whorl broadly pentagonal to transverse elliptic with an obtuse to rounded tip, in the second whorl ± pentagonal with an acute to obtuse tip, in the third whorl obtrapeziform to axe-shaped with a ± truncate or slightly emarginate tip. Staminodes ca. half as long as the stamens, capitate, mostly with a glandular patch at the tip, for more than half of their length united with the inner stamens. Pistil ca. 1.7-2.1 mm long, ovary ± ellipsoid, glabrous, style ± as long as the ovary (1/3 shorter to 1/3 longer), usually ± papillose, rarely glabrous. Receptacle deeply urceolate, glabrous inside (but see discussion). Berry ellipsoid, ca. 13-17 mm long, ca. 8-9 mm in diam., cupule subglobose when young, ± hemispherical when mature, ca. 6.5-9 mm high and ca. 9-12 mm in diam., pedicel scarcely thickened.

  • Discussion

    Uses. Although the species is rather frequent in the Guayana area, use of the wood (for canoes) has been reported only once.

    Nectandra globosa is mainly characterized by relatively small and broad Pomatium-type anthers (see p. 12), a glabrous inner face of the receptacle, and by a dense, short, ± grey-brown indument at least on the young twigs. Within the three Guianas and the Venezuelan state of Bolivar it is a relatively homogeneous entity with several additional characters such as a regular but not very dense indument on the lower leaf surface, tufts of hairs in the axils of the secondary veins, and a narrowly recurved leaf base. With increasing distance from this center we can observe gradual changes in one or another character, making it very difficult to delimit N. globosa against similar groups elsewhere. Most specimens from the Venezuelan territory of Amazonas, e.g., including the type of N. vaga var. sprucei, do not have tufts of hairs in the axils of the secondary veins. On first glance this might be considered sufficient to recognize the variety, but there are also specimens in which this character is present in some leaves but not in others. Numerous other characters show similar patterns of variation, and a formal recognition of the divergent elements would lead to an endless inflation of new taxa. Therefore I decided to recognize only a few morphologically and ecologically distinctive entities as separate species (cf. discussions of N. aurea, N. baccans, N. matogrossensis, N. riparia, and N. ruforamula), conceding that not all of them may be distinct enough to maintain this status.

    Other possibly equally distinct, but poorly known populations are simply discussed below, without formally recognizing them.

    Arranged alphabetically, the divergent collections are: Aymard 5535 (HBG, PORT), from the Venezuelan territory of Delta Amacuro. In this collection the indument on leaves, twigs, and flowers is so much reduced that the plant looks like Nectandra hihua. The flowers, however, are so typical of N. globosa that there is no choice but to put it here.

    W. R. Anderson 12313 (MO), from the Brazilian territory Rondonia, comes from non-inundated forest and has short anther tips like Nectandra globosa, but its denser indument and its geographic origin argue in favor of riparia.

    Bernardi 6846 (HBG, NY), from the state of Barinas, Venezuela, has a denser indument on the lower surface of the young leaves, reminiscent of Nectandra aurea. The mature leaves, however, are more like N. globosa.

    Davidse et al. 18810 (MO, PORT, VEN), from the state of Zulia, Venezuela, may key out either here or at Nectandra ruforamula, because its branchlets have some longer erect reddish hairs in addition to the short globosa-like indument. It differs from N. globosa by a hairy inner face of the receptacle, and from both N. globosa and N. ruforamula in the outline of its leaves.

    Froes 21037 (NY, US) and 31562 (NY, RB), from the Brazilian states of Amazonas and Para, respectively, were collected in inundated forest, and they show a denser indument on the lower leaf surface. The anther tips, however, are far too short to put them in Nectandra riparia or in N. amazonum. The fruiting collection Froes 24016 (RB), from the state of Amazonas, differs from N. globosa mainly by very large cupules, up to ca. 18 mm in diameter.

    Guanchez 170 (HBG, MO) and 433 (HBG), from the Venezuelan territory Amazonas, seem to have their inflorescences arranged immediately below the terminal bud or on a leafless part of the twig. They may represent a new species, but their flowers and the indument on the new growth are very similar to Nectandra globosa.

    Huashikat 1787(HBG, MO), from the department of Amazonas, Peru, has leaves with a more pronounced reticulation, and a hairy inner face of the receptacle.

    Kayap 968 (MO), from the same region, differs by narrower, very sparsely hairy leaves.

    Mutis 1371, 1393, 1400, 1411 and 1428 (all US), from Colombia, differ from Nectandra globosa by generally more elongate leaves with a slightly denser indument below. They are somewhat similar to N. aurea, but they lack the characteristic indument both on the upper surface of the young leaves and on the twigs. The five specimens are so similar to each other that they may come from the same tree.

    Pires 3587 (US), from the state of Para, Brazil, differs by sharply angular twigs and a hairy inner face of the recepatcle.

    In J. M. Schunke 339 (F, NY, US), from the department of Loreto, Peru, the receptacle is also hairy inside. The young leaves have a relatively dense indument below, and a still denser one above. The collection may represent a new species.

    A.C. Smith 3343 (B, F, MO, NY, U, US), from Guyana, is a fruiting collection with fruits similar to those of Nectandra amazonum but with an impressed midrib and a recurved leaf base. The outline of the leaves is uncommon in both N. globosa and N. amazonum, and for fruiting material their indument is unusually dense. Unfortunately, there are no anthers left on the margin of the cupules.

    Soejarto & Lockwood 2471 (F), from Vaupés, Colombia, may be the same as Schunke 339, see above.

    R. Vásquez & Jaramillo 2494 (HBG, MO), from Loreto, Peru, differs by smaller, more elliptic leaves, and by a relatively high proportion of curled, reddish hairs on twigs and leaves, especially on the veins.

    van der Werjf & Ortíz 5823 (MO), from the state of Barinas, Venezuela, has a denser indument on the lower surface of the young leaves and a hairy inside of the receptacle. Except for the indument its young leaves are reminiscent of N. baccans, but the older leaves get too large for that species.

    van der Werjf et al. 10280 (HBG, MO), from Loreto, Peru, looks much like Nectandra globosa, but the leaf base is relatively abruptly extended into a narrow, flat projection along the petiole. If this collection came from the Guayana region, I would probably place it in N. globosa with little hesitation.

    Some comments on the scientific names and their types seem appropriate here. I accept Laurus globosa Aubl. as a validly published name in its own right, typified by the Aublet material in BM. Kostermans (1936a) stated that “Aublet, ... , gave no description of his Laurus globosa, but referred to Plumier, Gen. 4.” If this were the case, then L. globosa would have to be typified by Plumier’s drawing, which is of West Indian material and does not correspond to the species discussed here. Kostermans therefore accepted Nectandra pisi as the correct name of this species. Aublet, however, did give a description: "fructu nigro, calice rubente” Although this is derived from Plumier’s Borbonia fructu globoso ..., it nevertheless constitutes a valid description in the sense of the Code. So Laurus globosa is not validated solely by reference to a pre-starting-point description (cf. Art 32.3 Ex. 3 and Recommendation 32 A), and therefore Art 7. 13 does not apply. Lourteig’s (1987) statement that Aublet did not see any material is incorrect. Most types for his Flora are preserved in BM, and in some cases it is even possible to match them with his illustrations. Laurus globosa was not illustrated, but among the Aublet material there is a specimen annotated as Laurus globosa, and there is no reason to doubt that this is the type of the species.

    Nectandra vaga could be treated as an illegitimate name, as one of its syntypes is the type of N. pisi. Meissner, however, saw only the unnumbered Focke specimen from K, and therefore he could not be sure that it really was the same collection as the one which Miquel had described. Meissner indicated only indirectly, by giving the name vulgaris, which of his varieties he considered the typical one. Of its 16 syntypes the 13 collections from the Guianas are so similar to each other that any of them could be chosen as a lectotype. I decided in favor of Hostmann 235 because it is not at the same time a type of a different name, and because duplicates are found in relatively many herbaria.

    Splitgerber 999 has been selected as lectotype of Nectandra vaga var. major because it is the only syntype of this variety that is not at the same time a syntype of the species.

    Nectandra globosa var. barbeyana is placed here with hesitation. Its two syntypes, Blanchet 1863 and Glaziou 13489 represent different species. I selected the former as the lectotype because it is much more in accordance with N. globosa than the latter (which represents N. amazonum Nees), and because the value of Glaziou specimens is often compromised by confused labels and wrong locality data. In this case, however, the Blanchet collection presents problems as well. It looks like a perfect N. globosa, except that the inside of its receptacles is ± hairy. Therefore it will key out at N. matogrossensis, but its leaves are clearly wider than known in that species, and its inflorescences more branched than usual. The locality “circa Ilheos” given by Meissner (1866) would also suggest N. matogrossensis rather than N. globosa, but it need not be correct. Blanchet himself collected only in Bahia, but according to Urban (1906) many Blanchet specimens were not his own collections but brought to him by hired collectors. The statement “Bahia” on the label may have been added later. The same comments apply to Blanchet 1544, a syntype of N. vaga, which may come from the same population. It also has a hairy inner face of the receptacle, much branched inflorescences, and still wider leaves.

  • Common Names

    canau, laurel bianco, tabau-yek, heburu, iro, shirua, silver-balli, white silverballi, kereti wadili, pisie, pisi hoedoe, Zwarte pisi, apisi, Cèdre, cèdre blanc, cèdre noir, tingui-chiapici, vrai cedre, louro

  • Distribution

    Mainly non-inundated forests in the Guayana-region, i.e., in Guyana, Surinam, French Guiana, and in Venezuela in the state of Bolivar and the territories Amazonas and Delta Amacuro, between sea level and 1200 m elevation. Flowering material has been collected in all months except January and February, but there is a distinct peak of flowering between July and November. Fruiting material has been collected between January and May.

    Venezuela South America| Amazonas Venezuela South America| Bolívar Venezuela South America| Delta Amacuro Venezuela South America| Guyana South America| Suriname South America| French Guiana South America| Brazil South America| Amapá Brazil South America| Amazonas Brazil South America|