(3148) Omphalea triandra L., Syst. Nat., ed. 10: 1264. 7 Jun 1759 Angiosp.: Euphorb., nom. cons. prop. Typus: Jamaica, Swartz (UPS No. V-138468 Herb. Thunberg No. 22721; isotypi: G-DC barcodes G00319972 Radcliffe-Smith, Gen. Euphorb.: 264. 2001; Webster in Kubitzki, Fam. Gen. Vasc. Pl. 11: 159. 2014). Omphalea may be distinguished by its unusual mushroom-shaped androecium, pinkish to red latex, foliaceous inflorescence bracts, and usually large paniculate inflorescences of bisexual or staminate cymules (Gillespie Webster, l.c. 1994: 96; Gillespie Wiersema Hedrick in Rep. (Annual) New York Agric. Exp. Sta., Geneva 27(2,2): 394. 1919; Useful Tropical Plants accessed on 29 Dec 2025). These two Linnaean species (Omphalea diandra, O. triandra) are the same as those previously described by Patrick Browne in his Civil and Natural History of Jamaica under his generic name Omphalandria (Browne, l.c.: 334–335). However, because Browne did not use binomial nomenclature, he published no species names (ICN Art. 23.7(b); Turland floribus triandriis” (i.e., O. triandra L.) (Browne, l.c.). The nomenclatural history of Omphalea triandra demonstrates the critical importance of preserving stability in the genus Omphalea. Linnaeus (l.c. 1759: 1264) published the name O. triandra providing a very short diagnosis “OMPHALEA | triandra. B. O. Omphalea fol. foliis oblongis”, followed by the reference “Brown. jam. t. 22. f. 4” (i.e., Browne, l.c.: t. 22, fig. 4). Regarding the letter “B”, in Systema naturae Linnaeus preserved the original numerical sequence of species from the main body of Species plantarum. Species that lacked numbers, such as those published in the Appendix or in various dissertations between 1753 and 1759, were subsequently inserted into the sequence and distinguished by letters rather than by renumbering the established species. Linnaeus (Sp. Pl., ed. 2: 1377. 1763) republished the name Omphalea triandra, again citing the same reference as in the 1759 protologue, but with significant modifications. “OMPHALEA triandra”, now numbered “2” (formerly designated by “B” in Linnaeus, l.c. 1759), was accompanied by the same brief diagnosis, “foliis oblongis” followed by the citation “Amoen. acad. 5. p. 408. *”, the synonym “Omphalandria foliis obovatis glabris ad basim biglandulis, floribus triandriis” cited from “Brown. jam. 335. t. 22. f. 4.” (Browne, l.c.: 335, t. 22, fig. 4), and finally the geographical indication “Habitat in Jamaica”. According to Stearn (Bot. Latin, ed. 2: 365. 1973, the asterisk (*) indicates that a satisfactory description can be found at the cited source, where Linnaeus (Amoen. Acad. 5: 408–409. 1760) had published, under the number “104”, Omphalea triandra followed by an expanded description: “Fruticis Folia alterna, petiolata, palmaria, lanceolato-ovata, obtusa, integerrima, nuda. Pedunculi axillares, terni, uniflori, nudi, longitudine petiolorum” (Shrub with alternate, petiolate, palmate, lanceolate-ovate leaves, obtuse, entire, glabrous. Axillary peduncles in threes, single-flowered, glabrous, equal in length to the petioles). The reference cited by Linnaeus in the protologue of Omphalea triandra (i.e., “Brown. jam. 335. t. 22. f. 4”) comprised the following information: “OMPHALANDRIA 2. Foliis obovatis glabris, ad basim biglandulis; floribus triandriis. Tab. 22. f. 4. | The larger Omphalandria, with three Antherae. | These plants are chiefly found about Port Antonio, and Mangeneel. There are no filaments in the flowers of either of them; but the antherae are lodged in so many grooves, disposed longitudinally and at equal distances from each other, in the side of a roundish naval situated in the center of the cup. The first sort is a weakly spreading shrub; the other, a small tree.” Likewise, Browne (l.c.: t. 22, fig. 4) illustrated this plant, depicting a stem bearing two leaves and flowers, together with detailed views of the flowers. These illustrations correspond both to Linnaeus's brief diagnosis (l.c. 1759) and to the more detailed description published in Amoenitates Academicae (l.c. 1760). Patrick Browne (1720–1790) was an Irish physician and botanist who settled in Jamaica around 1746, where he devoted much of his spare time to study of the island's natural history and to the collection of native plant and animal specimens. After returning to London in the 1750s, Browne undertook the publication of his findings in The civil and natural history of Jamaica (1756), a work illustrated with engravings by the prominent natural history artist Georg Dionysius Ehret (Nelson in Arch. Nat. Hist. 24: 327–336. 1997) based on his own drawings. Browne's illustration (l.c.: t. 22, fig. 4) is cited in Linnaeus's protologue and, therefore, cannot be in serious conflict with it (see Art. 9 Note 10). However, this illustration is now identifiable with the taxonomic concept of the name Lucuma multiflora A. DC. (in Candolle, Prodr. 8: 168. 1844; ≡ Pouteria multiflora (A. DC.) Eyma in Recueil Trav. Bot. Néerl. 33: 164. 1936) in the family Sapotaceae. This species is native to tropical America, including Brazil (north), Colombia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Jamaica, the Leeward Islands, Panama, Peru, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela (see POWO, 2025). It is a tree of notable ecological and economic importance, valued both for its medicinal properties and as a source of food (Parrotta Rollet & al., Arbres des Petites Antilles. 2010, cited via Pl@ntUse). Among the herbarium material used by Linnaeus to describe Omphalea triandra, according to Jarvis (Order out of Chaos: 699. 2007), there is an original specimen of Browne at LINN (Herb. Linnaeus No. 1102.1). The sheet bears two stems with leaves and flowers and is annotated “Omphaleandria Triandra” by Linnaeus at the base of the sheet. This specimen can also be identified as belonging to Pouteria multiflora. Browne collected this specimen during his stay in Jamaica. Linnaeus acquired Browne's herbarium in 1758, which became his first collection of Jamaican plants (see Jarvis, l.c.: 111). Undoubtedly, the lectotypification of Omphalea triandra based on this specimen or on Browne's illustration would compromise the nomenclatural stability of this group of plants (see below). Accordingly, for the purpose of maintaining nomenclatural stability and supporting the continued and well-established use of the name O. triandra, I propose to conserve this name with a conserved type under Art. 14.9 of the ICN. Gillespie (in Jarvis & al., List of Linnaean Generic Names and Their Types in Regnum Veg. 127: 70. 1993) designated a Swartz collection in Herb. Thunberg (No. 22721) at UPS (No. V-138468) as a “neotype”. Several duplicates of this specimen are preserved at S (Nos. S11-301, S11-302, and S-R-3793) and at G-DC (barcodes G00319972 and G00319973). Olof Peter Swartz was a Swedish botanist who traveled in the West Indies and northeastern South America between 1784 and 1786. As explained by Jarvis & al. (l.c.: 6), the neotypification proposed by Gillespie (l.c. 1993) is untenable because original material exists (see Art. 9.8). Nevertheless, these specimens constitute excellent material to be taken into account as the conserved type of the name. Therefore, I formally propose the UPS specimen (No. V-138468) from the Swartz gathering, designated by Gillespie (l.c. 1993) as the “neotype”, to serve as the conserved type of the name Omphalea triandra. Other specimens from the same gathering would then be treated as isotypes. Rejection of the present proposal would have undesirable consequences. Because Omphalea triandra provides the type of the genus name Omphalea, the issue becomes critical from a nomenclatural perspective: Omphalea would automatically and unavoidably be treated as a genus of Sapotaceae rather than Euphorbiaceae. Consequently, Omphalea could no longer be used within Euphorbiaceae, and the euphorbiaceous species traditionally included in Omphalea would need to be transferred to a different genus (e.g., Hecatea Thouars, Hist. Vég. Îles France: 27. 1804). This would affect about 20 currently accepted species names in Euphorbiaceae that are presently placed in Omphalea (see POWO, 2025). Moreover, the name Lucuma multiflora (or Pouteria multiflora), which has been consistently applied to a species of Sapotaceae, would be displaced by O. triandra, along with a substantial number of other species currently assigned to this sapotaceous genus, all of which would require recombination under Omphalea (1759), which has priority over both Lucuma Molina (Sag. Stor. Nat. Chili: 186, 352. 1782) and Pouteria Aubl. (Hist. Pl. Guiane 1: 85. 1775). Such a change would further aggravate nomenclatural instability. This scenario would be highly destabilizing and should be avoided, as it would necessitate numerous new combinations and represent a clear departure from the long-established historical usage of the name Omphalea. Some comments can be added on the fate of Omphalandria P. Browne, currently rejected in Appendix III as a homotypic synonym of Omphalea L., nom. cons., a status originating from its indication as such by Rickett & Stafleu (in Taxon 8: 306. 1959). Omphalandria is therefore also typified by Omphalea triandra L. Even though Omphalandria, like Omphalea, is currently based on material of Sapotaceae, since its type is the type of a name of a species (Art. 10.1), in this case Omphalea triandra, “any change in the type of that species name (e.g. by conservation) also affects the application of the generic name” (Art. 10 Note 2). So with conservation of O. triandra, as advocated here, the two genera will remain homotypic, but as members of Euphorbiaceae. I am grateful to Dr. John Wiersema, Dr. Melanie Schori, and Prof. John McNeill for their helpful guidance, support, and constructive comments on this proposal.
P. Pablo Ferrer‐Gallego (Wed,) studied this question.