(2784) Maytenus tovarensis Radlk. in Sitzungsber. Math.‐Phys. Cl. Königl. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. München 8: 383. Jul–Dec 1878 [Angiosp.: Celastr.], nom. utique rej. prop.

Holotypus: Venezuela, [Aragua], Colonia Tovar, [1847?], Karsten (B [destr.]).

Maytenus tovarensis Radlk. (in Sitzungsber. Math.‐Phys. Cl. Königl. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. München 8: 383. 1878) was named based on a collection gathered by H. Karsten from Colonia Tovar, Venezuela, probably in 1847 (Tryon in Taxon 12: 104. 1963) and deposited in B. This specimen was presumably lost in the bombing of Berlin in WWII, and no duplicates have been located. In the original description, M. tovarensis is compared to Sapindaceae genera and the genus Schieckea H. Karst. (in Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 6: 398–399. 1848), described with no species included, considered as a synonym: “23 Schieckea Karsten in Bot. Zeit. VI, 1848, p. 398 = Maytenus tovarensis Radlk.” (Radlkofer, l.c.: 312, 383). Subsequently, the species was again mentioned with Schieckea as synonym by Peter (in Bot. Jahresber. (Just) 6(2): 189. 1878). The combination of characters of inflorescence and fruit, described in the protologue respectively as “paniculae subracemiformes (ramis brevibus paucifloris) solitariae vel ternae” and “capsula e globoso trigona … trilocularis … abortu monosperma” (Radlkofer, l.c.: 383), is typical of the genus Celastrus. On the other hand, these characters in combination are not found in the genus Maytenus Molina nor in the genera that were later segregated from it, such as Monteverdia A. Rich. and Tricerma Liebm. Also, Radlkofer (l.c.) commented on the scandent habit of the specimen in the protologue, according to him annotated by Karsten on the label as “frutex scandens”. Celastrus species are typically scandent, while Maytenus and related genera are represented by erect plants. Three‐valved fruits with only one seed due to abortion, as described in the protologue of M. tovarensis, are characteristic of Celastrus subg. Racemocelastrus, described by Ding Hou (in Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 42: 277. 1955) to comprise all Neotropical species exclusively.

Maytenus tovarensis was first associated with the genus Celastrus by Loesener (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. III(5): 205. 1892), but without proposing a taxonomic resolution: “C. monosperma Roxb. aus Ostindien, mit besonders in den ♂ Exemplaren sehr großen, weitverzweigten Blütenrispen u. a. Letzterer Art steht die tropisch‐amerikanische, bisher als Maytenus tovarensis Radlk. bekannte Art sehr nahe, deren systematische Stellung ohne Bl. nicht entschieden werden kann.” Subsequently, M. tovarensis was formally stated to be a synonym of the new combination C. racemosus (Reissek) Loes., based on M. racemosa Reissek (in Martius, Fl. Bras. 11(1): 30. 1861), by Loesener (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. III(5): 459. 1896): “Celastrus racemosa [Reiss.] Lös. = Maytenus racemosa Reiss. = M. tovarensis Radlk.” Loesener reaffirmed this synonymy in three subsequent publications (in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam. Nachtr. II–IV: 222. 1897; in Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 24: 199. 1898; in Engler & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenfam., ed. 2, 20b: 134. 1942). However, C. racemosus (Reissek) Loes. is an illegitimate later homonym of C. racemosus Turcz. (in Bull. Soc. Imp. Naturalistes Moscou 36(1, 1): 599. 1863).

Despite the illegitimacy of Celastrus racemosus (Reissek) Loes., Urban (Symb. Antill. 5: 52. 1904) considered it as a correct name, with the older Maytenus tovarensis and Schieckia as synonyms, and described the new variety C. racemosus var. trinitensis Urb. (l.c.). However, neither Loesener nor Urban, both of whom worked in Berlin, mentioned having analyzed or seen the type specimen of M. tovarensis, which, at that time, was in the Berlin collection. Several subsequent publications also accepted the illegitimate C. racemosus (e.g., Williams, Fl. Trinidad 1: 173. 1930; Pittier in Bol. Soc. Venez. Ci. Nat. 3: 424. 1937; Ding Hou, l.c.: 278), but none included M. tovarensis as a synonym.

The inflorescence type of Maytenus tovarensis described in the protologue is very similar to that of Celastrus liebmannii Standl. (in Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Bot. Ser. 8: 316–317. 1931), which is the current name most commonly used for C. racemosus (Reissek) Loes., and which occurs in Venezuela (Ding Hou, l.c.: 280–281). The inflorescence is an axillary paniculiform cyme, compound with the secondary branches ending in a solitary flower or in a simple dichasium of three flowers. Thus, it is likely that M. tovarensis is in fact synonymous with C. liebmannii. Some authors have considered C. racemosus and C. liebmannii Standl. as heterotypic synonyms of C. grenadensis Urb. (l.c.: 51) (e.g., Bornstein in Howard, Fl. Lesser Antilles 5(2): 177. 1989; Whitefoord in J. Arnold Arbor. 70: 144. 1989; Acevedo‐Rodríguez & Strong, Catal. Seed Pl. West Indies [Smithsonian Contr. Bot. 98]: 215. 2012). The type of C. grenadensis has not been located, and was also presumably lost in the bombing of Berlin. Ding Hou (l.c.: 285) treated C. grenadensis as a doubtful species due to the lack of type material and the insufficient description. Pittier published C. meridensis Pittier (l.c.: 424–425), a second congeneric species from Venezuela, and compared it with C. racemosus based on morphological characters, distinguishing each by their inflorescence: C. meridensis has sessile to subsessile flowers, while C. racemosus has flowers with pedicels longer than 1 mm. Pittier (l.c.) pointed out that Karsten had collected C. racemosus in Colonia Tovar, probably referring to the M. tovarensis type collection, although not mentioning this name or any specimen. Nevertheless, because the inflorescence type in the New World Celastrus species has been reported as an inconstant character (Molina‐Paniagua & Lorea‐Hernández in Rotter & Rzedowski, Fl. Bajío 171: 1–42. 2011), the precise taxonomic identity of M. tovarensis remains unclear.

Maytenus tovarensis is a long‐forgotten name, with the most recent mentions being found in Urban (l.c.) and Loesener (l.c. 1942). Subsequent publications do not mention the name, including the revised catalogue of the Venezuelan flora (Hokche & al., Nuevo Catál. Fl. Vasc. Venez.: 321. 2008). The apparent loss of the type specimen makes difficult further comparisons and the precise application of the name. However, its description indicates an unambiguous association with the genus Celastrus, yet the name M. tovarensis antedates all the above‐mentioned Neotropical Celastrus species. Thus, if conspecific with any one of these Neotropical Celastrus, which seems assured, the name M. tovarensis would have priority and a new combination would be required, which will not serve nomenclatural stability. Instability will arise because C. liebmannii is widely distributed in the Neotropics, from Mexico to Brazil, and is cited as such in many floras and checklists (e.g., Liesner in Jørgensen & León‐Yánez, Cat. Pl. Vasc. Ecuador [Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 75]: 393. 1999; Lombardi & Groppo in Forzza & al., Catál. Pl. Fung. Brasil 1: 842. 2010; Liesner in Jørgensen & al., Cat. Pl. Vasc. Bolivia [Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 127]: 497. 2014; Barrie in Davidse & al., Fl. Mesoamer. 2(3): 212. 2015; Villaseñor in Revista Mex. Biodivers. 87: 696. 2016; Baksh‐Comeau & al. in Phytotaxa 250: 147. 2016; Ulloa Ulloa & al. in Science 358: [Data Set S1] 750. 2017).

The above arguments have demonstrated currently unresolvable doubt as to the precise identity of Maytenus tovarensis. Because any rediscovery of type material or neotypification of this name will almost certainly necessitate a new combination in Celastrus, based on this unfamiliar name, that will not serve nomenclatural stability, it is proposed that the name M. tovarensis be rejected under Art. 56 of the ICN (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018).

（2784）Maytenus tovarensis Radlk。在西贡斯伯。数学物理 Cl。国王 拜耳 阿卡德 智者 慕尼黑8：383。1878年7月至12月[ Angiosp.：Celastr。]，标称值。尤蒂克河 支柱。

Holotypus：委内瑞拉，[阿拉瓜]，科洛尼亚托瓦尔，[1847？]，卡斯滕（B [destr。]）。

Maytenus tovarensis Radlk。（在Sitzungsber。Math.‐Phys。Cl。Königl。Bayer。Akad。Wiss。München8：383. 1878中）是根据H. Karsten从委内瑞拉的Colonia Tovar收集的一个集合命名的，大概是1847年（Tryon in Taxon 12：104. 1963），并存放在B。该标本大概是在第二次世界大战的柏林爆炸中丢失的，没有找到重复的标本。在原始描述中，将tovarensis与Sapindaceae属和Schieckea H. Karst属进行了比较。（在Bot。Zeitung（Berlin）6：398–399。1848中进行描述），其中未包含任何物种，被视为同义词：“ Bot。23 Schieckea Karsten。时代精神。第六卷，1848年，第1页。398 =美天牛臭小子。” （Radlkofer，lc：312，383）。随后，该物种再次被彼得（Schieckea）称为同义词（在Bot。Jahresber。（Just）6（2）：189. 1878）。在原型中，花序和果实的性状分别是“圆锥形亚种（ramis brevibus paucifloris）Solitariae vel ternae”和“ globoso trigona…trilocularis…abortu monosperma”（Radlkofer，lc：383）。芹菜属。另一方面，在Maytenus Molina属和后来与其分离的属中，例如Monteverdia A. Rich ，都找不到这些组合的字符。和翠菊利姆。同样，Radlkofer（lc）在标本中对标本的小样习性进行了评论，据卡尔斯滕（Karsten）在标语上标注为“ frutex scandens”。Celastrus物种通常是举足轻重的，而Maytenus和相关属以直立植物为代表。如tovarensis的原语中所述，由于流产而只有一个种子的三瓣果实是Celastrus subg的特征。丁香（Ringmocelastastrus），由丁厚（在密苏里州Bot。Gard。42：277. 1955年出版）描述为仅包括所有新热带物种。

Lotenner（在Engler＆Prantl，Nat。Pflanzenfam。III（5）：205. 1892）首先将Maytenus tovarensis与Celastrus属相关联，但没有提出分类学解决方案：C. monosperma Roxb。奥斯坦丁（Aus Ostindien），米高斯（Berten）的建筑工匠，维特维茨维格滕（Eluster）艺术博物馆，比希尔（Mayherus tovarensis Radlk）。瑞典国家艺术博物馆 nicht entschieden werden kann。” 随后，M. tovarensis正式描述为新的组合的同义词C.大赖草（Reissek）Loes。，基于M.总状Reissek（Martius，Fl。Bras。11（1）：30. 1861），由Loesener（in Engler＆Prantl，Nat。Pflanzenfam。III （5）：459. 1896）：“ Celastrus racemosa [Reiss。]Lös。= Maytenus racemosa Reiss。= M. tovarensis Radlk。” 洛森纳（Loesener）在随后的三篇出版物中再次确认了这一同义词（在Engler＆Prantl，Nat。Pflanzenfam。Nachtr。II–IV：222。1897；在Bot。Jahrb。Syst。24：199。1898；在Engler＆Prantl，Nat。Pflanzenfam。 ，第2版，20b：134。1942）。然而，C.大赖草（Reissek）Loes。是后来的C. racemosus Turcz的非法同音词。（in Bull。Soc。Imp。Naturalistes Moscou 36（1，1）：599. 1863）。

尽管Celestrus racemosus（Reissek）Loes。具有不合法性，Urban（Symb。Antill。5：52. 1904）仍将其视为正确的名称，而较老的Maytenus tovarensis和Schieckia为同义词，并描述了新的C. racemosus var 。Trinitensis Urb。（lc）。但是，都没有在柏林工作的Loesener和Urban都提到分析或看过当时属于柏林收藏的tovarensis型标本。随后的一些出版物也接受了非法的C. racemosus（例如，Williams，Fl.Trinidad 1：173。1930； Pittier in Bol。Soc.Venez.Ci.Nat.3：424.1937； Ding Hou，lc：278），但是没有一个人将托瓦尔木霉作为同义词。

原型中描述的美天王花的花序类型与利氏曼氏飞鸟（Celastrus liebmannii Standl ）非常相似。（在Publ。Field Mus。Nat。Hist。，Bot。Ser。8：316–317。1931中），这是在C. racemosus（Reissek）Loes。中最常用的当前名称，它出现在委内瑞拉（Ding侯，lc：280–281）。花序是腋生圆锥花序花序，复合与次生枝终止于单生花或在三朵花的简单二合座中。因此，tovarensis可能实际上是C. liebmannii的同义词。一些作者已经考虑了C. racemosus和C. liebmannii Standl。作为的异型同义词C. grenadensis Urb。（lc：51）（例如Bornstein in Howard，Fl。Lesser Antilles 5（2）：177. 1989; Whitefoord in J. Arnold Arbor。70：144. 1989;Acevedo-Rodríguez＆Strong，Catal。Seed Pl。West印度[Smithsonian Contr。Bot。98]：215。2012）。尚未找到格林纳达梭菌的类型，可能在柏林轰炸中丢失了。丁厚（lc：285）将C. grenadensis视为可疑物种，原因是缺乏类型材料和描述不足。Pittier出版C. meridensis Pittier（LC：424-425），来自委内瑞拉的第二同类物质，以及与它相比C.大赖草基于形态特征，区分各个通过花序：C. meridensis具有无柄至近无柄花，而C.大赖草具有花花梗大于1mm长。Pittier（LC）指出，卡斯滕收集了C.大赖草在Colonia Tovar的，大概指的是M. tovarensis类型的集合，虽然没有提到这个名字或任何标本。然而，由于在新的世界花序类型南蛇物种已被报告为一个变化无常字符（莫利纳-帕尼亚瓜和Lorea埃尔南德斯在罗特和Rzedowski，FL巴希奥171：1-42 2011），精确分类标识中号Tovarensis尚不清楚。

Maytenus tovarensis是一个被人们遗忘的名字，最近的提及是在Urban（lc）和Loesener（lc 1942）中发现的。随后的出版物没有提及该名称，包括委内瑞拉植物群的修订目录（Hokche等人，NuevoCatál。Fl。Vasc。Venez.：321。2008）。类型标本的明显损失使得难以进一步比较和准确使用名称。但是，它的描述表明它与Celastrus属有着明确的联系，然而名称tovarensis早于上述所有新热带Celastrus物种。因此，如果与这些新近生的蛇怪中的任何一个有明确的共通性，则称其为M. tovarensis将具有优先权，并且将需要新的组合，这将不会带来命名稳定性。之所以会出现不稳定，是因为谎言梭菌在新热带地区广泛分布，从墨西哥到巴西，并在许多植物群和清单中被引用（例如，Jørgensen＆León-Yánez的Liesner，Cat。Pl。Vasc。Ecuador [Monogr。 Syst。Bot。Missouri Bot。Gard。75]：393. 1999； Forzza等人的Lombardi＆Groppo，巴西加泰罗尼亚州真菌病房1：842。2010；Jørgensen等人的Liesner和Cat.Pl. Vasc。玻利维亚[。Monogr SYST博特密苏里博特加尔127。]：497。2014;巴里在Davidse ＆人，FL Mesoamer 2（3）：212. 2015; BiodiversVillaseñor在杂志墨西哥87： 696. 2016； Baksh-Comeau等人在Phytotaxa 250：147。2016； Ulloa Ulloa等人在Science 358：[数据集S1] 750。

以上论点已经表明了对美天牛的确切身份目前无法解决的疑问。由于重新发现该类型的材料或对该名称进行新类型化几乎肯定会在Celastrus中基于该陌生的名称进行新的组合，而该组合将不会带来命名上的稳定性，因此建议将M. tovarensis命名为Art。ICN的第56条（Turland等人，Regnum Veg。159. 2018）。