Bothalia 42,2: 217–245 (2012)

Nomenclature and typification of southern African species of

Euphorbia

P.V. BRUYNS*

Keywords: Euphorbia, Euphorbiaceae, lectotypes, neotypes, typification

ABSTRACT

Types have been located for most of the 185 species of Euphorbia L. that are known to occur naturally in southern Africa
and also for most of their synonyms. Lectotypes or neotypes are selected where possible for those names for which a holotype
cannot be found. The synonymy largely follows previous accounts and reasons are given where new synonymy is proposed.
Euphorbia huttonae N.E.Br. is reinstated at the level of species and E. franksiae var. zuluensis A.C.White et al. is raised to
the level of species as E. gerstneriana Bruyns, nom. nov. A new name, E. radyeri Bruyns, is provided for the rhizomatous
plants previously referred to as E. caerulescens Haw., which is synonymous with E. ledienii A.Berger.

INTRODUCTION type. In such instances, a lectotype is generally selected

from among the duplicates of the ‘type number’ or from
The large, cosmopolitan genus Euphorbia L. is rep- among the ‘syntypes’ mentioned by the author in the
resented in southern Africa (taken here to include the protologue. A particular specimen is chosen over oth-
countries Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, ers according to its quality or, in the case of syntypes,
and Swaziland) by 185 species. For these there are 368 according also to how widely duplicates (if any) are rep-
validly described names at the level of species. In this resented. In cases where no appropriate material for use
listing only naturally occurring species are included. as a lectotype was located, a neotype was selected. All
These are distributed among the four subgenera estab- material cited has been seen unless it is expressly stated
lished by Bruyns et al. (2006) and based on molecu- otherwise. The JSTOR Plant Science website (http://
lar and morphological data as shown in Table 1, where plants.jstor.org/) has been consulted in all applicable
additional information on growth habit is also supplied. cases and the Kew Herbarium Catalogue (http://apps.
Many of the succulent species such as E. globosa Sims, kew.org/herbcat) was consulted for many species and
E. meloformis Aiton and E. obesa Hook.f. are popu- names as well. Data on localities is given as on the spec-
lar subjects in specialist collections around the world, imens, with the present-day country where the specimen
but the other species have little economical use, though was collected added.
their medicinal use is probably underestimated. The
last revisions of the genus for this region were those of
N.E. Brown (1911–1912, 1915), with the succulent spe- RESULTS
cies receiving further attention by White et al. (1941).
The taxonomy of Euphorbia in southern Africa remains The species are arranged alphabetically within the
disorganised, with many names applied in different her- four subgenera of Euphorbia that were established in
baria in South Africa to quite different species. In an Bruyns et al. (2006). The synonymy is as in Bruyns et
attempt to bring order to the situation, types have been al. (2006), except where otherwise mentioned and dis-
located and, where these are missing, lectotypes or neo- cussed.
types are selected as applicable.

NOMENCLATURAL ACCOUNT
MATERIALS AND METHODS
1. Euphorbia subg. Chamaesyce Raf.
For each validly published name for a southern
African species of Euphorbia, the protologue was con- 1a. Sect. Anisophyllum Roeper
sulted in the relevant literature. Type specimens have E. austro-occidentalis Thell., Vierteljahrsschrift der
been searched for among material in the herbaria B, Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich 61: 431 (1916).
BM, BOL, G, GRA, K, KMG, M, NBG, NH, NU, NY, Type: Namibia, Okahandja, sandy bushveld, cultivated
OXF, P, PRE, S, SAM, SBT, W, WIND, WRSL, WU, land, 1 300 m, Oct., Dinter 105 (Z, lecto., designated
Z (herbarium acronyms according to Holmgren et al. here; BOL, GRA, SAM-3 sheets, isolecto.). [Thellung
(1990)). A specimen is taken as the holotype if it was cited also Dinter 222 (Z), 222a (Z) and 822 (Z). A lecto-
indicated as such by the author, or if it is clear from type is selected.]
where it is located relative to where the author worked
that it must be the holotype. In many cases it has proved E. chamaesycoides B.Nord., Dinteria 11: 20 (1974).
to be impossible to be sure which specimen is the holo- Chamaesyce chamaesycoides (B.Nord.) Koutnik: 263
(1984). Type: Namibia, Brandberg, Upper Tsisab Valley,
* Bolus Herbarium, University of Cape Town, 7701 ± 1 600 m, 6 May 1963, Nordenstam 2567 (S, holo.; M,
MS. received: 2011-10-18 iso.).
218 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

Table 1.—Numbers of species, available (i.e. validly published) names and showing the numbers of species exhibiting different growth forms
(annuals, herbs, succulents, and geophytes) in the subgenera of Euphorbia.

Subgenus Species Available names Annuals Perennial, non- Succulents Geophytes

succullent herbs
Chamaesyce 37 84 15 0 21 1
Esula 15 33 0 12 3 0
Euphorbia 50 66 0 0 50 0
Rhizanthium 83 183 0 5 73 5

E. eylesii Rendle, Journal of Botany 43: 52 (1905). Jan. 1820, Mund & Maire 15 (K 000253186, lecto.,
Chamaesyce eylesii (Rendle) Koutnik: 263 (1984). designated here). [There are two specimens under this
Type: Zimbabwe, Deka siding along Bulawayo-Victoria number at K and it is not certain that either was seen
Falls railway line, May 1904, Eyles 130 (BM, holo.; by Klotzsch & Garcke. This is the larger specimen, the
SRGH, iso.). other is a ‘branch from the type’, according to N.E.
Brown.]
E. leshumensis N.E.Br., Flora of Tropical Africa 6(1):
513 (1911). Type: Botswana, Leshumo Forest, received A. setigerum E.Mey. ex Klotzsch & Garcke: 29
May 1883, Holub (K, lecto., designated here). [Brown (1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, Drège (missing).
(1911) also cited Macaulay 423 (K), from Zambia.]
E. parvifolia E.Mey. ex Boiss.: 34 (1862). Type:
E. glanduligera Pax, Botanische Jahrbücher für South Africa, Cape, Jan. 1820, Mund & Maire 15 (K
Systematik 19: 142 (1894). Chamaesyce glanduligera 000253186, lecto., designated here). [Boissier cited:
(Pax) Koutnik: 263 (1984). Type: Namibia, bei Nawas near Gariep, Drège; Beaufort distr., Lund; ‘Anis. Mun-
am Swakop, bei Salem, 12 Dec. 1888, Gürich 3 (mis- dtii Kl. et Gke l.c. p. 25’. From the latter, a lectotype is
sing; sketch of type at K). Neotype (designated here): selected.]
Namibia, Naukluft Mtns, between Ababes and Homnus,
Pearson 9106 (BOL). E. parvifolia var. laxa Boiss.: 34 (1862). Type: none
located. [Boissier cited: Drège 8191; 8198 and ‘Sieb.
E. pfeilii Pax.: 534 (1897). Type: Namibia, Stolzen- Cap. n. 154, which have not been located.]
fels, Rietfontein, 1890/1891, Pfeil 91 (missing).
E. sanguinea var. setigera E.Mey. ex Boiss.: 35
E. glaucella Pax.: 737 (1898). Type: Namibia, Oka- (1862). Type: South Africa, near Kei and Bashee Rivers,
handja, Mar. 1883, Köpfner 68 (Z, lecto., designated Drège (missing).
here). [Pax (1898) also cited Fleck 454a (Z), so a lecto-
type is selected.] E. sanguinea var. natalensis Boiss.: 35 (1862). Type:
South Africa, Port Natal, Gueinzius 167 (F, lecto., des-
E. anomala Pax: 636 (1908), nom. illegit., non Bois- ignated here; MEL-2 sheets, isolecto.). [Boissier (1862)
sier (1862). did not say in which herbarium he had seen this speci-
E. kwebensis N.E.Br.: 137 (1909). Type: Botswana, men so a lectotype is selected.]
Kwebe Hills, 3300’, 7 Jan. 1897, Lugard 143 (K, lecto., E. nelsii Pax: 737 (1898). Type: Namibia, Hereroland,
designated here). [Brown (1909) also cited Lugard 81 1886, L. Nels 91 (Z, holo.; K, iso.). [N.E. Brown anno-
(K), from the same locality and marked both specimens
tated the piece of Nels 91 at K as ‘fragment from type’
as ‘Type’.]
and mentioned also that the type was at Z.]
E. gueinzii Boiss. in A.P. de Candolle, Prodromus
E. inaequilatera var. perennis N.E.Br.: 246 (1915).
15(2): 71 (1862). Type: South Africa, at Natal Bay, Gue-
Type: South Africa, Natal, near Tugela, 4 Jan. 1886,
inzius (G, lecto., designated here; W, isolecto.). [Boissier
Wood 3552 (K, lecto., designated here). [Brown also
(1862) also cited an unnumbered collection of Sander-
cited many other syntypes for this variety.]
son (in ‘h. Kew’, missing).]
E. gueinzii var. albovillosa (Pax) N.E.Br.: 252 (1915). E. livida E.Mey. ex Boiss., in A.P. de Candolle, Pro-
E. albovillosa Pax: 373 (1904). Type: South Africa, dromus 15(2): 14 (1862). Chamaesyce livida (E.Mey. ex
Natal, Inchanga, 1 180 m, 16 Sept. 1893, Schlechter Boiss.) Koutnik: 263 (1984). Neotype (designated here):
3245 (BOL, lecto., designated here; GRA, K, PRE, iso- South Africa, Natal, without precise locality, Gerrard
lecto.). [A lectotype is designated as no specimens seen 1171 (K). [Boissier (1862) cited ‘ad Natal Bay, Drège’
by Pax have been located.] and Gueinzius 177, which are both missing. The Drège
specimens found do not have this locality on them so a
E. inaequilatera Sond., Linnaea 23: 105 (1850). Ani- neotype is selected.]
sophyllum inaequilaterum (Sond.) Klotzsch & Garcke:
22 (1860). Chamaesyce inaequilatera (Sond.) Soják: E. mossambicensis (Klotzsch & Garcke) Boiss. in
169 (1972). Type: South Africa, Port Natal, Gueinzius A.P. de Candolle, Prodromus 15(2): 36 (1862). Aniso-
167 (MEL [501275], holo.; F, MEL, iso.). phyllum mossambicense Klotzsch & Garcke: 30 (1860).
Chamaesyce mossambicensis (Klotzsch & Garcke)
Anisophyllum mundii Klotzsch & Garcke: 25 (1860). Koutnik: 263 (1984). Type: Moçambique, Rios de Sena,
Type: South Africa, Cape, Gamka R., Prince Albert div., Peters 33 (K, lecto., designated here). [No type has been
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 219

found at B. This is a fragment of the type so is desig- Koutnik: 263 (1984). Type: Malawi, Zomba Mtn, 1861,
nated as lectotype.] Meller, Livingstone’s Expedition (K, lecto., desig-
nated here). [Bentham (1880) also cited: Malawi, Shire
E. neopolycnemoides Pax & K.Hoffm., Botanische Highlands, Blantyre, Buchanan 10 (K). A lectotype is
Jahrbücher für Systematik 45: 240 (1910). Chamae- selected.]
syce neopolycnemoides (Pax & K.Hoffm.) Koutnik: 263
(1984). Type: South Africa, Transvaal, between Nyl- 1b. Sect. Articulofruticosae Bruyns
stroom and Naboomspruit, sandy places along Macha-
laquana R., 24 Jan. 1894, Schlechter 4278 (missing). E. angrae N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 279 (1915).
Neotype (designated here): South Africa, Waterberg, Type: Namibia, Lüderitz (Angra Pequeña), 18 Jan. 1907,
Boschpoort near Warmbaths, 3650’, Jan 1906, Bolus Galpin & Pearson 7549 (K, lecto., designated here;
12280 (K; duplicate at BOL). [The type is missing and drawing; PRE, SAM, isolecto.). [Both the specimen at
the specimen at K of Bolus 12280 was matched by N.E. SAM and that at K were annotated as ‘Type’ by N.E.
Brown against Schlechter 4278 so it is selected as neo- Brown, so a lectotype is selected.]
type.]
E. einensis G.Will.: 57 (2004). Type: Namibia, south-
E. arabica var. latiappendiculata Pax: 85 (1909). ern Schakalberg, 70 km NE of Oranjemund, Williamson
Type: South Africa, Waterberg, Boschpoort near Warm- 5143 (BOL-2 sheets, holo.).
baths, Jan 1906, Bolus 12280 (K, lecto., designated
here; BOL, isolecto.). [The specimen at K is ‘part of the E. einensis var. anemoarenicola G.Will.: 62 (2004).
type’ and the other was not seen by Pax so a lectotype is Type: South Africa, Kortdoorn, Williamson 5985
selected.] (BOL-2 sheets, holo.).
E. pergracilis P.G.Mey., Mitteilungen aus der Bota- E. burmannii E.Mey. ex Boiss. in A.P. de Candolle,
nischen Staatssammlung München 6: 247 (1966). Prodromus 15(2): 75 (1862). Type: South Africa, Cape,
Chamaesyce pergracilis (P.G. Mey.) Koutnik: 263 towards Blauwberg, Drège 2920 (P, lecto., designated
(1984). Type: Namibia, 7 miles east of Purros towards here). [Boissier (1862) cited Drège 2920 (P); Tygerberg,
Sesfontein, 23 June 1963, Giess 3211 (M, holo.; MO, Bergius; Krauss. Neither of the latter two specimens has
PRE, WAG, iso.). been located.]
E. phylloclada Boiss. in A.P. de Candolle, Prodromus E. biglandulosa Willd.: 27 (1814), nom. illegit. non
15(2): 66 (1862). Type: South Africa, between Verlept-
Desf. (1808). [Willdenow (1814) gave a description but
pram and mouth of Gariep, Sept., Drège 238 (S, lecto.,
cited no specimens.]
designated here). [Boissier (1862) cited Drège ‘in h.
Bunge’ (missing), from the same locality.] Arthrothamnus burmannii E.Mey. ex Klotzsch &
E. hereroensis Pax: 35 (1889). Type: Namibia, Here- Garcke: 62 (1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, Drège
roland, Hykamkab, 300 m, May 1886, Marloth 1190 (missing). Neotype (designated here): South Africa,
(missing). Cape, Drège 2920 (P). [No specimen as cited by
Klotzsch & Garcke (1860) has been found, so a neotype
E. rubriflora N.E.Br., Flora of Tropical Africa 6(1): is selected.]
509 (1911). Type: Zimbabwe, Victoria Falls, Jan. 1906,
Allen 264 (K, lecto., designated here; SRGH, isolecto.). Arthrothamnus bergii Klotzsch & Garcke: 63 (1860).
[Brown (1911) also cited: Zambia, Livingstone, Rogers Type: South Africa, Cape, Bergius (missing).
7132 (K, BOL).]
E. phymatoclada Boiss.: 24 (1860). Type: South
E. schlechteri Pax, Botanische Jahrbücher für Sys- Africa, rocky hills at Ebenezer, Drège 2943 (GRA,
tematik 28: 26 (1900). Chamaesyce schlechteri (Pax) lecto., designated here). [Boissier (1860) cited a speci-
Koutnik: 263 (1984). Type: Moçambique, Ressano men ‘in h. Bunge’, which has not been located so a lec-
Garcia, 1 000’, 24 Dec. 1897, Schlechter 11915 (PRE, totype with the same number is selected. This is from
lecto., designated here; BOL, BR, COI, G, GRA, HBG, a plant of E. burmannii, although this name is usually
K, WAG, isolecto.). [No material definitely seen by Pax placed as a synonym of E. mauritanica (e.g. White et al.
in known and so a lectotype is selected.] 1941).]
E. spissiflora S.Carter, Kew Bulletin. 45: 331 (1990).
E. hydnorae E.Mey. ex Boiss.: 95 (1862). Type:
Type: Zimbabwe, Nhongo, 8 km north of Gokwe, 6 Mar.
South Africa, between Kaus and Doornpoort, Drège
1964, Bingham 1158 (K, holo.; SRGH, iso.).
2943 (GRA, lecto., designated here). [Apart from
E. tettensis Klotzsch in W.C.H. Peters, Naturwis- Drège 2943, Boissier (1862) also cited ‘in montibus
senschaftliche Reise nach Mossambique 1: 94 (1861). Niueweweld alt. 3 000–4 000 ped.’, apparently another
Chamaesyce tettensis (Klotzsch) Koutnik: 263 (1984). collection of Drège and both were ‘in h. Bunge’. The
Type: Moçambique, Tete, Peters (missing). [The name lectotype selected here is a specimen of E. burmannii,
Anisophyllum tettense Klotzsch & Garcke: 34 (1860) although this name is also usually placed as a synonym
was not validly published since it only cited the above, of E. mauritanica (e.g. White et al. 1941).]
which had not yet appeared.]
E. corymbosa N.E.Br.: 279 (1915). Type: South
E. zambesiana Benth., Hooker’s Icones Plantarum Africa, Cape, near Albertinia, 16 Nov. 1910, Muir (K,
14: t. 1305 (1880). Chamaesyce zambesiaca (Benth.) holo.).
220 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

E. karroensis (Boiss.) N.E.Br.: 290 (1915). E. bur- E. siliciicola Dinter: 31 (1914). Type: Namibia, Büll-
mannii var. karroensis Boiss. in DC.: 75 (1862). Type: sport, 5 Apr. 1911, Dinter 2132 (SAM, lecto., designated
South Africa, Cape, Karoo between Hol River and by Leach (1988a)).
Mierenkasteel, 500–1 000’, 5 Aug. 1830, Drège 2947
(P, lecto., designated here; K, isolecto.). [Boissier E. aequoris N.E.Br.: 279 (1915). Type: South Africa,
(1862) did not say in which herbarium the specimen was Cape, Middelburg div., Schoombie, Feb. 1897, Trol-
located so a lectotype is selected.] lip (sub SAM 20091) (SAM, lecto., designated here; K,
isolecto.). [Brown (1915) cited also: Rosmead Junc-
E. macella N.E.Br.: 288 (1915). Type: South Africa, tion, 4 000’, 22 Mar. 1900, Sim sub Galpin 5626 (PRE);
Cape, near Little Brak River, 10 Oct. 1814, Burchell between Colesburg & Hanover, 1871, Bolus 2201 (K).]
6197/2 (K, holo.).
Leach (1988a) discussed E. juttae in detail but con-
E. ephedroides E.Mey. ex Boiss. in A.P. de Candolle, sidered that E. aequoris, although closely related, was
Prodromus 15(2): 75 (1862). Type: South Africa, Cape, ‘sufficiently distinct in vegetative characters and habit
Karoo at Goedemanskraal, 2 500’, 8 Sept. 1830, Drège alone for it to be disregarded’ in those discussions. He
2949 (P, lecto., designated here; K, MO, S, isolecto.). did not say in what way it was so distinct. It appears
[Boissier (1862) cited also Burchell 1424 (‘in h. DC.’), that this distinctiveness lay in the much more robust
which has not been located.] plants formed by E. aequoris, with longer and more
slender stems and branches, with more widely spaced
E. ephedroides var. imminuta L.C.Leach & G.Will.:
and less prominent tubercles and a longer rootstock, as
72 (1990). Type: South Africa, Cape, Alexander Bay,
well as the lack of the peculiar habit that the branches
Williamson 3652 (NBG, holo.; K, PRE, iso.).
have in E. juttae of bending over to the north or west.
E. ephedroides var. debilis L.C.Leach: 73 (1990). Nevertheless, among the material that he cited under E.
Type: Namibia, north of Rosh Pinah, Leach & Brunton juttae were two specimens from near Olifantshoek and
15893 (NBG, holo.; K, MO, PRE, iso.). near Kenhardt respectively that are rather more typical
of E. aequoris than of E. juttae. While many specimens
E. exilis L.C.Leach, South African Journal of Botany of E. aequoris are unmistakeable (especially those from
56: 76 (1990). Type: South Africa, Cape, Aties, May the Great Karoo and drier parts of the Eastern Cape),
1984, Leach & Bayer 17129 (NBG-2 sheets, holo.; K, those from the Northern Cape and calcareous pans on
iso.). the southern edge of the Kalahari are not clearly refer-
able to either species. Some of these (especially plants
E. glandularis L.C.Leach & G.Will.: 75 (1990). Type: from exposed spots) may even exhibit a similar, almost
South Africa, Cape, near Steinkopf, Leach & Hilton- prostrate habit to E. juttae, and have shorter stems and
Taylor 17019 (NBG, holo.; K, PRE, iso.). branches with more prominent tubercles while more pro-
tected plants are erect, slender, and more typical of E.
E. gentilis N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 289 (1915). aequoris. I have found no clear distinctions between the
Type: South Africa, Cape, Vanrhynsdorp Div., hills near two species and have placed E. aequoris in synonymy.
Zout River, 500’, 14 Jul. 1896, Schlechter 8136 (BOL,
lecto., designated here; GRA, HBG, K, PRE, S, iso- E. lavrani L.C.Leach, The Journal of South African
lecto.). [Brown (1915) also cited Graafwater (Grauwa- Botany 49: 807 (1983). Type: Namibia, Namuskluft,
ter), 15 Dec. 1908, Pearson 3271 (BOL, K, SAM); near 1 200 m, Lavranos & Newton 16872 (PRE holo.; NBG,
Bitterfontein, Zeyher 1531 (G, K, S, W).] SRGH, iso.).
E. vaalputsiana L.C.Leach: 534 (1988a). Type: South E. muricata Thunb., Prodromus plantarum capen-
Africa, Cape, Vaalputs, near Gamoep, Leach & Perry sium 2: 86 (1800). Type: South Africa, Cape, Thunberg
17232 (NBG, holo.; K, MO, PRE, iso.). (UPS-THUNB 11499, holo.; drawing and fragment at K,
iso.).
E. gentilis subsp. tanquana L.C.Leach: 538 (1988a).
Type: South Africa, Cape, near turnoff to Skitterykloof, E. spicata E.Mey. ex Boiss.: 97 (1862). Type: South
Leach & Perry 17247a (NBG, holo.; K, M, MO, PRE, Africa, 31 Aug. 1830, Drège 2946 (K, lecto., designated
iso.). here; S, isolecto.). [Boissier (1862) cited also Cape, near
Bitterfontein, Zeyher 1531 (G, K, S, W), which is E.
E. giessii L.C.Leach, Dinteria 16: 27 (1982). Type: gentilis.]
Namibia, 18 km east of Henties Bay, Dec. 1976, Giess
14809 (sub Leach 15940) (PRE, holo.; M, WIND, iso.). E. aspericaulis Pax: 26 (1899). Type: South Africa,
Cape, Hantam Mtns, ex Dr Meyer (holo. missing; draw-
E. herrei A.C.White et al., The Succulent Euphor- ing and fragment at K, iso.). [According to Carter (2002)
bieae 2: 962 (1941). Type: South Africa, Cape, near this specimen is at B, but it cannot be located.]
Swartwater, 1930, Herre sub PRE 46025 (PRE, holo.).
[Although White et al. (1941) did not mention the E. rhombifolia Boiss., Centuria Euphorbiarum: 19
number PRE 46025, it is assumed that this is the same (1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, arid places on south-
specimen as the one they cited.] ern Karoo, Drège 8217 (G, lecto., designated here; K, S,
W, isolecto.). [Boissier (1860) cited also Ecklon & Zey-
E. juttae Dinter, Neue und wenig bekannte Pflanzen her, Euphorb. 23, 83 (G, W).]
Deutsch-SWA’s: 30 (1914). Type: Namibia, Garub, 900
m, 9 Jan. 1910, J.Dinter 1047 (SAM, lecto., designated Arthrothamnus densiflorus Klotzsch & Garcke: 62
by Leach (1988a); NY, isolecto.). (1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, Karoo near Olifants
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 221

River, Oudtshoorn distr., Jan. 1820, Mund & Maire (K, cited also: between Bitterfontein and Stinkfontein, 5
lecto., designated here). [Since there is no evidence that Dec. 1910, Pearson 5533 (BOL, K). He only wrote
Klotzsch & Garcke saw this specimen it is designated as ‘Type’ on the specimens at K of Pearson 5533 and
lectotype.] on one of the specimens at K of Schlechter 11047 (K
000252612). Therefore a lectotype is selected here.]
E. brachiata (E.Mey. ex Klotzsch & Garcke)
Boiss.: 74 (1862). Arthrothamnus brachiatus E.Mey. E. bayeri L.C.Leach: 539 (1988b). Type: South
ex Klotzsch & Garcke: 62 (1860). Type: South Africa, Africa, Cape, 2 km west of Mossel Bay, 11 Sept. 1985,
Cape, near Ebenezer, Drège 2948 (K, lecto., designated Bayer 4875 (NBG, holo.; K, MO, PRE, iso.).
here; S, isolecto.). [Although Boissier (1862) included
E. muricata Thunb. in the synonymy of E. brachiata, E. spartaria N.E.Br. Flora of Tropical Africa 6(1):
this is considered here as a separate species. Since it is 558 (1911). Type: Namibia, Hoffnung, Feb. 1907,
unlikely that Klotzsch & Garcke saw any of the sheets Galpin & Pearson 7560 (K, holo.; PRE, SAM, iso.).
listed, a lectotype is selected. The specimen at K of [Brown annotated the sheet of Galpin & Pearson 7560
Drège 2948 was taken from ‘the type’ in ‘Drège’s her- (K) as ‘Type’ and that at SAM as ‘Part of the type’. He
barium’ by N.E. Brown.] did not do this for any of the specimens of Dinter 983
(K, SAM-2 sheets) designated by Leach & Williamson
E. decussata E.Mey. ex Boiss.: 74 (1862), nom ille- (1990) as lectotype and also not on Dinter 255 (K). Con-
git., non Salisb. (1796). [Boissier (1862) cited Drège sequently their lectotype is set aside here in favour of
3926 (missing), Drège 8218 (K, MO, S, W) and ‘Oli- Brown’s preferred ‘type’.]
fants River, Mund & Maire’ (K). However, since it is an
illegitimate name, a lectotype is not selected here.] E. racemosa E.Mey. ex Boiss.: 75 (1862), nom. ille-
git., non Tausch ex Rchb. (1832). [Boissier (1862)
E. amarifontana N.E.Br.: 275 (1915). Type: South cited: South Africa, Cape, near Hamerkuil, Drège (MO,
Africa, Cape, near Springbokkuil River, Bitterfontein, S ‘8204’); distr. Beaufort, Ecklon in h. Petrop (miss-
Zeyher 1534 (K, lecto., designated here; BOL, SAM ing). As this is an illegitimate name a lectotype is not
‘1534b’-2 sheets, isolecto.). [Brown (1915) cited also selected.]
Pearson 5532 (BOL).]
E. indecora N.E.Br.: 274 (1915). Type: South Africa,
E. chersina N.E.Br.: 274 (1915). Type: Namibia, Cape, between Dabenoris and Houms Drift, 11 Jan.
Lüderitz (Angra Pequeña), 18 Jan. 1907, Galpin & 1909, Pearson 3387 (K 000252597, lecto., designated
Pearson 7584 (K, lecto., designated here; PRE, iso- here; K, isolecto.). [There are two specimens of this col-
lecto.). [Brown (1915) also cited Marloth 4638 (K) lection at K, both annotated by N.E. Brown as ‘Type’,
and marked both specimens as ‘Type’, so a lectotype is so a lectotype is selected. The size of these plants (2–3’
selected.] tall, according to the specimens) suggests that they are
E. spartaria rather than E. rhombifolia.]
E. caterviflora N.E.Br.: 286 (1915). Type: South
Africa, Cape, Nieweveld, Beaufort West, Drège 8218 E. rhombifolia var. laxa N.E.Br.: 285 (1915). Type:
(K, lecto., designated here; G, MO, W, isolecto.). South Africa, Cape, among rocks along Chichaba River
[Brown (1915) also cited and wrote ‘Type’ on Tyson 167 between Komgha and Kei Mouth, Aug. 1891, 1 000’,
(K, SAM), so a lectotype is selected.] Flanagan 838 (GRA, lecto., designated here; PRE,
SAM, isolecto.). [In this case (unlike for E. spartaria)
E. hastisquama N.E.Br.: 288 (1915). Type: South Brown annotated the sheets of the different collections
Africa, Cape, fields by the Swartkops River, Zey- MacOwan 1612 (GRA) and Flanagan 838 (GRA, PRE,
her 1099 (BOL, lecto., designated here; K, isolecto.). SAM) as ‘type’ so a lectotype is designated. Another
[Brown (1915) cited also Zeyher 3854 (SAM) and Eck- syntype is Sutherland (K).]
lon & Zeyher, Euphorb. 25 (K, SAM).]
E. rhombifolia var. triceps N.E.Br.: 285 (1915). Type:
E. mundii N.E.Br.: 287 (1915). Type: South Africa, South Africa, Cape, Queenstown distr., mountains near
Cape, Montagu, 1 Jan. 1903, Marloth 2805 (K, lecto., Imbasa River, 1860, Cooper 318 (K, lecto., designated
designated here; PRE, isolecto.). [Brown (1915) also here; BOL, W, isolecto.). [Brown (1915) cited several
cited Marloth 3904 (PRE) and Marloth 4878 (K) specimens as representing var. triceps, so a lectotype is
and several others as syntypes. Brown gave this as a selected.]
new name for Arthrothamnus densiflorus Klotzsch &
Garcke, which could not be transferred to Euphorbia. E. cibdela N.E.Br.: 275 (1915). Type: Namibia, on
He regarded these syntypes as identical to the Mund & hills at Schakalskuppe, 4 900–5 600’, 18 Jan. 1909,
Maire specimen that typified A. densiflorus and therefore Pearson 4428 (K, holo.; BOL, LD, SAM, iso.).
named this plant after Mund.]
E. rectirama N.E.Br.: 283 (1915). Type: South Africa,
E. perpera N.E.Br.: 277 (1915). Type: South Africa, Cape, Klipfontein, Griqualand West, 29 Dec. 1812,
Cape, along Orange River, between Verleptpram and its Burchell 2633 (K, lecto., designated here). [Brown
mouth, Drège (K, holo.). (1915) cited several specimens, of which the above is
selected as lectotype.]
E. rudolfii N.E.Br.: 276 (1915). Type: South Africa,
Cape, Vanrhynsdorp div., Bitterfontein, Sept. 1897, E. spinea N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 272 (1915).
Schlechter 11047 (K 000252612, lecto., designated here; Type: Namibia, among rocks near Dabegabis, Pear-
BR, GRA, K. L-2 sheets, PRE, S, isolecto.). [Brown son 4380 (K, lecto., designated here; BOL, isolecto.).
222 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

[Brown (1915) also cited Pearson 3296 (BOL, K, E. verruculosa N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 585
SAM), which is E. rhombifolia and Pearson 4585 (K) (1925). Type: Namibia, Lüderitz (Angra Pequeña), 10
and wrote ‘Type’ on all three specimens, so a lectotype miles from coast, Nov. 1908, Marloth 4639 (PRE, holo.;
is designated.] K, iso.). [Brown annotated the specimen at PRE as
‘Type’ and that at K as ‘half of the Type sheet, presented
E. stapelioides Boiss., Centuria Euphorbiarum: 26 to Kew by Dr Marloth’. So the sheet at PRE is taken as
(1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, at the mouth of the the holotype.]
Gariep (Orange), 4 Oct. 1830, Drège 8199 (P, holo.; S,
W, iso.). 1c. Sect. Espinosae Pax & K.Hoffm.
E. lumbricalis L.C.Leach: 369 (1986b). Type: South E. guerichiana Pax, Botanische Jahrbücher für Sys-
Africa, Cape, north of Koekenaap, 10 May 1984, Leach tematik 19: 143 (1894). Type: Namibia, rocks south of
& Bayer 17123 (NBG, holo.; K, MO, PRE-2 sheets, Khorixas, 14 Nov. 1888, Gürich 73 (missing). Neotype
iso.). (designated here): Namibia, Ababes, banks of Tsondap
E. suffulta Bruyns, South African Journal of Botany River, 30 Dec. 1915, Pearson 9119 (BOL).
56: 129 (1990). Type: South Africa, Cape, Tierberg, E. commiphoroides Dinter: 90 (1909). Neotype (des-
Prince Albert distr., 6 Dec. 1987, Bruyns 2902 (BOL, ignated here): Namibia, Tsumeb distr., Auros, 10 Feb.
holo.; K, PRE, iso.). 1925, Dinter 5596 (BOL; duplicate at SAM). [Dinter
E. tenax Burch. Travels in the Interior of southern (1909) cited no specimens and only mentioned ‘Häufig
Africa, 1: 219 (1822). Type: South Africa, Cape, Hang- in Hererolande: Salem, Modderfontein, Omburo, Tsao-
klip, near Ongeluks River, Ceres div., 17 July 1811, bis, Omatako’. No specimens from any of these locali-
Burchell 1219 (K, holo.). ties have been found. A neotype is therefore selected.]

E. arceuthobioides Boiss.: 20 (1860). Type: South E. frutescens N.E.Br.: 270 (1915). Type: Namibia,
Africa, Cape, 70.10, Ecklon & Zeyher, Euphorb. 76, lower mountain slopes of Aus, 3 000’, Jan. 1909, Pear-
(Ecklon 1312) (G, holo.; W, iso.). son 4714 (K, holo.; BOL, SAM, iso.). [Although several
of these sheets are labelled ‘Type’, only that at K was
Arthrothamnus ecklonii Klotzsch & Garcke: 63 annotated by N.E. Brown himself and so this specimen
(1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, Ecklon & Zeyher, is taken as the holotype.]
Euphorb. 24, (Ecklon 1871) (W, lecto., designated here).
[Klotzsch & Garcke (1860) cited ‘Ecklon n. 23. 25 & 24 E. espinosa Pax, Botanische Jahrbücher für Sys-
ex parte’. The only specimens from the Ecklon and Zey- tematik 19: 120 (1894). Type: Tanzania, without precise
her collections with similar numbering are those labelled locality, Fischer 285 (K, lecto., designated here). [No
‘Euphorb. 23’, ‘Euphorb. 24’ and ‘Euphorb. 25’ and so it material definitely seen by Pax in known and so a lecto-
must be to these that Klotzsch & Garcke referred.] type is selected.]
Arthrothamnus scopiformis Klotzsch & Garcke: 63 E. gynophora Pax: 374 (1904). Type: Tanzania, Pare
(1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, Bergius (missing). Mountains, betweem Kisuani and Madji-ya-juu, 700 m,
13 Oct. 1902, Engler 1579 (K, drawing, lecto., desig-
E. rhombifolia var. cymosa (Klotzsch & Garcke) nated here). [Pax (1904b) cited Engler 1579 and Engler
N.E.Br.: 285 (1915). Arthrothamnus cymosus Klotzsch 1586. No material definitely seen by Pax is known, but
& Garcke: 63 (1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, Eck-
drawings of both these specimens are at K. One of these
lon & Zeyher, Euphorb. 24 (W, lecto., designated here).
is selected as lectotype.]
[Klotzsch & Garcke (1860) cited ‘Ecklon n. 24 ex
parte’. This is assumed to be the same as ‘Ecklon & Zey- 1d. Sect. Frondosae Bruyns
her, Euphorb. 24’, of which there is a piece in W. This
piece belongs to E. tenax. However, there is no evidence E. leistneri R.Archer, South African Journal of Bot-
that they saw this specimen and so it is selected as a lec- any 64: 258 (1998). Type: Namibia, east of Epupa Falls,
totype.] Jul. 1976, Leistner et al. 264 (PRE, holo.; B, K, WIND,
E. serpiformis Boiss.: 75 (1862). Type: South Africa, iso.).
Cape, Berg River Valley, Zeyher 1535 (BOL, lecto., des- E. transvaalensis Schltr., Journal of Botany 34: 394
ignated here; K, S, SAM, W, WU, Z, isolecto.). [Bois-
(1896). Type: South Africa, Transvaal, near Edwin Bray
sier (1862) cited also ‘Eckl. & Zeyh. 24’ (i.e. Ecklon &
Battery, shady kloofs in Kap River Valley, Barberton,
Zeyher, Euphorb. 24 (W)) and ‘Riesvallei (Bergius h.
2 000’, fl. Nov. 1890, Galpin 1198 (GRA, lecto., desig-
Berol.)’ (missing).]
nated here; K, NH, SAM, Z, isolecto.). [Since there is no
E. mixta N.E.Br.: 585 (1925). E. arrecta N.E.Br.: 283 sign that Schlechter saw any of the sheets listed, a lec-
(1915), nom. illegit., non N.E.Br. (1914). Type: South totype is selected. Brown compared the specimen at K
Africa, Cape, Berg River Valley, Zeyher 1535 (K, holo.; with the type, but did not state where the latter was.]
BOL, S, SAM, W, WU, Z, iso.).
E. galpinii Pax: 742 (1898). Type: South Africa,
In Bruyns et al. (2006), E. tenax was treated as a syn- Transvaal, near Edwin Bray Battery, Barberton, 2 000’,
onym of E. arceuthobioides. The respective types make fl. Nov. 1890, Galpin 1198 (SAM, lecto., designated
it clear that they are the same species. However, E. tenax here; GRA, K, NH, Z, isolecto.). [No material definitely
was published first and so this treatment was wrong. seen by Pax in known and so a lectotype is selected.]
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 223

E. ciliolata Pax: 743 (1898). Type: Angola, Sierra nus (Link) Klotzsch & Garcke: 91 (1860). Type: South
Chella and Gambos, 900–1 100 m, Antunes & Dekindt Africa, Cape of Good Hope, Bergius (missing). Neotype
781 (BR, lecto., designated here; LISC, Z, isolecto.). (designated here): South Africa. Cape, Paarl Mountain,
[No material definitely seen by Pax in known and so Drège 2197 (K 000253220; duplicate at K).
a lectotype is selected. Specimens labelled ‘Dekindt
781’are at Z and BR while at LISC there is a specimen E. erythrina var. meyeri N.E.Br.: 262 (1915). E. mey-
labelled ‘Antunes 781’. These are all assumed to be the eri Boiss.: 35 (1860), nom. illegit., non Steud. (1840).
same collection, namely Antunes & Dekindt 781.] Type: South Africa. Cape, Paarl Mountain, Drège 2197
(K 000253220, lecto., designated here; K, isolecto.).
2. Euphorbia subg. Esula Pers. [Since E. meyeri Boiss. was illegitimate, I treat var. mey-
eri as described by Brown. Brown (1915) cited several
E. albanica N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 258 (1915). specimens: without locality, Mund & Maire; Malmes-
Type: South Africa, Albany div., Brookhuisens Poort, bury, Schlechter 5348; Paarl Mountain, Drège 2197 (K);
near Grahamstown, MacOwan 657 (GRA, holo.; K, iso.) mountains near Cape Town, Ecklon & Zeyher Euphorb.
E. berotica N.E.Br., Flora of Tropical Africa 6(1): 14 (LE).]
600 (1912). Type: Angola, Moçamedes distr., foot of
Tithymalus apiculatus Klotzsch & Garcke: 94 (1860).
Sierra Negros, behind the mouth of the Bero River, July
Type: South Africa. Cape, Mund & Maire (K, lecto.,
1859, Welwitsch 633 (BM, holo.; LISU, iso.).
designated here). [Cited were: South Africa. Cape, Eck-
E. epicyparissias E.Mey. ex Boiss. in A.P. de Can- lon & Zeyher 14 (LE); Mund & Maire (K) so a lecto-
dolle, Prodromus 15(2): 168 (1862). Type: South Africa, type is selected. The latter is annotated by N.E. Brown
Transvaal, near Vaal River, Burke (K, lecto., designated as ‘from the type’ from the Berlin Herbarium.]
here). [Boissier (1862) cited: Cape, near Zwangerberg,
Drège; Mund & Maire in h. Berol; near Vaal R, in h. Tithymalus confertus Klotzsch & Garcke: 94 (1860).
Kew, Burke (K). The lattermost is selected as lectotype.] Type: South Africa. Cape, Mund & Maire (K, lecto.,
designated here). [Cited were: South Africa. Cape,
Tithymalus epicyparissias E.Mey. ex Klotzsch & Ecklon & Zeyher 5 (SAM); Mund & Maire (K) so a
Garcke: 88 (1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, Drège lectotype is selected. The specimen Ecklon & Zey-
(HBG, holo.; MO, W-3 sheets, iso.). her 5 (SAM) is of E. ericoides rather than E. ery-
thrina (though the label on it gives ‘Euphorbia striata
Tithymalus involucratus E.Mey. ex Klotzsch &
Thunb.’).]
Garcke: 91 (1860). Type: South Africa, Drège (HBG,
lecto., designated here; MO, isolecto.). [Klotzsch & E. erythrina var. burchellii Boiss.: 169 (1862). Type:
Garcke (1860) cited: Drège (MO, HBG), Ecklon & Zey- South Africa, Burchell 458 (missing). [This specimen
her n. 6; Ecklon & Zeyher n. 8 (HBG, S, SAM); Krebs was said to be ‘in herb. DC.’]
(K).]
E. foliosa (Klotzsch & Garcke) N.E.Br. Flora ca-
E. involucrata E.Mey. ex Boiss.: 168 (1862). Type:
pensis 5(2): 262 (1915). Tithymalus foliosus Klotzsch
South Africa, near Phillipstown, Ecklon & Zeyher n.
& Garcke: 67 (1860). Type: South Africa, Cape Flats,
8 (HBG, lecto., designated here; S, SAM, isolecto.).
near Cape Town, Ecklon & Zeyher 12 (K 000253222,
[Boissier (1862) cited: near George, Drège (BM, MO);
lecto., designated here; K, SAM, isolecto.). [The type of
between Langekloof and ‘Zoëga’ R., Krauss; near Phil-
Klotzsch & Garcke has not been located but Brown kept
lipstown, Ecklon & Zeyher n. 6; Ecklon & Zeyher n. 8
part of it at K (comment on 000253222).]
(HBG, S, SAM).]
E. dumosa E.Mey. ex Boiss.: 168 (1862), nom. ille-
E. bachmannii: Pax: 535 (1897). Type: South Africa,
git., non A.Rich. (1850). Types: South Africa, Pondo-
Pondoland, end Oct. 1888, Bachmann 755 (missing).
land, near the Umsikaba River, Drège 4619 (K, 2 sheets,
E. involucrata var megastegia Boiss.: 168 (1862). MO); ‘Eckl. & Zeyh 86’ (missing). [Since this is an ille-
Type: South Africa, Cape, near Katberg, Drège; Krebs. gitimate name, a lectotype is not selected here.]

E. epicyparissias var. puberula N.E.Br.: 267 (1915). E. artifolia N.E.Br.: 263 (1915). Type: South Africa,
Type: South Africa, Kentani, 1 200’, 8 Oct. 1910, Pegler Milkwoodfontein, Riversdale div., ± 600’, 7 Oct. 1897,
460 (K, holo.; SAM, iso.). Galpin 4562 (K, holo.; PRE, iso.). [The specimen at K
was annotated as ‘Type Specimen’ by N.E. Brown while
E. epicyparissias var. wahlbergii (Boiss.) N.E.Br.: that at PRE was not annotated by him. Consequently the
267 (1915). E. wahlbergii Boiss.: 169 (1862). Type: one at K is the holotype.]
South Africa, 1842, Wahlberg (S, lecto., designated
here). [Boissier (1862) cited: ‘South Africa, between E. genistoides P.J.Bergius, Descriptiones Plantarum
Umtata and Omgaziana, Drège; Wahlberg, h. Bunge & ex Capite Bonae Spei: 146 (1767). Tithymalus gen-
Holm’. The latter is in S.] istoides (P.J.Bergius) Klotzsch & Garcke: 97 (1860).
Galarhoeus genistoides (P.J.Bergius) Haw.: 144 (1812).
E. ericoides Lam., Encyclopédie méthodique 2(2): Type: South Africa, Cape of Good Hope, Auge (Grubb)
430 (1788). Type: South Africa, Cape of Good Hope, (SBT 3.1.6.13, holo.).
Sonnerat (P-LAM P00381881, holo.).
Bergius only cited ‘Herm. Afr. 23’, which refers to
E. erythrina Link, Enumeratio plantarum horti regii page 23 in J. Burman’s Catalogi duo plantarum afri-
berolinensis altera 2: 12 (1822). Tithymalus erythri- canorum of 1736 that was in turn part of his Thesaurus
224 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

zeylanicus. No illustration or specimen is listed, only a T. brachypus Klotzsch & Garcke: 74 (1860). Type:
phrase which corresponds to the same phrase on page South Africa, Cape, Bergius (missing).
23 in Burman’s Catalogi. However, there is a specimen
at SBT annotated by Bergius as ‘Euphorbia mihi gen- E. melanosticta E.Mey. ex Boiss.: 95 (1862). Type:
istoides’ and ‘e. Cap. b. sp. Grubb’. It is known that a South Africa, Kaus Mountain, towards Goedemanskraal,
consignment of specimens collected at the Cape by J.A. 2 500’, Drège 2945 (K, lecto., designated here; MO, iso-
Auge was bought from Auge by Michael Grubb during a lecto.). [Boissier (1862) cited a specimen at ‘h. Bunge’
brief visit to the Cape in 1764 and presented to Bergius, that has not been located, so a lectotype is selected.]
and that these formed the basis of Bergius’ ‘Descrip-
E. mauritanica var. namaquensis N.E.Br.: 292 (1915).
tiones’ (Gunn & Codd 1981). Consequently, this speci-
Type: South Africa, Pofadder distr., Groot Rosynbos,
men is taken as the type. Haworth (1812) did not refer
9 Jan. 1909, Pearson 3845 (K, lecto., designated here;
to Bergius’ publication directly, but to ‘Willd., Sp. Pl. 2:
BOL, NBG, Z, isolecto.). [Brown (1915) cited (among
908’ where references ‘Mant. 564’ and ‘Berg. cap. 146’
others): Namibia, koppie about 20 km south of Warm-
were given, the latter clearly the same as above.
bad, 27 Jan. 1909, Pearson 4432 (BOL, K); South
Tithymalus revolutus Klotzsch & Garcke: 99 (1860). Africa, between Groot Rosynbos and Wortel, 10 Jan.
Type: South Africa. Cape of Good Hope, Ecklon & Zey- 1909, Pearson 3628 (BOL, K).]
her 2 (missing).
E. sarcostemmatoides Dinter: 304 (1921b). Type:
E. genistoides var. puberula N.E.Br.: 264 (1915). Namibia, (Tsamkubis ?) Klein Aub, 7 Apr. 1911, Dinter
Type: South Africa, Cape, Lion Mountain, Wolley- 2149 (SAM, lecto., designated here). [Dinter (1921b)
Dod 3104 (K, lecto., designated here; BOL, isolecto.). cited 2 collections: Dinter 2149 (SAM) and 2532a
[Brown (1915) cited: without locality, Thunberg; Mund; (missing).]
Harvey 444 (K); near Hopefield, Bachmann 85; New
Kloof, Drège; Lion Mountain, Drège 8192 (HBG); Sch- E. paxiana Dinter: 265 (1921a). Type: Namibia, Klein
lechter 1381; Wolley-Dod 3104 (BOL, K ); near Cape Aub, am schwarzem Kam Rivier im Bastardland, Dinter
Town, Prior (K); Simon’s Bay, Wright 447.] 2652 (SAM, holo.).

E. genistoides var. corifolia (Lam.) N.E.Br.: 264 E. mauritanica var. foetens Dinter ex A.C.White et
(1915). E. corifolia Lam.: 431 (1788). Type: South al.: 961 (1941). Type: Namibia, 8 km east of Pomona,
Africa, Cape of Good Hope, Sonnerat (P-LAM 14 June 1929, Dinter 6418 (PRE, holo.; BOL, HBG-2
P00381882, holo.; K, iso.). sheets, K, M, NBG, S, SAM, iso.).

E. kraussiana Bernh. ex C.Krauss, Flora 28: 87 E. mauritanica var. minor A.C.White et al.: 961
(1845). Type: South Africa, Natal, forest margins near (1941). Type: South Africa, Cape, 30 miles north of
Pietermaritzburg, Sept. 1839, 2 000–2 500’, Krauss 256 Laingsburg, Aug. 1939, Dyer 4105 (PRE, holo.; K, iso.).
(MO, holo.; BM, K-2 sheets, iso.). [Bernhardi’s herbar-
E. mauritanica var. lignosa A.C.White et al.: 961
ium was bought by MO (Gunn & Codd 1981) and, since
(1941). Type: Namibia, Namib near Lüderitzbucht, Nov.
Bernhardi drew up the description and Krauss published
1908, Marloth 4638 (PRE 0248633-0, holo.; PRE, iso.).
it, the holotype is taken as the specimen at MO.]
Tithymalus truncatus Klotzsch & Garcke: 75 (1860). E. mauritanica var. corallothamnus Dinter ex
Type: South Africa, Cape, Krebs (missing). A.C.White et al.: 961 (1941). Type: Namibia, dunes
near Buchuberge, 1 July 1929, Dinter 6467 (PRE, holo.;
Tithymalus meyeri Klotzsch & Garcke: 75 (1860). BOL, HBG-3 sheets, K, LD, M, NBG, S, SAM, iso.).
Type: South Africa, Cape, Ecklon & Zeyher Euphorb. 13
(Z, lecto., designated here; SAM, isolecto.). [Klotzsch E. muraltioides N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 264
& Garcke (1860) also cited ‘Drège’ and ‘Krebs’, which (1915). Type: South Africa, Albany div., Brookhuisens
have not been located.] Valley, MacOwan 642 (K, lecto., designated here; GRA,
isolecto.). [Brown (1915) also cited MacOwan 329
E. kraussiana var. erubescens (E.Mey. ex Boiss.) (GRA, K) and Glass 665 (K, SAM) and wrote ‘Type’ on
N.E.Br.: 268 (1915). E. erubescens E.Mey. ex Boiss.: all of them.]
116 (1862). Type: South Africa, Natal, between Um-
zimkulu & Umkomaas, Apr., Drège (S, lecto., des- E. natalensis Bernh. ex Krauss Beiträge zur Flora des
ignated here; BM, isolecto.). [Boissier (1862) cited Cap- und Natallandes: 150 (1846). Type: South Africa,
‘Zuurbergen (‘2347’ K); near Grahamstown, Drège (K); Natal, base of Tafelberg, Aug. 1839, Krauss 434 (MO,
near Vanstadensriver, Krauss; between Umzimkulu & holo.; BM, FI, K, M, iso.). [Krauss (1845) mentioned
Umkomaas, Drège (BM, S); ‘Winterberg, Ecklon & Zey- the number ‘434’, though this did not appear in Krauss
her’. Only that at S is annotated by Boissier.] (1846). As for E. kraussiana, the holotype is at MO.]
E. mauritanica L., Species Plantarum 1: 452 (1753). Tithymalus capensis Klotzsch & Garcke: 98 (1860).
Tithymalus mauritanicus (L.) Haw.: 139 (1812). Type: Type: South Africa, Cape of Good Hope, Ecklon & Zey-
Illustration in Dillen., Hort. Eltham. 2: 384, t. 289, f. 373 her (missing), Drège (missing).
(1732) (lecto., designated by Croizat 1945).
E. ruscifolia (Boiss.) N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2):
Tithymalus zeyheri Klotzsch & Garcke: 71 (1860). 259 (1915). E. sclerophylla var. ruscifolia Boiss.: 169
Type: South Africa, Cape, Ecklon & Zeyher, Euphorb. (1862). Type: South Africa, between Kei and Gekau,
26 (missing). Drège 4621 (missing). Neotype (designated here): South
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 225

Africa, Cape, Krielis Country, Bowker (K). [Boissier 3. Euphorbia subg. Euphorbia
(1862) cited a specimen at ‘h. Bunge’ that has not been
located, so a neotype is selected. This was compared by 3a. Sect. Euphorbia
N.E. Brown with Drège 4621 in Lübeck.]
E. aeruginosa Schweickerdt, Bulletin of Miscel-
E. sclerophylla Boiss., Centuria Euphorbiarum: 37 laneous Information 1935: 205 (1935). Type: South
(1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, ad Grahamstown, Jul. Africa, Transvaal, Soutpan, Soutpansberg, 12 Apr. 1934,
1829, Ecklon et Zeyher nº 11 (G, lecto., designated here; Schweickerdt & Verdoorn 688 (K, lecto., designated
LE, MO (only piece on right hand side), SAM, W, iso- here; PRE, isolecto.). [Schweickerdt (1935) cited also
lecto.). [Boissier (1860) cited: Ad. Prom. B. spei, Krebs ‘Soutpan, 23 Nov. 1932, Obermeyer, Schweickerdt &
pl. exs. nº 296 (G-DC, LE); ad Grahamstown, Ecklon & Verdoorn 151’ (PRE) and indicated that both were ‘syn-
Zeyher nº 11 (G, LE, SAM, W).] types’.]

Tithymalus multicaulis Klotzsch & Garcke: 98 E. avasmontana Dinter, Sukkulentenforschung in

(1860). Type: South Africa, Cape of Good Hope, Krebs Südwestafrika, II. Teil: 96 (1928). Type: Namibia, near
(missing). Windhoek, Auas Mtns, Dinter (PRE, lecto., designated
here). [Although Carter (2002) cited a specimen at B,
E. ovata (E.Mey. ex Klotzsch & Garcke) Boiss.: this does not exist. A specimen at PRE was annotated by
167 (1862). Tithymalus ovatus E.Mey. ex Klotzsch & Dinter himself as ‘Euph. avasmontana Dtr msc’. This is
Garcke: 97 (1860). Type: South Africa, Cape of Good selected as lectotype.]
Hope, Drège (LD, lecto., designated here; MO, NY, iso-
lecto.). [A lectotype is designated as it cannot be ascer- E. volkmanniae Dinter: 124 (1928). Type: Namibia,
tained whether Klotzsch & Garcke saw any of these near Otavi, Auros, 1924, Dinter (B, photo).
sheets.]
E. hottentota Marloth: 336 (1930). Type: South
E. sclerophylla var. myrtifolia E.Mey. ex Boiss.: 169 Africa, Cape, Richtersveld, Kubus Kloof, 300 m, 29
(1862). Type: South Africa, near Assegaaibosch, Drège Aug. 1925, Marloth 12520 (PRE, lecto., designated
3563 (P, holo.; K-2 sheets, iso.). [Sheets at HBG and here). [Marloth (1930) also cited Marloth 13357 (mis-
MO do not have the number ‘3563’ on them and are not sing).]
included here.]
E. kalaharica Marloth: 338 (1930). Type: South
E. striata var. brachyphylla Boiss.: 170 (1862). Type: Africa, Cape, Neusberg, near Kakamas, 700 m, 15 Aug.
South Africa, Sterkstroom div., plains on top of Katberg, 1928, Marloth 14039 (PRE, lecto., designated here).
Drège (K 000253210, lecto., designated here). [Boissier [Marloth (1930) also cited Marloth 13555 (missing).]
(1862) cited ‘South Africa, Sterkstroom div., plains on
top of Katberg, Drège (K 000253210); Los Tafelberg, E. sagittaria Marloth: 337 (1930). E. avasmontana
5 000–6 000’, Drège’ (missing). The first specimen is of var. sagittaria (Marloth) A.C.White et al.: 817 (1941).
E. ovata = E. sclerophylla and so selecting it as the type Type: South Africa, Cape, 12 miles south of Uping-
means that this name becomes a synonym of E. sclero- ton towards Prieska, Aug. 1929, Marloth 14035 (PRE,
phylla rather than of E. striata.] lecto., designated here). [Marloth (1930) also cited Mar-
loth 13385 (missing).]
E. sclerophylla var. puberula N.E.Br.: 260 (1915).
Type: South Africa, Bathurst div., Rietfontein, between E. venenata Marloth: 337 (1930). Type: Namibia,
Kariega River and Port Alfred, Burchell 3961 (K, holo.). Tsarris Mtns, west of Maltahöhe, Marloth 4687 (K,
holo.). [Although Carter (2002) cited a specimen at
E. stolonifera Marloth ex A.C.White et al., The Suc- PRE, this does not exist. Marloth’s description of E.
culent Euphorbieae 2: 961 (1941). Type: South Africa, venenata is vague about such things as the size of the
Cape, near Matjiesfontein and ‘Dwars in die Weg’, 900
cyathia and the number of glands in each cyathium.
m, Oct. 1920, Marloth 9836 (PRE 0838532-0, holo.;
Nevertheless, the fairly weak spines of the photograph
PRE, iso.).
that he included (figure 7) and the type specimen show
E. striata Thunb., Prodromus plantarum capensium that this is not E. virosa but E. avasmontana.]
2: 86 (1800). Tithymalus striatus (Thunb.) Klotzsch
The name E. hottentota was maintained as distinct
& Garcke, Abh. Königl. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1859: 98
(1860). Type: South Africa, Thunberg (UPS-THUNB from E. avasmontana in Bruyns et al. (2006). Marloth
11560, holo.). (1930: 335) separated E. avasmontana and E. hotten-
tota by the number of angles on the branches (7-angled
E. striata var. cuspidata Boiss.: 170 (1862). E. cus- in E. avasmontana; 5–6-angled in E. hottentota) but
pidata Bernh. ex Krauss: 150 (1846), nom. illegit. non. White et al. (1941: 824) pointed out that ‘some of Mar-
Bertol. (1843). Type: South Africa, Natal, summit of loth’s herbarium specimens do not agree entirely with
Tafelberg, 2 000–3 000’, Sept. 1839, Krauss 441 (MO, the typical form’ so that the identity of this ‘species’
holo.; BM, BOL, M, TCD, iso.). [Krauss (1845) men- is less clear than Marloth thought. Over the large area
tioned the number ‘441’, though this did not appear in where it occurs branches are frequently 4-angled and
Krauss (1846). Boissier (1862) did not cite any speci- may have up to eight angles and no clear separation
mens and only cited Krauss’ illegitimate name. Conse- into 5–6-angled and 7-angled plants is possible. No dif-
quently the type of Boissier’s name is the same as that ferences in the floral structures have been detected on
of Krauss’. As for E. kraussiana, the holotype is at MO.] which they could be separated.
226 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

E. barnardii A.C.White et al., The Succulent Euphor- separate species from E. caerulescens. The rhizomatous
bieae 2: 965 (1941). Type: South Africa, Transvaal, plants are here treated as a separate species, E. radyeri
Sekukuniland, farm Driekop, east of Lulu Mountain, Bruyns and the differences between them are discussed
3 000’, 6 Jan. 1937, Barnard 449 (PRE, holo.; MO, iso.). under that species.
E. caerulescens Haw., The Philosophical Magazine, E. clavigera N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 362 (1915).
or Annals of Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy, Natu- Type: Swaziland, Bremersdorp (Manzini), 1 800’, 5 Jan.
ral History and General Science, Ser. 2, 1: 276 (1827). 1905, Burtt-Davy 3010 (K 000253371, holo.; K, PRE,
E. virosa var. caerulescens (Haw.) A.Berger: 81 (1906a). iso.). [The sheet at K has two specimens of the same
Type: South Africa, Cape of Good Hope, Bowie, culti- number mounted on it, of which the lower one is anno-
vated plant at Kew Gardens, pressed Nov. 1876 by N.E. tated as ‘type’. This is therefore designated as holotype.
Brown (K, lecto., designated here). The specimen at PRE is ‘part of type’.]

Possible types for E. caerulescens include (1) a speci- E. persistens R.A.Dyer: t. 713 (1938). Type: Moçam-
men ‘Cape of Good Hope, Bowie (K)’, which was made bique, east of Ressano Garcia, July 1936, F.Z.van der
by N.E. Brown in November 1876 from ‘the type plant Merwe E14 sub PRE 23395 (PRE, holo.; K, PRE, iso.).
(still in cultivation at Kew) dried by myself’ (Brown
1915: 365) and (2) a drawing by Bond (423/292) of the E. clivicola R.A.Dyer, Bothalia 6: 221 (1951). Type:
apex of a branch and annotated ‘drawn from the plant South Africa, Transvaal, Lunsklip, 20 miles north of Pot-
from which Haworth described’ and ‘Received in 1823 gietersrust, 13 Sept. 1946, Plowes sub PRE 28386 (PRE,
from the Cape of Good Hope by Mr Bowie’. I propose holo.; K, iso.).
that we accept that the plant in cultivation was among E. complexa R.A.Dyer, The Flowering Plants of
those (if there were more than one) from which Haworth South Africa 17: t. 643 (1937). Type: South Africa,
drew up his description so that I have designated the Transvaal, road from Louw’s Creek to Kaapmuiden,
specimen made by N.E. Brown as the lectotype. June 1936, Van der Merwe 100 sub PRE 21373 (PRE,
E. canariensis Thunb.: 86 (1800), nom. illegit., non holo.; K-2 sheets, W, iso.).
L. (1753). Type: South Africa, Thunberg (UPS-THUNB E. confinalis R.A.Dyer, Bothalia 6: 222 (1951). Type:
11416, holo.). South Africa, Transvaal, Kruger Nat. Park, 2 miles east
E. ledienii A.Berger: 80 (1906a). Type: South Africa, of ‘The Gorge Camp’, 900’, 20 May 1949, Codd & De
fl. & fr. Aug. 1906, received from collection of F. Ledien Winter 5580 (PRE, holo.; K, NH, iso.).
(NY, holo.). E. cooperi N.E.Br. ex A.Berger, Sukkulente Euphor-
E. ledienii var. drègei N.E.Br.: 366 (1915). Type: bien: 83 (1906). Type: South Africa, Natal, Umgeni
South Africa, near Port Elizabeth, received 9 Sept 1912, Valley, 1862, Cooper, cultivated plant at Kew Gardens,
I.L.Drège (K, lecto., designated here). [For E. ledi- pressed Sept. 1899 by N.E. Brown (K 00025338, lecto.,
enii var. drègei, Brown (1915) cited two collections: designated here; K, isolecto.). [Brown made two speci-
Humansdorp div., near Zeekoe River, Thunberg; near mens in September 1899 from the plant introduced to
Port Elizabeth, received 9 Sept 1912, I.L.Drège (K). He Kew by Cooper in 1862. He labelled both of these ‘Type
annotated both the specimen UPS-THUNB 11416 and specimen’. Leach (1970) selected one of these speci-
that of Drège as ‘var. dregei’ so one is designated as lec- mens (though it is not specified which of them) as a neo-
totype.] type for E. cooperi. However, although Berger (1906a)
described it from material at La Mortola in Italy, he was
Brown (1915) mentioned that he had not seen any familiar with the plants at Kew and so one of Brown’s
flowers of E. caerulescens, nor any dried specimens specimens is taken as the lectotype.]
that he could definitely refer to it, other than the ‘type’. E. eduardoi L.C.Leach, Boletim da sociedade bro-
He distinguished E. caerulescens and E. ledienii by the teriana 42: 161 (1968). Type: Angola, Namibe distr.,
glaucous or bluish-green stems, with spines 6–12 mm Dois Irmaos, 550 m, 5 May 1960, Mendes 3959 (LISC
long in the former; green, not glaucous stems, with 011538, holo.; BM, LISC, LUAI, PRE, iso.).
spines 2–6 mm long in the latter (Brown 1915: 244).
Dyer (1931) and White et al. (1941) found that these E. enormis N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 362 (1915).
distinctions were not useful and they maintained that the Type: South Africa, Pietersburg, Sept. 1905, Marloth
only difference between E. caerulescens and E. ledienii 5144 (PRE, holo.; K, iso.).
was the rhizomatous habit of the former. This charac-
E. excelsa A.C.White et al., The Succulent Euphor-
ter was neither mentioned by Haworth nor is it visible
bieae 2: 966 (1941). Type: South Africa, Transvaal,
in either the type specimen or the drawing by Bond. It
Lydenburg distr., hills near Olifants River, Apr. 1938,
was also not mentioned by N.E. Brown, who knew the
Van der Merwe 1677a (PRE, holo.).
type specimen in cultivation. Therefore the association
by Dyer (1931) and White et al.(1941) of a rhizomatous E. grandialata R.A.Dyer, The Flowering Plants of
habit with E. caerulescens and a non-rhizomatous habit South Africa 17: t. 641 (1937). Type: South Africa,
with E. ledienii is erroneous and the name E. caerules- Transvaal, Penge mine, Van der Merwe 1002 sub PRE
cens must refer to the same non-rhizomatous plants as 21372 (PRE, holo.; K, W, iso.).
E. ledienii. Consequently, E. ledienii is a synonym of
E. caerulescens. This confusion was not recognised in E. grandicornis A.Blanc, Catalogue and Hints on
Bruyns et al. (2006), where E. ledienii was treated as a Cacti, ed. 2: 68 (1888). Type: Illustration on left hand
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 227

side of figure on page 68 of A. Blanc, Catalogue & Hints Merwe 1186 (sub PRE 23397) (PRE 253379, holo.; K,
on Cacti, ed. 2 (1888) (lecto., designated here). PRE, iso.).
E. grandicornis Goebel: 42, fig. 15 (1889), nom. ille- E. ingens E.Mey. ex Boiss. in A.P. de Candolle, Pro-
git., non A. Blanc (1888). dromus 15(2): 87 (1862). Type: South Africa, Natal,
E. grandicornis J.E.Weiss: 291 (1893), nom. illegit., in woods near Durban, Drège 4614 (S, holo.; K, iso.).
non A. Blanc (1888). [Boissier (1862) cited a specimen at ‘h. Bunge’ and that
at S was annotated by him, so is taken as the holotype.
The authorship of this species is usually given as That at K is a ‘fragment from type’.]
‘Goebel’ (e.g. Brown (1915); White et al. (1941)) or
‘Goebel ex N.E.Br.’ (e.g. Carter (2002)). However, E. similis A.Berger, Sukk. Euph.: 69 (1906a). Type:
while N.E. Brown (1897) published the first detailed South Africa, Natal ? (missing).
description of E. grandicornis, the name was in use for
a long time before this and there are several earlier brief N.E. Brown pressed two specimens from plants in
descriptions that validated the name. The first known cultivation at Kew that were reputed to be E. similis
published appearance of the name E. grandicornis and mentioned that he had sent a branch to Berger who
is Oudemans (1865), but the name was not validly had confirmed that this was what he named E. simi-
described there. The earliest validation of the name is lis. However, many of the pressed branches on the two
that by A. Blanc (1888), in which it is said that ‘Euphor- specimens at K bear foliage-leaves 15–80 mm long and
bia grandicornis is still more remarkable on account consequently they cannot represent either E. ingens
of its tremendous spines and queer, contorted form’. or E. similis in which the leaves were ‘minute’ accord-
According to White et al. (1941), a figure of E. gran- ing to Berger and where such foliage-leaves are only
dicornis appeared in an earlier catalogue of A. Blanc of present on the young stem. P.R.O. Bally determined one
1887, but I have not been able to trace this. The next one of these specimens at K as E. obovalifolia A.Rich. (= E.
that has been detected is that of Goebel (1889), in which ampliphylla Pax) and this is more likely to be the cor-
the diagnosis is similarly rudimentary but still consti- rect identity of this plant, which Brown (1915) used for
tutes valid publication. In J.E. Weiss’ account of 1893 his description of E. similis, but which is not the same as
a more detailed diagnosis of E. grandicornis appeared. that which Berger (1906a) described.
Since both Weiss’ and Goebel’s names are illegitimate, E. kaokoensis (A.C.White et al.) L.C.Leach, Dinteria
lectotypes are not selected for either of them. 12: 33 (1976). E. subsalsa var. kaokoensis A.C.White
E. grandidens Haw., Philosophical magazine and et al.: 965 (1941). Type: Namibia, Kaokoveld, Kauas
journal 66: 33 (1825). Type: Illustration number 807/323 Okawe, 28 Nov. 1939, C.J.Hahn sub Otzen 3 (PRE,
by T. Duncanson at K of specimen received 1822 from holo.).
Cape of Good Hope collected by Bowie (lecto., desig- E. keithii R.A.Dyer, Bothalia 6: 223 (1951). Type:
nated here). Swaziland, western edge of Lebombo Mtns, near Stegi,
E. evansii Pax: 86 (1909). Type: South Africa, Trans- fl. 1949, Keith sub PRE 28423 (PRE, holo.; GRA, K,
vaal, Lowveld, near Barberton, Pole Evans (missing). NH, S, SRGH, iso.).
[Carter (2002) cited the type specimen at PRE, but this E. knobelii Letty, The Flowering Plants of South
does not exist, nor is there any material known else- Africa 14: t. 521 (1934). Type: South Africa, Transvaal,
where that could have been seen by Pax.] Enselsberg near Zeerust, Sept. 1933, Knobel sub PRE
Euphorbia evansii was said to differ (White et al. 15854 (K, holo.). [Although Carter (2002) cited the
1941) from E. grandidens in being shorter (reaching type from PRE, the specimen is not present there. It is
10 m as opposed to 16 m), with 3- to 4-angled second- assumed that this was sent to K on this occasion. This
ary branches with gently sinuate margins (as opposed to specimen was collected from the same plant from which
3-angled or rarely 2- to 4-angled in E. grandidens with the figure was painted.]
more prominently toothed margins), spines lacking the E. knuthii Pax, Botanische Jahrbücher für Systema-
pairs of prickles at their bases, these often present in E. tik 34: 83 (1904). Type: Moçambique, Ressano Garcia,
grandidens. None of these differences are clear-cut and 1 000’, 27 Dec. 1897, Schlechter 11949 (K, lecto., des-
I have found it impossible to separate the known collec- ignated here; BM, BOL, BR, G-2 sheets, GRA, HBG,
tions into two distinct species. Consequently, the name PRE, WAG, isolecto.). [The sheet at K was annotated
E. evansii is placed in synonymy, although it was kept by Pax (‘Knuthii Pax !’) and here he also scratched out
separate in Bruyns et al. (2006). Schlechter’s proposed name for the plant. Nevertheless,
N.E. Brown annotated it as ‘part of type’. This sheet is
E. griseola Pax, Botanische Jahrbücher für System-
then taken as the lectotype. Carter & Leach (2001) infor-
atik 34: 375 (1904). Type: Botswana, Lobatsi, Marloth
mally selected the specimen at K as lectotype, but this is
3413 (missing). Neotype (Leach 1967): Botswana, 2
invalid and so it is formally designated here.]
miles north of Lobatsi, 16 Jan 1960, Leach & Noel 121
(SRGH, duplicates at BR, G, K, LISC, PRE). [The type E. limpopoana L.C.Leach ex S.Carter, Kew Bul-
has not been located.] letin 54: 960 (2000). Type: Zimbabwe, Fulton’s Drift,
25.5 km NNW of Beitbridge, Sept. 1963, Leach 11582a
E. groenewaldii R.A.Dyer, The Flowering Plants (SRGH, holo.).
of South Africa 18: t. 714 (1938). Type: South Africa,
Transvaal, 10 miles northeast of Pietersburg towards E. malevola subsp. bechuanica L.C.Leach: 6 (1964).
Mokeetsi, Nov. 1936, B.H.Groenewald sub Van der Type: Botswana, halfway between Palapye and Francis-
228 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

town, Jul. 1937, fl. 1942, Obermeyer (PRE 0645765-0, male, outer 2 female only (or bisexual) and developing
holo.; K, PRE, iso.). later, with 2 ovate bracts 1.0–1.5 mm long and 1.5–2.0
mm broad subtending cyathia; cyathia cupular-conical,
E. louwii L.C.Leach, The Journal of South African glabrous, 3.5–6.0 mm broad (2–3 mm long below inser-
Botany 46: 207 (1980). Type: South Africa, Transvaal, tion of glands), with 5 lobes with deeply incised mar-
c. 14 km east of Marken, 900 m, 1 Nov. 1975, Leach et gins, bright yellow; glands (3–)5, transversely oblong
al.15555 (PRE 0548997-0, holo.; K, PRE, SRGH, iso.) to kidney-shaped or rectangular, 2–3 mm broad, bright
E. lydenburgensis Schweickerdt & Letty, The Flow- yellow, ascending-spreading, slightly convex to concave
ering Plants of South Africa 13: t. 486 (1933). Type: above, outer margins entire and slightly raised; stamens
South Africa, Transvaal, Steelpoort Valley, 30 miles entirely glabrous, bracteoles palmate and enveloping
north of Lydenburg, 7 July 1932, Van Balen & De Wyn groups of stamens, deeply and finely divided, glabrous;
sub PRE 14398 (PRE, lecto., designated here; K, iso- ovary globose, glabrous, included to slightly exserted
lecto.). [Schweickerdt & Letty (1933) cited two speci- on erect pedicel 1.5–2.0 mm long and soon becoming
mens: Van Balen & De Wyn sub PRE 12465 (PRE) and slightly exserted, calyx slightly extended around base;
Van Balen & De Wyn sub PRE 14398 (PRE, K). The lat- styles 2–4 mm long, branched in upper third. Capsule
ter is selected as lectotype.] 6–7 mm diam., obtusely 3-angled, glabrous, erect and
exserted on short pedicel 2–4 mm long.
E. otjingandu Swanepoel, S. African J. Bot. 75: 497
(2009). Type: Namibia, Kunene Region, along Van Zyl’s Although E. caerulescens and E. radyeri are similar,
Pass 1 km west of Otjihende, 1 305 m, 1 May 2007, they are easily separated. Branches around the perimeter
Swanepoel 268 (WIND, holo.; PRU, iso.). of most plants of E. radyeri are usually rhizomatous and
this phenomenon is unknown in E. caerulescens. The
E. otjipembana L.C.Leach, Dinteria 12: 29 (1976). branches tend to have a more bluish green colour in E.
Type: Namibia, north of Otjipemba, Leach & Can- radyeri than in E. caerulescens, though the colour var-
nell 15044 (PRE, holo.; BM, K, LISC, M, MO, SRGH, ies greatly in the latter, with greener branches on plants
WIND, iso.). from more sheltered habitats. The branches of E. rady-
eri are thicker, deeply articulated into almost spherical
E. perangusta R.A.Dyer, The Flowering Plants of segments, while those of E. caerulescens are generally
South Africa 18: t. 716 (1938). Type: South Africa, more slender and only indistinctly articulated into con-
Transvaal, Koedoesrant, north of Zeerust, Jan. 1936, siderably longer, cylindrical segments. In E. radyeri the
Louw 99 (sub PRE 23399)(PRE, holo.; BOL, GRA, K-2 tubercles are often much longer and broader and the
sheets, MO, P, SRGH, iso.).
leaf-rudiments are somewhat larger than in E. caerules-
E. pseudocactus A.Berger, Sukkulente Euphorbien: cens. Florally E. caerulescens and E. radyeri are very
78 (1906). Type: Country unknown, but probably India, similar. In E. caerulescens the cyathia are often slightly
branch from the type plant, received from A. Berger Oct. narrower, becoming more abruptly narrow beneath the
1910 (K, lecto., designated here). glands, while the female florets are borne on a slightly
longer pedicel and are without the elongated calyx of E.
Euphorbia radyeri Bruyns, sp. nov., a E. caerules- radyeri.
cente caulibus crassioribus, plus profunde articulatis,
exterioribus rhizomatosis differt. Type: South Africa, E. restricta R.A.Dyer, Bothalia 6: 224 (1951). Type:
Cape, 20 miles from Kendrew towards Jansenville, Jan. South Africa, Transvaal, The Downs, 4 500’, 14 Oct.
1930, Dyer 2357 (GRA, holo.; PRE, iso.). 1947, Codd & De Winter 3092 (PRE 0248764-0, holo.;
GRA, K-2 sheets, NH, PRE-2 sheets, SRGH, iso.).
Bisexual spiny glabrous succulent shrub 1–2 m tall,
1–3 m broad, branching extensively mainly from base E. rowlandii R.A.Dyer, Bothalia 7: 28 (1958). Type:
of similar main stem with woody and fibrous roots, with South Africa, Transvaal, Kruger Nat. Park, 8 miles north
many peripheral branches spreading underground from of Punda Maria, 1 600’, 25 July 1951, Rowland Jones
plant for up to 0.5 m by rhizomes and then rising erect 48 (PRE 0248767-0, holo.; K-2 sheets, PRE, SRGH-2
from soil. Branches 30–70 mm thick, strongly con- sheets, iso.).
stricted into many ± spherical segments, smooth, grey- E. schinzii Pax, Bulletin Herbier Boissier 6: 739
green; tubercles fused into 3–7 wing-like often sinuate (1898). Type: South Africa, Transvaal, Berea Ridge,
angles, laterally flattened and rounded and projecting Barberton, 3 100’, 13 Feb. 1891, Galpin 1297 (BOL,
3–10 mm from angles, spine-shields around apex and lecto., designated here; K, isolecto.). Pax (1898) also
united into continuous horny and later somewhat corky cited ‘South Africa, Transvaal, Pretoria, Rehmann 4347’
brown to grey or black margin, 4–6 mm broad in upper (missing).
part tapering to 2–3 mm below, bearing 2 spreading and
widely diverging brown to grey spines (2–)6–15 mm E. sekukuniensis R.A.Dyer, The Flowering Plants
long; leaf-rudiments on tips of new tubercles towards of South Africa 20: t. 775 (1940). Type: South Africa,
apex of branches and main stem, 1–4 mm long, 2–4 mm Transvaal, Steelpoort River, north of Roossenekal, Aug.
broad, spreading, fleeting, broadly ovate, obtuse, sessile, 1938, Van der Merwe 1765 (sub PRE 25475) (PRE
with green-brown obtuse ± pyramidal stipule on either 0248772-1, holo.; GRA, PRE, SRGH, iso.).
side at base. Inflorescences in large numbers per branch
towards apex, each a group of 1–3 cymes in axil of E. stellata Willd., Species Plantarum 2: 886 (1799).
tubercle, on peduncle 2–4(6) mm long, 2–-3 mm thick, Type: Illustration in F. le Vaillant, Reise Itin. Ed. Germ.
each cyme with 3 vertically disposed cyathia, central Francof. 4: 245, t. 11 (1797) (lecto., designated here).
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 229

E. procumbens Meerburgh: t. 55 (1789), nom. illegit., E. tetragona Haw., The Philosophical Magazine, or
non Mill. (1786). Annals of Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy, Natural
History and General Science Ser. 2,1: 276 (1827). Type:
E. radiata Thunb.: 86 (1800). Type: South Africa, Illustration number 291/1060 by G. Bond at K of speci-
Cape, Thunberg (UPS-THUNB 11547, holo.). men received in 1823 from Cape of Good Hope col-
lected by Bowie (lecto., designated here). [There are two
E. uncinata DC.: 151 (1805). Type: Illustration in DC
paintings of E. tetragona by Bond and this one, where
(1805) by Redouté opposite p. 151 (lecto., designated
details of the cyathia are shown, is selected as the lecto-
here). [De Candolle (1805) did not cite any specimens
type.]
and none annotated as E. uncinata by him have been
found.] E. tortirama R.A.Dyer, The Flowering Plants of
E. squarrosa Haw.: 276 (1827). Type: Illustration South Africa 17: t. 644 (1937). Type: South Africa,
number 295/423 by G. Bond at K of specimen from Transvaal, Bandolierskop, Soll & S.W.Smith sub PRE
Cape of Good Hope (lecto., designated here). [No type 21371 (PRE 0258980-1, holo.; K, PRE, W, iso.).
was designated by Haworth (1827) nor, in this case, E. triangularis Desf. ex A.Berger, Sukkulente
did he refer to a collection of Bowie. There is a speci- Euphorbien: 57 (1906). Type: South Africa, Cape, cul-
men at Kew made by N.E. Brown soon after he arrived tivated plant at Kew Gardens, pressed 30 Oct. 1913 by
at Kew in 1873. This was from a very old plant which N.E. Brown (K, lecto., designated by Dyer 1974b).
was ‘believed to have been introduced by Bowie and
so may have been one of the original plants from which E. umfoloziensis Peckover, Aloe 28: 37 (1991).
Haworth described the species’. Since there is some Type: South Africa, Natal, near Dingaanstat, 10 Apr.
uncertainty surrounding whether Haworth saw this 1981, Peckover (PRE, holo.).
specimen, the drawing number 295/423 by G. Bond is
selected as lectotype.] E. vandermerwei R.A.Dyer, The Flowering Plants
of South Africa 17: t. 660 (1937). Type: South Africa,
E. micracantha Boiss.: 25 (1860). Type: South Africa, Transvaal, White River, Sept. 1936, Van der Merwe sub
Cape, between Zuurberg and Klein Bruintjieshoogte, PRE 22436 (PRE, holo.; K-2 sheets, P, SRGH, iso.).
2 000–2 500’, Oct. Drège 8206a (K, lecto., designated [The specimens at P, SRGH and one at K lack the PRE
here; MO, S, isolecto.). [Boissier (1860) cited ‘inter number but are ‘from Type Specimen’ so are taken as
Zuurebergen et Klein Bruintjeshoogte et inter Vis- isotypes as well.]
chrivier et Fort Beaufort (Drège nº 8206)’. The col-
lection from ‘between Fish R. & Fort Beaufort’ is now E. venteri L.C.Leach ex R.Archer & S.Carter, The
labelled Drège 8206c (K) and the other as Drège 8206a Flowering Plants of Africa 57: 86 (2001). Type: Bot-
(K, MO, S).] swana, near Tsessebe, c. 45 km north of Francistown,
12 Dec. 1991, Venter et al. 174 (PRE, holo.; K, UNIN,
E. gilbertii A.Berger: 39 (1906a). Type: South Africa, iso.).
Cape, Cooper (missing).
E. virosa Willd., Species Plantarum 2: 882 (1799).
E. lombardensis Nel: 194 (1933b). Type: South Type: Illustration in Paterson, Reisen: 60, t. 9, 10 (1790)
Africa, Cape, Mortimer, 1 200–1 300 m, Dec. 1933, (lecto., designated here). [These two figures were cited
M.Lombard sub SUG 1564 (NBG). by Willdenow (1799) and are considered here to con-
White et al. (1941) recognised three species: E. mic- stitute a single plate, suitable as a lectotype. This figure
racantha (plants with mainly 4-angled, erect branches, was cited by Leach (1971) and Carter (2002), but in nei-
low tubercles less than 4 mm long and relatively long ther case was it formally designated as lectotype.]
spines), E. squarrosa (plants with mainly 3-angled, often E. bellica Hiern: 945 (1900). Type: Angola,
spreading branches, particularly prominent tubercles Moçamedes distr., frequent in sandy coastal hills from
4–8 mm long and relatively short spines) and E. stel- Giraul up to Cape Negro, Jul. 1859, Welwitsch 643 (BM,
lata (plants with mainly 2-angled, spreading branches holo.).
usually pressed to the ground, relatively low tubercles
less than 4 mm long and relatively short spines). How- E. dinteri A.Berger: 109 (1906b). Type: Namibia,
ever, they illustrated many plants which were intermedi- Khan River, received 1904, Dinter (NY, holo.). [The
ate between these three and expressed doubt that three specimen in the Alwyn Berger Herbarium consists of
species could be distinguished: ‘And in the event that seeds only. These are annotated by Berger as follows:
distinct species are involved, their limits can hardly be ‘11069, von C. Dinter als E. virosa eingeführt. 1904’.
defined accurately’ (p. 730). This arrangement of three They are therefore the seeds which Berger (1906b) men-
species was followed in Bruyns et al. (2006). However, tioned, that had been sent to him by Dinter. Their large
it is quite often impossible to place a plant with certainty size makes it clear that they came from plants of E.
under one of these three names and so a broader view is virosa.]
taken here and a single species is recognised.
E. virosa f. caespitosa H.Jacobsen: 81 (1955). Type:
E. subsalsa subsp. fluvialis L.C.Leach, Dinteria 12: none cited.
29 (1976). Type: Angola, Ruacana Falls, Leach & Can-
nell 14509 (LISC, holo.; BM, K, LUAI, M, MO, PRE, E. virosa f. striata H.Jacobsen: 81 (1955). Type: none
SRGH, iso.). cited.
230 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

E. waterbergensis R.A.Dyer, The Flowering Plants many pressings of the type collection of E. brakda-
of Africa 28: t. 1095 (1951). Type: South Africa, Trans- mensis, shows, however, that this is not correct. In E.
vaal, 2.5 miles north of Elmerston P.O. towards Ellisras, filiflora the stem and branches are very similar in shape
3 300’, Apr. 1948, Codd & Erens 4018 (PRE 0248809-0, and thickness, with the stem usually slightly longer than
lecto., designated here; BOL, K, PRE, SRGH, isolecto.). the branches, if it can be detected at all. In E. brakda-
[There are two sheets of this at PRE, neither annotated mensis, on the other hand, the branches are very much
as ‘Type’ and so the present one is selected as lectotype.] more slender than the stem, which is largely buried
in the ground and is greatly exceeded in height by the
E. zoutpansbergensis R.A.Dyer, The Flowering branches. E. filiflora has unusually long cyathia (often
Plants of South Africa 18: t. 715 (1938). Type: South around 8 mm long), with especially long styles (7–9 mm
Africa, Transvaal, Wylliespoort, Sept. 1937, Dyer 3873 long) and long male pedicels. The cyathia in E. brakda-
sub PRE 23393 (PRE 0248810-0, holo.; E, K, MO, mensis do not exceed 5 mm long and the styles are not
PRE-2 sheets, US, iso.). longer than 6 mm. The marginal processes on the glands
3b. Sect. Monadenium (Pax) Bruyns in E. brakdamensis are much more brightly coloured
than those of E. filiflora where, however, they are longer,
E. lugardiae (N.E.Br.) Bruyns, Taxon 55: 413 (2006). more slender and considerably more numerous.
Monadenium lugardiae N.E.Br.: 138 (1909). Type:
Botswana, foot of Kwebe Peak, Kwebe Hills, 3 500’, E. braunsii N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 326 (1915).
fl. Aug. 1897 & leaves Feb. 1898, Mrs Lugard 22 (K, Type: South Africa, Cape, Aberdeen distr., without pre-
holo.). cise locality, Brauns (K, holo.). [Although Brown (1915)
cited two specimens, he mentioned, in addition, that the
3c. Sect. Tirucalli Boiss. species was described from the collection of Brauns and
so the Brauns collection at K is taken as the holotype.]
E. gummifera Boiss., Centuria Euphorbiarum: 26
(1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, low-lying areas E. rudis N.E.Br.: 322 (1915). Type: Namibia, sandy
between Verleptpram and the mouth of the Orange plains northeast of Narudas Süd, 28 Dec. 1912, Pearson
River, Sept. 1830, Drège 2944 (P, holo.; S, iso.). 8141 (BOL, lecto., designated here; SAM, isolecto.).
[Of the collections cited by Brown (1915) only Pearson
E. gregaria Marloth, Transactions of the Royal Soci- 4310 (BOL, K) and Pearson 8141 (BOL, SAM) have
ety of South Africa 2: 36 (1910). Type: Namibia, Kuibis, duplicates and so Pearson 8141 is selected as the lecto-
Marloth 4683 (PRE, holo.; K, iso.). type.]
E. congestiflora L.C.Leach, Boletim da sociedade E. marientalii Dinter: 31 (1914). Type: Namibia,
broteriana, sér. 2, 44: 197 (1970). Type: Angola, Namibe Mariental, Dinter 3164 (SAM, holo.).
distr., between Cumilunga & Curoca Rivers, 11 Jan.
1956, Mendes 1265 (LISC, holo.; BM, LUA, M, SRGH, E. rangeana Dinter: 31 (1914). Type: none cited.
iso.). [Euphorbia rangeana was very similar to E. marientalii
and was distinguished by ‘E. rangeana ist grünbraun
E. damarana L.C.Leach, Bothalia 11: 500 (1975). und graubraun’ (Dinter 1914: 31), which does make it
Type: Namibia, Damaraland, c. 64 km west of Khorixas, validly published. However, no specimens were cited
27 July 1973, Leach & Cannell 15064a (LISC, holo.; K, here.]
M, PRE, SRGH, WIND, iso.). [Although Leach (1975b)
stated that the holotype is at PRE, it is at LISC.] Euphorbia rudis was maintained as a distinct ‘spe-
cies’ in Bruyns et al. (2006). However, for E. rudis and
4. Euphorbia subg. Rhizanthium (Boiss.) Wheeler E. braunsii White et al. (1941: 474) mentioned that
‘there is really no sharp line of distinction between the
E. albipollinifera L.C.Leach, South African Journal
two plants, but rather a gradation. The typical forms of
of Botany 51: 281 (1985). Type: South Africa, Cape,
Springbokvlakte, Dec. 1978, Bruyns 1826 (NBG, holo.; the two are fairly clearly distinguishable, while many
K, PRE, iso.). of the intermediate forms are very confusing indeed
and difficult to classify satisfactorily.’ The distinctions
E. arida N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 319 (1915). between the two included: the smaller ‘average size of
Type: South Africa, Cape, Britstown div., near De Aar, the main stem’, the ‘more slender’ branches with the
Schonland (K, holo.). tubercles ‘somewhat more recurved at the apex’ and
‘rather smaller’ cyathia and ‘more completely united
E. benthamii Hiern, Catalogue of the African plants styles’ in E. rudis. These are all subject to considerable
collected by Dr. Friedrich Welwitsch in 1853–61, 1: 943 variation so that the name E. rudis has been abandoned
(1900). Type: Angola, between Lopollo and Ivantala, here.
Feb. 1860, Welwitsch 283 (BM, holo.; K, LISU, iso.).
E. brevirama N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 317
E. brakdamensis N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 324 (1915). Type: South Africa, Cape, Jansenville div., near
(1915). Type: South Africa, Cape, Brakdam, 1 600’, 7 Klipplaat, Schonland 1716 (K, holo.). [Carter (2002)
Sept. 1897, Schlechter 11123 (K, holo.; BOL, BR, GRA, listed a specimen at GRA but this does not exist.]
HBG, L-2 sheets, PRE, S, WAG, iso.).
E. bruynsii L.C.Leach, The Journal of South Afri-
In Bruyns et al. (2006) E. brakdamensis was included can Botany 47: 103 (1981). Type: South Africa, Cape,
under E. filiflora. Careful examination of Schlechter’s Steytlerville, Bruyns 1814 (PRE, holo.; SRGH, iso.).
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 231

E. bubalina Boiss., Centuria Euphorbiarum: 26 leaves’. Therefore Miller’s information makes it clear
(1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, among thorn-bushes that his name cannot be applied to E. loricata, even
near Buffelsrivier, Drège 4615 (P, holo.). [Boissier though some of the references he gave refer to that spe-
(1860) cited a specimen in ‘h. Bunge’, so this sheet is cies. The reference to ‘very narrow leaves’ makes it
taken as the holotype.] more likely that this name refers to E. caput-medusae
than E. inermis, among the species with a ‘thick short
E. laxiflora Kuntze: 286 (1898). Type: South Africa, stalk’ and ‘trailing branches’. At present no preserved
East London, 5 Mar. 1894, Kuntze (NY, holo.; K, iso.). material of Miller’s Euphorbia no 10 is known and so a
E. bupleurifolia Jacq., Plantarum rariorum horti cae- neotype is selected.
sari schoenbrunnensis descriptiones et icones 1: 55, t. E. caput-medusae var. geminata Aiton: 136 (1789).
106 (1797). Tithymalus bupleurifolius (Jacq.) Haw.: 138
Type: Illustration in J. Burm., Rar. Afric. Pl.: t. 9, fig. 1
(1812). Type: Illustration in Jacq., Pl. Hort. Schönbr. 1:
(1738) (lecto., designated here).
t. 106 (1797) (lecto., designated here).
E. caput-medusae var. major Aiton: 135 (1789).
E. proteifolia Boiss.: 92 (1862). Type: South Africa,
Type: Illustration in Commelijn, Praeludia Bot.: t. 7
near Umtata, Drège 8196 (missing). [Boissier (1862)
(1703) (lecto., designated here).
cited a specimen in ‘h. Bunge’, but this has not been
located.] E. caput-medusae var. minor Aiton: 135 (1789).
E. caperonioides R.A.Dyer & P.G.Mey., Mitteilun- Type: Illustration in Breyne, Prodr. rar. pl. sec.: t. 19
gen aus der Botanischen Staatssammlung München 6: (1739) (lecto., designated here).
245 (1966). Type: Namibia, Kaokoland, 3 miles west of E. tuberculata Jacq.: 43, t. 208 (1797). Dactylanthes
Etanga, 7 Apr. 1957, De Winter & Leistner 5420 (PRE, tuberculata (Jacq.) Haw.: 133 (1812). Medusea tuber-
holo.). culata (Jacq.) Klotzsch & Garcke: 61 (1860). Type:
E. caput-medusae L., Species Plantarum 1: 452 Illustration in Jacq., Pl. Hort. Schönbr. 2: t. 208 (1797)
(1753). Type: J. Burm., Rar. Afric. Pl.: t. 8 (1738) (lecto., designated here).
(lecto., designated by Wijnands 1983).
E. medusae Thunb.: 86 (1800). Type: South Africa,
E. fructus-pini Mill.: Euphorbia no. 10 (1768). Medu- Cape, Thunberg (UPS-THUNB 11494, lecto., designated
sea fructus-pini (Mill.) Haw.: 134 (1812). Neotype (des- here). [Thunberg (1800) placed two of his collections
ignated here): J. Burm., Rar. Afric. Pl.: t. 8 (1738). under E. medusae, namely UPS-THUNB 11494 and
11495. The latter is a piece of E. hamata.]
When Miller (1768) ‘described’ E. fructus-pini, he
referred to Linnaeus (1737) and Boerhaave (1720: 258). Medusea major Haw.: 134 (1812). Type: Illustration
He also referred to it as ‘Euphorbium Afrum facie fruc- in Commelijn, Praeludia Bot.: t. 7 (1703) (lecto., desig-
tus pini’ and then added ‘African Euphorbium with the nated here).
appearance of Pine fruit, commonly called Little Medu- Medusea tessellata Haw.: 135 (1812). E. tessellata
sa’s Head’. In the longer discussion after the literature
(Haw.) Sweet: 107 (1818). Type: none cited.
citations, he added ‘The tenth sort hath a thick short
stalk, which seldom rises more than eight or ten inches E. commelinii DC.: 110 (1813). Type: Illustration in
high, from which come out a great number of trail- Commelijn, Praeludia Bot.: t. 7 (1703) (lecto., desig-
ing branches which are slender, and grow about a foot nated by Wijnands 1983).
in length; these intermix with each other like those of
the seventh sort, but they are much smaller, and do not E. fructus-pini var. geminata Sweet: 356 (1826).
grow near so long, but have the same appearance, from Type: Illustration in J.Burm., Rar. Afric. Pl.: t. 9, fig. 1
whence it is called Little Medusa’s Head: the ends of (1738) (lecto., designated here).
these branches are beset with narrow leaves, between
which the flowers come out, which are white, and E. bolusii N.E.Br.: 333 (1915). Type: South Africa,
shaped like those of the other species.’ Transvaal, near Middelburg?, Sept. 1886, H.Bolus 9767
(BOL, holo.; K, iso.). [The locality given is considered
Linnaeus (1737) referred to Boerhaave (1720: 258) to be an error (White et al. 1941: 372).]
and ‘Breyne, Prodr. 2: 100’. In Boerhaave (1720: 258)
one finds ‘8...in capitis Medusae’ and ‘9. Euphorbium; E. ramiglans N.E.Br.: 306 (1915). Type: South
Afrum; facie fructus pini’....Tithymalus, Africanus, Africa, Namaqualand, 1883, H. Bolus sub BOL 9448
arborescens, squamato caule, spinosis MH 3:344’. ‘MH (BOL, holo.; K, iso.).
3’ refers to the third volume of ‘Planta Historia universa-
lis’ (Morison 1699). On page 344 of this work, Morison E. marlothiana N.E.Br.: 331 (1915). Type: South
referred to ‘Pluk. Phyt. t. 230’. In Plukenet (1692), the Africa, Cape, near Neu Eisleben, fl. Oct.-Nov. 1914,
phrase ‘Tithymalus, Africanus, arborescens, squamato Marloth 5733 (PRE, holo.; BOL, NBG, K, iso.).
caule, spinosis’ appears under t. 230, fig. 5 as well as
‘pini fructu facie’. This figure is of E. loricata. E. muirii N.E.Br.: 331 (1915). Type: South Africa,
Cape, Platbos, Still Bay, Muir 174 (BOL, lecto., desig-
Euphorbia loricata does not produce trailing nated here; PRE, SAM, isolecto.). [Brown (1915) also
branches from a ‘thick short stalk’, nor is it ‘without cited the following: Albertinia, Muir (K), Pearson sub
spines, having tubercles furnished with very narrow SAM 2261 (K, SAM).]
232 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

E. tuberculatoides N.E.Br.: 332 (1915). Type: South E. basutica Marloth: 408 (1910a). Type: Lesotho,
Africa, Cape, Theefontein, Malmesbury div., Bachmann Leribe, Dieterlin (cult. Phillips, fl. Cape Town in Mar.
1042 (K, lecto., designated here). [Brown (1915) also 1909) sub Marloth 4671 (K, holo.; NH, PRE, SAM,
cited the following: Grey (K), Bolus 4359 (BOL).] iso.). [Though Marloth (1910a) cited no number, it is
assumed that this is the same specimen as his type.]
E. macowanii N.E.Br.: 334 (1915). E. tuberculata var.
macowanii (N.E.Br.) A.C.White et al.: 372 (1941). Type: E. colliculina A.C.White et al., The Succulent
South Africa, Clanwilliam [wrongly labelled as Cannon Euphorbieae 2: 962 (1941). Type: South Africa, Cape,
Hill, Uitenhage], MacOwan 3286 (K, lecto., designated 2.5 miles north of Oudtshoorn, Aug. 1939, Dyer 4053
here; SAM, WU, isolecto.). [Brown (1915) also cited the (PRE 0247438-2, lecto., designated here; BOL, K,
following: Schlechter 8419 (GRA, K, PRE).] PRE, isolecto.). [According to Dyer’s collecting book
the number should be 4053 not 4052, as given in White
E. confluens Nel: 193 (1933b). Type: South Africa, et al. (1941); the latter has no entry next to it while the
Cape, open flats, Kliphoogte, Sept. 1929, Herre former is ‘E. colliculina WDS sp. nov. type’. White et
sub SUG 5549 (missing). Type: Illustration in Kak- al. (1941) designated Dyer 4052 the ‘type’ and Marloth
teenkunde: 194 (1933) (lecto., designated here). 10577 (K, PRE) the ‘type of capsule’ so a lectotype is
[Although Carter (2002) cited a specimen at STE (now designated here.]
incorportated into NBG), this does not exist.]
In Bruyns et al. (2006), E. colliculina was included
E. celata R.A.Dyer, Bothalia 11: 278 (1974). Type: under E. esculenta. However, while they bear a close
South Africa, Vanrhynsdorp distr., Moedverloor, 100 m, resemblance to one another, there are many differences
12 May 1973, Hall 4272 (PRE, holo.). and two distinct species are involved. Mature speci-
mens of E. colliculina are altogether more delicate than
E. miscella L.C.Leach: 341 (1984a). Type: South those of E. esculenta and neither the main stem nor the
Africa, Cape, near Lekkersing, Leach et al.16545 (NBG, branches reach the thickness that are normal for E. escu-
holo.; PRE, iso.). lenta. E. esculenta also produces several swollen roots
E. clandestina Jacq., Plantarum rariorum horti cae- from the base of the tap-root and this phenomenon is
sari schoenbrunnensis descriptiones et icones 4: 43, t. unknown in E. colliculina, where the thick taproot tapers
484 (1804). Type: Illustration in Jacq., Pl. Hort. Schönbr. off quite abruptly into slender, fibrous roots. Florally E.
4: t. 484 (1804) (lecto., designated here). colliculina is also easily separated from E. esculenta in
that the cyathial lobes and the bracteoles within the cyat-
E. clava Jacq., Icones plantarum rariorum 1 (4): 9, hium lack the densely bushy hairiness at their apices that
t. 85 (1784). Treisia clava (Jacq.) Haw.: 131 (1812). make the cyathium of E. esculenta distinctively furry or
Type: Jacq., Icon. 1: t. 85 (1781) (lecto., designated by woolly. The cyathial glands are also much larger than
Wijnands 1983). those of E. esculenta.

E. canaliculata Lam.: 417 (1788). Type: South E. crassipes Marloth, Transactions of the Royal Soci-
Africa, collector unknown (P-LAM P00381883, holo.). ety of South Africa 1: 318 (1909). Type: South Africa,
[A specimen of this ‘species’ is present in the Lamarck Cape, Biesiespoort, Marloth (4399)4397 (PRE, holo.; K,
herbarium at P and is taken as the holotype and iso.).
Wijnands’ lectotype (Wijnands 1983: 99) is set aside.]
E. fusca Marloth: 38 (1910b). Type: South Africa,
E. coronata Thunb.: 86 (1800). Type: South Africa, Cape, Britstown, Sept. 1909, Marloth 4682 (PRE, holo.;
Cape, Thunberg (UPS-THUNB 11434, holo.). Treisia K, iso.). [In the cases of both E. crassipes and E. fusca,
tuberculata Haw.: 65 (1819). Type: Introduced by D. Brown annotated the specimens at K as parts from Mar-
Young to Epsom, 1815, fl. Chelsea 1818 (missing). loth’s type specimens and so the holotype is the speci-
men at PRE in each case, with isotypes at K.]
E. pubiglans N.E.Br.: 338 (1915). Type: South Africa,
Cape, near Port Elizabeth, Sept. 1912, I.L.Drège (K, E. baliola N.E.Br.: 327 (1915). Type: Namibia, Great
holo.). Karas Mountains, between 1st & 2nd outspan between
Kraikluft and Narudas Süd, 5400’, 26 Dec. 1912, Pear-
E. clavarioides Boiss., Centuria Euphorbiarum: son 8095 (K, holo.; BOL-2 sheets, GRA, SAM, iso.).
25 (1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, Sneeuberge at [Brown annotated the specimen at K himself as ‘Type’
Poortjie, Drège 8200 (P; duplicates at K, S, W) (lecto., but those at BOL and SAM were not annotated by him.
designated here). [Boissier (1860) did not state which Therefore that at K is taken as the holotype.]
herbarium he saw this collection in. This suggests that
there was a specimen at G, but this has not been located. E. inornata N.E.Br.: 586 (1925). E. inelegans
A lectotype is selected.] N.E.Br.: 322 (1915), nom. illegit., non N.E.Br. (1911).
Type: South Africa, Cape, near Kimberley, Sept. 1912,
E. clavarioides var. truncata (N.E.Br.) A.C.White et Moran (sub Schonland 1718) (K 000253322, holo.;
al.: 309 (1941). E. truncata N.E.Br.: 309 (1915). Type: GRA, K, iso.). [Brown (1915) mentioned that E. inor-
South Africa, Standerton, Burtt-Davy 1953 (K, lecto., nata was described from a living plant sent by Schon-
designated here). [Brown (1915) also cited the fol- land in 1912, grown at Kew and pressed by Brown
lowing: Transvaal, 23 Nov. 1905, Leendertz 670 (K); himself in June 1913. This is the specimen ‘near Kim-
Leendertz 1873 (K) and Wilms 1339 (missing); Kolbe berley, Moran, living plant sent to Kew by Schon-
(BOL).] land’ (K000253322). Mounted on the same sheet is
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 233

another specimen, namely ‘Moran sub Schönland 1718’ E. cumulata R.A.Dyer, Records of the Albany
(K000253323) and both had ‘Type’ written on them by Museum 4: 92 (1931). Type: South Africa, Cape, Botha
Brown. The former is taken as the holotype.] Ridge, 10 miles from Grahamstown on Queen’s Road,
Dyer 669 (GRA, holo.; K, iso.).
E. eendoornensis Dinter: 196 (1932). Type: Namibia,
between Wittsand and Eendorn, 26 Mar. 1924, Dinter E. cylindrica Marloth ex A.C.White et al., The Suc-
(missing). Neotype (designated here): Namibia, Vrede, culent Euphorbieae 2: 962 (1941). Type: South Africa,
Bruyns 11362 (NBG). Cape, Kubiskow Mtn, 7 Sept. 1926, Marloth 12860
(PRE, holo.).
E. hopetownensis Nel: 192 (1933b). Type: South
Africa, Cape, Hopetown, 1930, E.Markoetter sub SUG E. davyi Pax ex N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 305
5529 (missing). Type: Illustration in Kakteenkunde: 192 (1915). Type: South Africa, Transvaal, near Pretoria, 19
(1933) (lecto., designated here). [Although Carter (2002) Nov. 1901, J.W.C. Kirk 48 (K, lecto., designated here;
cited a specimen at STE (now incorportated into NBG), PRE, isolecto.). [Brown (1915) listed three specimens:
this does not exist.] Kirk 48 (K, PRE), Burtt-Davy 2196 (K) and Burtt-Davy
5562 (K) and annotated the first and last as ‘Type’, so a
Marloth (1910b) said that Euphorbia fusca differed
lectotype is selected. At K there is a letter written by Pax
from E. crassipes by the non-persistent peduncles (some
from Breslau in Feb. 1906 to Burtt-Davy that requested
peduncles being persistent in E. crassipes). In most pop-
his permission to name this species after him.]
ulations of E. crassipes one finds plants with persistent
peduncles and others without them so this character can- E. pseudohypogaea Dinter: 265 (1921a). Type:
not be used to distinguish between them and the type of Namibia, am Wege von Oas nach Gobabis, Dinter 3144
E. crassipes at PRE is a typical specimen of what is usu- (missing).
ally referred to as ‘E. fusca’. White et al. (1941) main-
tained that the main differences between E. crassipes E. bergii A.C.White et al.: 963 (1941). Type: South
and E. fusca were the slightly more cylindrical stem, Africa, Orange Free State, Koffiefontein, Scholtz (miss-
thicker branches, the deeper involucres and the green ing).
glands. However, in the description Marloth did not
mention the glands at all and they were only represented E. pseudoduseimata A.C.White et al.: 963 (1941).
in a small black and white drawing so that their colour Type: Namibia, Hohenhorst, 45 miles SW of Wind-
was unknown. None of these other differences are sig- hoek, Nov. 1940, Otzen (PRE, holo.; K, iso.). [White
nificant in this widely distributed and quite variable spe- et al. (1941) cited a specimen from ’45 miles SW of
cies. Windhoek, Otzen 37’ as the type, and mentioned the
farm-name ‘Hohenhorst’ (p. 414) as well. At PRE there
Although the glands of E. inornata were given as is a specimen ‘Hohenhorst, SW of Windhoek, Nov.
olive-green on their upper surface, which is unusually 1940, Otzen PRE 45881’. The material at Kew lacks
pale for E. crassipes, the shape of the plant, the relative the number ‘37’, but is from the same locality and was
thickness of the branches and the shape of the cyathia annotated by Dyer as ‘Part of type specimen’. Therefore
and glands all fit E. crassipes, under which it is included the specimen at PRE is taken as the holotype.]
here.
E. decepta N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 320 (1915).
Euphorbia hopetownensis was described from a small
Type: South Africa, Cape, near Willowmore, Brauns
plant (only 5 cm broad) with ascending, relatively stout
1712 (K, holo.).
branches which bore unusually short peduncles at 5–7
mm long and ‘pink-purple’ glands with five teeth. The E. albertensis N.E.Br.: 323 (1915). Type: South
small figure in the text and these few details are strongly Africa, Cape, near Prince Albert, between railway and
suggestive of E. crassipes, under which this name is village near Prince Albert, May 1907, Marloth 4397 (K,
subsumed here. holo.; PRE, iso.).
Euphorbia baliola was not listed in Bruyns et al.
E. astrophora Marx: 311 (1996). Type: South Africa,
(2006) but is included here under E. crassipes. Brown
Cape, north of Klipplaat, Marx 204 (GRA, holo.).
(1915) believed it to differ from E. crassipes by the dif-
ferent manner in which the tubercles on the stem are E. gamkensis Marx: 38 (1999a). Type: South Africa,
formed (from the persistent bases of the branches), the Cape, south of Calitzdorp, Marx 225 (GRA, holo.).
presence of branches right to the centre of the stem and
the longer pedicels of the male florets with longer hairs. E. suppressa Marx: 33 (1999a). Type: South Africa,
However, collections made near where the type was col- Cape, near Seekoeigat, Marx 227 (GRA, holo.).
lected are typical of E. crassipes except for somewhat
more slender branches and it seems improbable that two According to N.E. Brown (1915), Marloth considered
distinct species are involved here. his number 4397 from between Prince Albert and Prince
Albert Road (‘the railway’) to belong to E. crassipes.
E. crotonoides Boiss. in A.P. de Candolle, Prodromus However, Brown believed that the absence of a ‘flat
15(2): 98 (1862). Type: Sudan, Kordofan, near El Obeid top to the stem’ was significant and that it represented
in shade of Adansonia, Kotschy 419 (S, holo., K, iso.). a distinct species, which he named E. albertensis. The
[Boissier (1862) cited a specimen in ‘h. Vindob.’ and plants pressed (K, PRE) have a relatively slender stem
since the sheet at S is from ‘Herb. Musei Palat. Vindob.’, (far too slender to belong to E. crassipes) with numerous
this is taken as the holotype.] short branches towards their apex (which are also much
234 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

more slender than in E. crassipes) with many long, between Koussie and Silverfontein in Kaus Mtn, 2 000’,
slender, spine-like persistent, sterile peduncles. Vegeta- 29 Aug. 1830, Drège 2942 (P, holo.; G, K-2 sheets, S,
tively these plants are extremely similar to E. decepta iso.). [Boissier (1862) cited a specimen in ‘h. Bunge’, so
and, although Brown (1915) was unable to supply much the specimen in P is taken as the holotype. A specimen at
detail about the floral parts of E. albertensis, this name MO is excluded as it is unnumbered and has been anno-
is included here under E. decepta. tated ‘must be 2942’, for which no grounds are known.]
Both E. gamkensis and E. suppressa were treated as E. elastica Marloth: 37 (1910b), nom. illegit., non
distinct species in Bruyns et al. (2006). but are here rel- Poisson & Pax (1902). Type: South Africa, Cape, near
egated to synonymy. Anenous, Nov. 1908, Carstens sub Marloth 4684 (PRE,
holo.).
Euphorbia suppressa was compared extensively with
E. albertensis and E. arida (Marx 1999a). The basis for E. duseimata R.A.Dyer: t. 530 (1934). Type: Bot-
comparison with E. albertensis was mainly Figure 445 swana, ± 100 miles northwest of Molepolole, flowered
of White et al. (1941). However, it is uncertain whether in cultivation in Pretoria in Nov. 1931, G.J.de Wyn sub
this figure is of the ‘species’ described by N.E. Brown PRE 12426 (PRE, holo.).
as E. albertensis. Apart from the fact that Dyer (GRA
records) had tentatively attributed two specimens from E. ecklonii (Klotzsch & Garcke) Baill., Adanso-
the area between Prince Albert and Klaarstroom to E. nia 3: 144 (1863). Tithymalus ecklonii Klotzsch &
arida, it remains unclear what this new species has to Garcke: 68 (1860). Type: South Africa, Cape of Good
do with E. arida (a species of the north-eastern Great Hope, Swellendam district, Breede River at Swellen-
Karoo and southern Free State) and why it was not com- dam (70.10), hills under 1000’, Aug., Ecklon & Zeyher,
pared with E. decepta, which is fairly well-known on the Euphorb. 16 (W, holo.; P, S, iso.).
southern portion of the Great Karoo between Beaufort
West and Willowmore. Florally E. arida and E. decepta E. pistiifolia Boiss.: 93 (1862). Type: South Africa,
are not easily separated except by the somewhat shal- Cape of Good Hope, Swellendam district, Breede River
lower cyathium (and slightly shorter styles) with fewer, at Swellendam (70.10), hills under 1 000’, Aug., Ecklon
often obsolete teeth on the outer margins of the cyat- & Zeyher, Euphorb. 16 (S, lecto., designated here; P, W,
hial glands in E. decepta (deeper cyathium, longer style isolecto.). [Boissier (1862) also cited Drège 8195 (S,
and more prominent and more numerous marginal teeth W), which is from the same locality.]
in E. arida). However, although the plant appears to be
very similar in both species, beneath the soil plants of E. esculenta Marloth, Transactions of the Royal
E. arida have a system of swollen tuberous roots which Society of South Africa 1: 319 (1909). Type: South
develop from and extend the tap-root. These structures Africa, Cape, Klipplaat (Graaff-Reinet), received living
are entirely absent in E. decepta. In all these respects E. Sept. 1907, Marloth 4162 (PRE, holo.; BOL, K, SAM,
suppressa is identical to E. decepta and so this name is iso.).
included here under E. decepta. E. inermis var. laniglans N.E.Br.: 328 (1915). Type:
Euphorbia gamkensis was compared extensively South Africa, Cape, near Klipplaat, received Oct. 1912,
with E. crassipes (and its synonym E. fusca). However, Marloth 5270 (K, holo.; PRE, iso.).
it differs from E. crassipes by its much smaller stature
(main stem at most 90 mm thick) by the considerably E. fasciculata Thunb., Prodromus plantarum capen-
deeper cyathium whose glands are more-or-less without sium 2: 86 (1800). Type: South Africa, Cape, Thunberg
marginal processes (these are particularly prominent in (UPS-THUNB 11456, holo.).
E. crassipes and are usually strongly deflexed). Again,
E. ferox Marloth, Transactions of the Royal Society
it ought to have been considered how it differs from E.
of South Africa 3: 122 (1913). Type: South Africa, Cape,
decepta. Vegetatively the two are difficult to separate
Klipplaat, 1905, Marloth 5147 (PRE, holo.; BOL, iso.).
and I have been unable to find any reliable differences.
The cyathia differ in that the styles are shorter and more E. alternicolor N.E.Br.: 344 (1915). E. aggregata
deeply divided in E. gamkensis, but no other significant var. alternicolor (N.E.Br.) A.C.White et al.: 616 (1941).
differences have been detected. As I consider this to be Type: South Africa, N.S.Pillans (K, holo.).
insufficient on which to base a separate and otherwise so
similar species, I have included E. gamkensis under E. E. captiosa N.E.Br.: 345 (1915). Type: South Africa,
decepta. Cape, near Aberdeen, flow. Sept. 1904, Schonland 1661
While E. astrophora was compared with many spe- (GRA, holo.).
cies, including E. decepta (Marx 1996), it was said that E. filiflora Marloth, Transactions of the Royal Soci-
it ‘very closely resembles’ E. decepta, differing by the ety of South Africa 3: 123 (1913). Type: South Africa,
slightly shorter branches and the convex glands. The Cape, near Concordia, Apr. 1912, Krapohl sub Marloth
glands may be concave in E. decepta as well, and plants 5119 (NBG, lecto., designated here; K, PRE, isolecto.).
of E. decepta are very variable in size so that there are [Marloth (1913) mentioned two collections, one made
no substantial differences between them. There are
by himself at Chamis in Great Namaqualand (i.e. south-
therefore no grounds for separating E. astrophora from
ern Namibia) in October 1910 and another sent to him
E. decepta.
from Concordia in Namaqualand (i.e. in north-western
E. dregeana E.Mey. ex Boiss. in A.P. de Candolle, South Africa) by Krapohl in March 1912. He appears to
Prodromus 15(2): 95 (1862). Type: South Africa, Cape, have recorded both of these under his number 5119 but
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 235

I have not been able to locate any material of the col- Brown (1915) recognised a host of ‘species’ here,
lection from Chamis. He wrote ‘Type’ on the specimen including E. discreta, E. ernestii, E. flanaganii, E. frank-
at NBG and not on any of the other pieces distributed siae, E. gatbergensis, E. passa, and E. woodii. White
under this number.] et al. (1941) reduced the number slightly by placing E.
discreta and E. passa in synonymy under E. woodii and
E. filiflora var. nana G.Will.: 49 (2003). Type: South recognising E. ernestii, E. flanaganii, E. franksiae, E.
Africa, Cape, T’Gabies Plateau, northwest of Kosies, gatbergensis, and E. woodii as distinct species. Brown
Oct. 1999, Williamson 5933 (BOL, holo.). (1915: 314) commented on the remarkable extent to
which these plants can vary in size; in particular, how
E. nelii A.C.White et al.: 484 (1941). E. meyeri Nel: one of them increased in size in cultivation from 30–40
134 (1933a), nom. illegit. non Steud. (1840) nec Boiss. branches at 3–8 inches long to 140 branches that were
(1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, Klipfontein, c. 1 000 9–14.5 inches long and this underlines the vegetative
m, Sept. 1929, Herre sub SUG 5545 (missing). Type: variability that one may observe here. Nevertheless, he
Illustration in Kakteenkunde: 134 (1933) (lecto., desig- distinguished E. flanaganii from E. woodii by the ‘much
nated here). [Since the type of E. meyeri Nel and conse- shorter branches’ (Brown (1915): 314) and E. discreta
quently of E. nelii White et al. is missing, a lectotype is from E. woodii by the fact that the ‘body of the plant is
selected.] much smaller’ (Brown (1915): 316). As commented on
E. versicolores G.Will.: 284 (1995). Type: South extensively by White et al. (1941), this makes no sense
Africa, Cape, near Eksteenfontein, Williamson 4453 in view of such strong variation in the size of individu-
(NBG, holo.). als. Plants producing more than one rosette of branches
are not unusual and are found in many populations.
E. flanaganii N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 314 Although this feature was not mentioned by Brown
(1915). Type: South Africa, Cape, grassy slopes near (1915) in his descriptions, this was supposed to separate
Kei Mouth, 100’, June 1893, Flanagan 1800 (PRE E. gatbergensis from E. ernestii (White et al., 1941: 75),
0254449-0, holo.; K, PRE, iso.). [The specimen at K is but they recognised that plants of both ‘species’ could
annotated ‘branches from the Type Specimen (in Cape produce several rosettes. E. flanaganii and E. woodii
Town Herb.)’. There is no type specimen of this species were separated by ‘Ovary puberulous = E. flanaganii’;
in any Herbarium in Cape Town but there are two sheets Ovary glabrous to thinly pubescent with long hairs = E.
at PRE, one of which is annotated by Brown as ‘Type’. woodii’ (White et al. (1941): 75, adapted from Brown
This is taken as the holotype.] (1915): 239). In practise some populations have plants
with pubescent ovaries and others with glabrous ovaries
E. ernestii N.E.Br.: 307 (1915). Type: South Africa, and to distinguish two species on the basis of the length
Cape, Hospital Hill, near Queenstown, 3 600’, 17 Sept. and density of this pubescence is untenable. Conse-
1911, Galpin 8066 (K 000253285, holo.; K, PRE, iso.). quently all these names are reduced here to synonymy
under a single species.
E. gatbergensis N.E.Br.: 310 (1915). Type:
South Africa, Cape, near Gatberg (south of Elliott), E. fortuita A.C.White et al., The Succulent Euphor-
3 000–3 500’, Baur 251 (K, holo.). bieae 2: 962 (1941). Type: South Africa, Cape, 27 miles
from Ladismith towards Barrydale, Aug. 1939, Dyer
E. franksiae N.E.Br.: 315 (1915). Type: South Africa, 4074 (PRE, Sheet I, holo.; K, PRE-2 sheets, iso.).
Natal, Camperdown, 2 000’, 19 Oct. 1910, Franks sub
Medley-Wood 11727 (K, holo.; NH, PRE, iso.). [The Euphorbia fortuita was included under E. esculenta
specimens at NH and PRE were not seen by Brown, in Bruyns et al. (2006). However, although in both spe-
though that at NH is annotated as ‘part of Type Spec.’. cies the cyathial glands are mostly dark and the centre
The sheet at K contains two specimens, one collected of the cyathium is densely filled with white hairs, there
by Franks on 19 October 1910, pressed by Wood and are significant differences between them that warrant
sent to K (this being the other ‘part of Type Spec.’) and their recognition as distinct species. In E. fortuita the
another made from two plants sent in Apr. 1913 to, and glands are much broader and the cyathium is more coni-
cultivated at, Kew. Only the former specimen is anno- cal, having a rather rounded, almost spherical shape in
tated by Brown as ‘type’ and is taken as the holotype.] E. esculenta. Furthermore, the pedicels of the male flo-
rets in E. esculenta are glabrous (densely pubescent in E.
E. woodii N.E.Br.: 315 (1915). Type: South Africa, fortuita) but in E. fortuita the bracteoles are uniformly
Natal, Clairmont Flats, Wood 4090 (K, lecto., designated pubescent in their upper half, while in E. esculenta they
here; NH, isolecto). [Brown (1915) cited also: Clairmont are densely pubescent only at their apices. The ovary is
Flats, Wood 11803 (K) and Wood 12612 (K).] entirely glabrous in E. esculenta and densely pubescent
above in E. fortuita.
E. passa N.E.Br.: 313 (1915). Type: South Africa,
Natal, Cooper, cult. J.Corduroy, 6 July 1905 (K E. friedrichiae Dinter, Neue und wenig bekannte
000253311, lecto., designated here, K, isolecto.). Pflanzen Deutsch-SWA’s: 29 (1914). Type: Namibia,
[Brown (1915) cited also: Scottsburg, Pole Evans (miss- Warmbad, comm. Sept. 1913, M. Friedrich sub Dinter
ing); Umzumbi, Wood (K).] 3253 (SAM, holo.).
E. discreta N.E.Br.: 316 (1915). Type: South Africa, E. gariepina Boiss., Centuria Euphorbiarum: 28
Natal, banks of Umzimkulu River near shore, 25 Feb. (1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, Verleptpram, interior
1837, Bachmann 757 (K, holo.). at Orange River, Drège 8214 (G, holo.; K, S, W, iso.).
236 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

E. gariepina subsp. balsamea (Welw. ex Hiern) (2002) as ‘T: icono’ but this does not constitute valid
L.C.Leach, Excelsa Taxonomic Series 2: 78 (1980). E. lectotypification.]
balsamea Welw. ex Hiern: 951 (1900). Type: Angola,
Welwitsch 634 (K, holo.; G, P, iso.). E. cervicornis Boiss.: 27 (1860). Type: South Africa,
Cape, Heerenlogenment, Zeyher 1530 (G, lecto., desig-
E. bergeriana Dinter: 28 (1914). Type: Namibia, nated here; BOL, SAM, isolecto.). [Boissier (1860) also
Okawayo near Karibib, Dinter 1385 (SAM, holo.). cited Drège 2950 (missing).]
E. schaeferi Dinter: 304 (1921b). Type: Namibia, E. peltigera E.Mey. ex Boiss.: 91 (1862). Type: South
Klein Karas, Schäfer sub Dinter 1233 (SAM, lecto., Africa, Cape, on rocks at Orange River near Verlept-
designated here). [Dinter (1921b) cited: Holoog, Dinter pram, 19 Sept. 1830, Drège 2951 (S, lecto., designated
1233; Klein Karas, Schäfer. Since Holoog is close to here; K, isolecto.). [Boissier (1862) cited a specimen ‘in
Klein Karas, it is assumed that the specimen cited here h. Bunge’. The specimen in S may be that formerly in
is one of these, although the details do not quite corre- Bunge’s herbarium and could be the holotype but this is
spond.] not certain and so it is chosen as lectotype. A sheet at
MO, ‘assumed to be 2951’ is excluded.]
E. gerstneriana Bruyns, nom. nov.
E. heptagona L., Species Plantarum 1: 450 (1753).
E. franksiae var. zuluensis A.C.White et al.: 962 Type: Illustration in Boerh., Ind. Alter. Hort. Lugd.-Bat.
(1941). Type: South Africa, Natal, near Mahlabatini, 18 1: figure opposite p. 258 (1720) (lecto., designated here).
Oct. 1935, Gerstner 687 (PRE, holo.). [This figure was cited by Linnaeus (1753). It was also
cited by Carter (2002) as ‘T: icono’ but this does not
E. gerstneriana is closely allied to E. flanaganii. In E. constitute valid lectotypification. Jarvis (2007) stated
flanaganii, the branches form a dense, usually strongly that it remained untypified.]
spreading crown around the apex, which is itself devoid
of branches. This bare apex of the stem is green with Anthacantha desmetiana Lem.: 64 (1858). Type:
prominent tubercles and is somewhat depressed towards South Africa, Cape, cult. L. Desmet (missing).
the centre. In E. gerstneriana the branches are produced
right to the apex of the stem so that the apex of the E. enopla Boiss.: 27 (1860). Type: South Africa,
stem is not visible at all. The branches in E. flanaganii Cape, Witpoortsberg, 2 000–3 000’, Aug., Drège 8207
are usually distinctly swollen towards their bases while (S, holo.; BM-2 sheets, K, MO, P, W-2 sheets, iso.).
in E. gerstneriana the branches are uniformly thick to [Boissier (1860) did not cite a herbarium here and so
their bases. They are also much less densely clustered a lectotype is chosen The specimen at MO is a mixed
around the apex of the stem and form an ascending, usu- sheet of which only the left hand and middle pieces are
ally lax rosette. The cyathia differ in that they are pale this species.]
green and distinctly red-veined on the lobes and in the
subtending bracts in E. gerstneriana, with deep brown- E. heptagona var. fulvispina A.Berger: 109 (1902b).
ish purple, comparatively small glands that are widely Type: none cited.
spaced around the cyathium. In E. flanaganii the cyathia E. morinii A.Berger: 98 (1906a). Type: South Africa,
and their subtending bracts are yellow-green, the glands Cape, cultivated material sold by Co. Haage & Schmidt-
are usually bright yellow and are far broader, usually Erfurt (missing).
almost contiguous around the cyathium. The styles of
E. gerstneriana are particularly broad (more than twice E. atrispina N.E.Br.: 342 (1915). Type: South Africa,
the breadth of those in E. flanaganii) and form an almost Cape, near Prince Albert, received 1912, Pearson (K,
mushroom-like top to the female floret. holo.).
E. globosa (Haw.) Sims, Curtis’ Botanical Magazine E. heptagona var. dentata (A.Berger) N.E.Br.: 351
53: t. 2624 (1826). Dactylanthes globosa Haw.: 382 (1915). E. enopla var. dentata A.Berger: 95 (1906a).
(1823). Medusea globosa (Haw.) Klotzsch & Garcke: 61 Type: South Africa, Cape, Witpoortsberge, Drège (P,
(1860). Type: Illustration number 808/15 by T. Duncan- lecto., designated here). [Berger (1906a) did not state
son at K of specimen received 1821 from Cape of Good where the specimen was that he saw, so a lectotype is
Hope collected by Bowie (lecto., designated here). designated.]
E. glomerata A.Berger: 104 (1906a). Type: South E. heptagona var. ramosa A.C.White et al.: 964
Africa, Cape (missing). (1941). Type: South Africa, Cape, 17 miles north of
Oudtshoorn, Aug. 1939, Dyer 4049 (PRE, holo.; GRA,
E. hallii R.A.Dyer, The Journal of South African Bot- iso.).
any 19: 135 (1953). Type: South Africa, Cape, Botter-
kloof, May 1953, Hall sub PRE 28532 (PRE, holo.; E. heptagona var. subsessilis A.C.White et al.: 964
GRA, K, iso.). (1941). Type: South Africa, Cape, 17 miles east of Ladi-
smith (15 miles west of Calitzdorp), Aug. 1939, Dyer
E. hamata (Haw.) Sweet, Hortus suburbanus Lond- 4067 (PRE, holo.).
inensis: 107 (1818). Medusea hamata (Haw.) Klotzsch
& Garcke: 251 (1859). Dactylanthes hamata Haw.: 133 E. heptagona var. viridis A.C.White et al.: 964
(1812). Type: Illustration in J.Burm., Rar. Afric. Pl.: t. (1941). Type: South Africa, Cape, 11 miles west of Cal-
6, figure 3 (1738) (lecto., designated here). [This fig- itzdorp in Huis River Pass, Aug. 1939, Dyer 4065 (PRE,
ure was cited by Haworth (1812). It was cited by Carter holo.).
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 237

E. enopla var. viridis A.C.White et al.: 964 (1941). This is very similar to the structure of the glands in E.
Type: South Africa, Cape, 17 miles north of Jansenville huttonae but is not similar at all to that in E. flanaga-
towards Graaff-Reinet, Aug. 1939, Dyer 4008 (PRE, nii. The length of the styles and the length to which they
holo.). are divided also correspond closely to E. huttonae under
which E. superans is now included.
E. atrispina var. viridis A.C.White et al.: 964 (1941).
Type: South Africa, Cape, 12–15 miles from Montagu E. hypogaea Marloth, Transactions of the Royal
near Ouberg Pass, Aug. 1939, Dyer 4094 (PRE, holo.). Society of South Africa 2: 37 (1910). Type: South
Africa, Cape, on the Nieuweveld near Beaufort West,
E. huttonae N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 316 (1915). 1 300 m, Nov. 1908, Marloth 4692 (PRE, holo.; K, iso.).
E. inermis var. huttonae (N.E.Br.) A.C.White et al.: 395
(1941). Type: South Africa, Cape, Carlisle Bridge, on E. inermis Mill., The Gardener’s Dictionary, ed. 8:
the Fish River, fl. Nov. 1903, H. Hutton (K, holo.; GRA, Euphorbia no. 13 (1768). Neoype (designated here):
iso.). [N.E. Brown based his description on a small South Africa, Cape, near Swartkops R. and on hills near
dried specimen sent to Kew by Schonland in June 1913. Addo, Zeyher 1098 (K; duplicate at SAM,). [Miller
Brown kept two branches and one ‘flower’ at Kew and (1768) cited no material and none is known to exist from
sent one branch back to GRA. Thus, although he anno- this date. Therefore a neotype has been selected.]
tated each as ‘Half of the type specimen’, that at Kew is
actually two thirds of the specimen and is taken as the E. insarmentosa P.G.Mey., Mitteilungen aus der Bot-
holotype.] anischen Staatssammlung München 6: 246 (1966). Type:
Namibia, Outjo distr., Welwitschia, 19 Mar. 1967, Giess,
E. superans Nel ex Herre: 15 (1950). Type: South Volk & Bleissner 6128 (M, holo.).
Africa, Eastern Cape, July 1948, Rosenbrock sub SUG
7215 (missing). Neotype (designated here): South E. jansenvillensis Nel, Jahrbuch der Deutschen
Africa, Carlisle Bridge, Nov. 1903, H. Hutton (GRA, Kakteen-Gesellschaft 1: 32 (1935). Type: South Africa,
holo.; duplicate at K). [The specimen cited here by Cape, near Jansenville, Apr. 1932, Le Roux sub SUG
Herre is missing (though Carter (2002) cited it as being 6550 (missing). Neoype (designated here): South Africa,
at STE, now incorporated into NBG). The name is usu- Cape, 1.5 miles east of Jansenville, Dyer 4012 (PRE).
ally cited as ‘E. superans Nel’ but the article in which it [Although Carter (2002) cited a specimen at STE (now
was published was written by H. Herre. No photograph incorportated into NBG), this does not exist.]
was included with the protologue and so a neotype is
selected.] E. tubiglans Marloth ex R.A.Dyer: 268 (1935). Type:
South Africa, Cape, near Steytlerville, Aug. 1929, Herre
Euphorbia huttonae is re-instated at the level of spe- 1596 (K, holo.; PRE, iso.).
cies for various reasons. Vegetatively it differs from E.
inermis in that the rootstock does not develop a series E. lignosa Marloth, Transactions of the Royal Soci-
of swollen, fusiform roots below the stem, but tapers ety of South Africa 1: 316 (1909). Type: Namibia, near
rapidly off into fine roots. There are several clear dif- Tschaukaib, 400 m, Nov. 1908, Marloth 4637 (PRE,
ferences in the cyathia. In E. huttonae the whole of the holo.; BOL, K, iso.). [Brown wrote ‘Part of Type’ on a
upper surface of the gland is bright yellow. Each gland specimen of Marloth 5070 at K, but this is incorrect.]
may be divided deeply down the middle into two broad, E. engleriana Dinter: 263 (1921a). Type: Namibia,
convex, yellow structures which remain pressed together zwischen Ababis und Habis, Apr. 1913, Dinter 2815
towards their bases or it may be an entire, solid wedge- (SAM, holo.).
shaped structure that is convex above. The outer edges
of the glands are irregularly toothed and notched and E. curocana L.C.Leach: 111 (1975a). Type: Angola,
may be slightly paler in some populations. In E. inermis ± 18 km southeast of Cumilunga, Mendes 1260 (LISC,
each gland possesses a dark green part towards the base holo.; BM, COI, LUAI, iso.).
above which it is divided deeply and finely into antler-
like, white processes. Other floral differences are the E. loricata Lam., Encyclopédie méthodique 2(2):
spreading, white cyathial lobes in E. inermis (rather than 416 (1788). Type: Illustration in Pluk., Phytographia
the pale yellowish green inwardly pressed lobes of E. 3: t. 230, figure 5 (1692) (lecto., designated here).
huttonae) and the longer styles in E. inermis which are [Lamarck (1788) also cited ‘Petiver Gaz., t. 86, fig. 519’
only divided near their apex (divided much more deeply and ‘Buc’hoz, Dec. 9, t. 3’, but of these three, Pluke-
to near their middle in E. huttonae). net’s figure appeared first. These figures all appear to be
copies (sometimes modified by the author) of the fig-
Some confusion exists over the identity of Euphorbia ure, assumed to be by Heinrich Claudius, that is among
superans, which was maintained as a distinct species in the collection of paintings made during the expedi-
Bruyns et al. (2006). A figure appeared in the Euphor- tion of Simon van der Stel to the Copper Mountains of
bia Journal (Vol. 2: 138, as ‘supernans’) which was cited Namaqualand in 1685-6 and known as the Codex Witse-
by Carter (2002) as E. superans, but the slender, bright nii (Wilson et al. 2002). The original figure of Claudius
green branches and finely toothed, broad cyathial glands appears to have been unknown to Lamarck. There is no
make it clear that this figure is of E. flanaganii. Herre specimen of this species in Lamarck’s herbarium at P.]
(1950) compared E. superans with E. inermis and men-
tioned that the glands were ‘yellow...shortly bifid with E. hystrix Jacq.: 43, t. 207 (1797). Treisia hystrix
two processes denticulate at the apex, divided [to] about (Jacq.) Haw.: 131 (1812). Type: Illustration in Jacq., Pl.
a third with two diverging processes...slightly revolute’. Hort. Schönbr. 2: t. 207 (1797) (lecto., designated here).
238 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

E. armata Thunb.: 86 (1800). Type: South Africa, E. latimammillaris Croizat: 331 (1933). Type: none
Cape, Thunberg (UPS-THUNB 11412, holo.). cited.
E. eustacei N.E.Br.: 122 (1913). Type: South Africa, E. platymammillaris Croizat: 333 (1933). Type: none
Cape, near Matjiesfontein, Oct. 1912, C.E. Pillans (K cited.
000253356, holo.; K, PRE, iso.). [From the material sent
by Pillans and cultivated at Kew, N.E. Brown made and E. matabelensis Pax, Annalen des K. Naturhistor-
annotated three specimens on two sheets at K and also ischen Hofmuseums 15: 51 (1900). Type: Zimbabwe
sent ‘part of the type’ to PRE. Brown annotated only one (Matabeleland), Penther 944 (W, holo.; BM, iso.).
of them (K 000253356) as ‘Type Specimen’ (others as
E. currorii N.E.Br.: 545 (1911). Type: Angola, Ele-
‘Type, branches from type plant’ and ‘Type Plant’) and
so this is taken as the holotype and the others as iso- phant’s Bay, Curror 29 (K, holo.).
types.] E. ohiva Swanepoel: 249 (2009). Type: Namibia,
In Bruyns et al. (2006) E. eustacei was maintained as Kaokoveld, Hartmann Valley above Cunene River, 470
distinct from E. loricata. This does not reflect the posi- m, 12 Jan. 2006, Swanepoel 250 (WIND, holo.; PRE,
tion correctly. Dense, low-growing and mound-forming iso.).
plants with slightly broader, more obovate leaves and E. melanohydrata Nel, Jahrbuch der Deutschen
spines drying out white have always been taken as typi- Kakteen-Gesellschaft 1: 31 (1935). Type: South Africa,
cal of E. eustacei and were assumed to be restricted to Cape, flats at Swartwater, Oct. 1930, Herre sub SUG
the Matjiesfontein area (White et al. 1941), while the 6533 (missing). Neotype (designated here): South
more diffuse, taller plants with narrower leaves and Africa, 4 km east of Beesbank, March 1985, Williamson
spines drying out brown that are characteristic of the 3401 (BOL). [Although Carter (2002) cited the type at
valley of the Olifants River between Citrusdal and STE, now incorportated into NBG, no material of the
Clanwiliam are typical of E. loricata. Nevertheless, type has been located and a neotype is selected of mate-
White et al. (1941) hinted at a wider distribution for rial from the same area where the type originated.]
E. loricata and included some more densely branched
plants (e.g. figure 264) in their concept of this species. E. meloformis Aiton, Hortus Kewensis, ed. 1, 2: 135
Now that the respective distributions have become better (1789). Type: Illustration by F. Masson at BM of speci-
known it has been found that there is a gradation from men introduced 1774 from Cape of Good Hope col-
the one into the other as one progresses eastwards from lected by Masson (lecto., designated here).
the valley of the Olifants River to the Great Escarpment
(rather than two disjunct and distinct species each con- E. pomiformis Thunb.: 86 (1800). E. meloformis var.
fined to particular areas) so that E. eustacei and E. lori- pomiformis (Thunb.) Marloth: 45 (1928). Type: South
cata are ecotypes of one considerably more widespread Africa, Zwartkops, Thunberg (missing).
species.
E. falsa N.E.Br.: 586 (1925). E. meloformis subsp.
E. maleolens E.Phillips, The Flowering Plants of meloformis f. falsa (N.E.Br.) Marx: 32 (1999b). E.
South Africa 12: t. 459 (1932). Type: South Africa, near infausta N.E.Br.: 358 (1915), nom. illegit., non N.E.Br.
Bandolierskop, Dec. 1925, C.A.Smith sub PRE 8465 (1912). Type: South Africa, Cape, sheet 332, specimen
(PRE, holo.). annotated ‘dead plant-split-1810’ by Haworth (OXF)
(lecto., designated here). [Brown (1915) cited two speci-
E. mammillaris L., Species Plantarum 1: 451 (1753). mens: South Africa, without locality, N.S.Pillans sub
Type: Commelijn, Praeludia Bot.: t. 9 (1703) (lecto.,
BOL 10684 (BOL) and ‘Herb. Haworth’. The latter is
designated by Wijnands 1983).
designated as lectotype.]
E. fimbriata Scopoli: 8 (1788). Type: Illustration in
E. pyriformis N.E.Br.: 359 (1915). Type: cultivated
Delic. Fl. Faun. Insubr. 3: 8, t. 4 (1788) (lecto., desig-
plant at Kew of unknown origin, pressed by N.E. Brown
nated here).
14 Jan. 1913 (K, holo.).
E. enneagona Haw.: 184 (1803). Type: none located.
E. valida N.E.Br.: 356 (1915). E. meloformis subsp.
E. erosa Willd.: 27 (1814). [Willdenow (1814) gave a valida (N.E.Br.) G.D.Rowley: 97 (1998). Type: South
description but cited no specimens.] Africa, Cape, Jansenville div., near Waterford, received
26 Aug. 1912, I.L. Drège (K, holo.).
E. scopoliana Steud.: 615 (1840), nom. superfl. [Steu-
del (1840) believed that E. fimbriata Scopoli was illegit- E. meloformis var. prolifera Frick: 74 (1934). Type:
imate, with the name used earlier by Raeuschel, but no Cultivated material from seed imported from South
such name has been traced.] Africa, A.C.S. 5-112-006 (missing).
E. mammillaris var. spinosior A.Berger: 109 (1902b). E. meloformis subsp. meloformis f. magna R.A.Dyer
Type: South Africa, Cape, probably ex hort. F. Ledien ex Marx: 13 (1999b). Type: South Africa, Cape, Kwa
(missing). Ncwane, Peddie (3327AA), 18 Mar. 1999, Marx 550
(GRA, holo.).
E. mammillaris var. submammillaris A.Berger: 125
(1902c). Type: South Africa, Cape, cultivated plant from E. monteiroi Hook.f., Bot. Mag. 91: t. 5534 (1865).
Berlin Botanic Garden (missing). Type: Angola, Monteiro (K, holo.).
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 239

E. marlothii Pax: 36 (1889). Type: Namibia, Karibib, cles arise in E. friedrichiae at or near the tips of the
1 000 m, May 1886, Marloth 1425 (PRE, lecto., des- branches (the tip of the branch elongating into a pedun-
ignated here). [The number of the type collection was cle in some cases) around the apex of the plant while
given as 4425 by Pax (1889), but this is assumed to be in E. namaquensis the cyathia-bearing peduncles are
an error. There is no evidence that Pax saw this speci- shorter (and more densely tuberculate) and arise lower
men so it is designated as a lectotype.] on the branches mainly in the lower half of the plant.
The cyathia in both are of a similar size but the glands
E. longibracteata Pax: 742 (1898). Type: Namibia, have longer and more slender processes in E. frie-
Rehoboth, 1892, Fleck 447a (Z, holo.). drichiae, while the ovary is densely pubescent with short
styles (glabrous to pubescent with often much longer
E. baumii Pax: 636 (1908). Type: Angola, left bank styles in E. namaquensis). In E. friedrichiae in Namibia,
of Cubango River above Kui marva, 1 100 m, 23 Nov. the capsules often have an unusual array of warts and
1899, Baum 458 (Z, holo.). slightly raised wing-like ridges along the three angles
E. monteiroi subsp. ramosa L.C.Leach, Kirkia 6: while they are quite without these in E. namaquen-
138 (1968a). Type: South Africa, Transvaal, 10 miles sis. However, these excrescences are usually (though
south of Mica, Leach 11999 (PRE, holo.; BM, BOL, not always) absent in plants in South Africa of E. frie-
COI, G, K, LISC, M, SRGH, WIND, Z, ZSS, iso.). drichiae (from east of Onseepkans), where the capsules
are also often larger than in Namibian plants.
E. monteiroi subsp. brandbergensis Nordenstam,
Dinteria 11: 23 (1974). Type: Namibia, Brandberg, White et al. (1941) expressed doubt as to whether
between Tsisab and Königstein, c. 1 750 m, 29 May the two names E. multiramosa and E. namaquensis
1963, Nordenstam 2786 (S, holo.). represented distinct species. E. multiramosa was also
included under E. friedrichiae in Bruyns et al. (2006).
E. multiceps A.Berger, Monatsschrift für Kak- Williamson (2007) made extensive notes on E. multira-
teenkunde 15: 182 (1905). Type: South Africa, Cape, mosa and E. namaquensis. He concluded that they repre-
Karoo near Matjiesfontein, 950 m, Marloth 3450 (miss- sented distinct species, since ‘the general appearance of
ing). Type: South Africa (NY, lecto., designated here). both plants is quite different....Cymes in E. multiramosa
[The specimen in the Herbarium of Alwyn Berger at are only produced on the leeward aspect mostly from
NY consists of several small stems but has no informa- half to the lower third of the plant....the cymes are soli-
tion apart from the name on it. It was undoubtedly seen tary with very short peduncles and the involucral glands
by Berger and may well be the Marloth specimen, but is smaller, sessile, horizontally curving outwards with 4–8
designated here as lectotype.] marginal processes. The capsules are glabrous and ± 8
mm in diameter. Euphorbia namaquensis has a single or
E. multifolia A.C.White et al., The Succulent Euphor- up to two pairs of cyathia with elongated peduncles at
bieae 2: 962 (1941). Type: South Africa, Cape, 30 miles branch apices and with involucral glands larger, shortly
from Laingsburg towards Ladismith, Aug. 1939, Herre stipitate, suberect to erect and with 3–6 marginal proc-
(PRE, lecto., designated here). [White et al. (1941) esses and capsules densely pubescent ± 10–12 mm in
listed two specimens from the same locality, collected diameter.’ In practice, the ‘general appearance’ of plants
by Smith and Herre respectively and designated that from north of Steinkopf (taken to be typical of E. multi-
by Smith the type. This being missing, the specimen of ramosa) and those from west of Gamoep (taken to rep-
Herre is designated as lectotype.] resent E. namaquensis) is identical; all the other features
mentioned are actually very variable within populations.
E. namaquensis N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 325 Consequently E. multiramosa and E. namaquensis differ
(1915). Type: South Africa, between Aggeneys and only in the glabrous vs. pubescent capsules, though even
Pella, Pearson 2992 (BOL, lecto., designated by Wil- this feature has been found to be variable in E. multira-
liamson 2007; K, SAM, isolecto.). mosa.
E. multiramosa Nel: 29 (1935). Type: South Africa, E. namibensis Marloth, Transactions of the Royal
Cape, Little Bushmanland, flats between Jakkalswater Society of South Africa 1: 318 (1909). Type: Namibia,
and Vioolsdrift, Oct. 1930, Herre sub SUG 5890 (miss- near Tschaukaib about 31 miles from Angra Pequeňa,
ing). Neotype (designated here): South Africa, Cape, 800 m, Nov. 1908, Marloth 4635 (PRE, holo., K, SAM,
between Jakkalswater and Vioolsdrift, 600 m, Sept. iso.). [The specimen under this number at BOL is from
2006, Williamson 6048 (BOL, duplicate at E). [The a different locality (in desert near Lüderitzbucht, 50 m,
specimen SUG 5890 cited by Carter (2002) at STE, now Aug. 1909) and so is not part of the same collection,
incorportated into NBG, does not exist. In designating although it bears the same number.]
a neotype, Williamson (2007) cited ‘Williamson 6048
E. argillicola Dinter: 27 (1914). Type: Namibia, flats
(BOL, E)’. Since two specimens are cited, this neotypifi-
around Jakkalskuppe, Jan. 1910, Dinter 3145 (SAM,
cation was invalid and this is rectified here.]
holo.).
Euphorbia namaquensis was included under E. frie- E. namuskluftensis L.C.Leach, The Journal of
drichiae in Bruyns et al. (2006). These two species are South African Botany 49: 189 (1983). Type: Namibia,
very similar and (among various ‘medusoid’ species Namuskluft, ± 1 200 m, Oct. 1978, Lavranos & Pehle-
occurring in the arid south of Namibia and north-west- mann 20796 (PRE holo.; WIND, iso.).
ern South Africa), they share the feature of particularly
slender branches which become thicker towards their E. nesemannii R.A.Dyer, Bulletin of Miscellane-
bases. The two differ in that the cyathia-bearing pedun- ous Information 1934: 267 (1935). Type: South Africa,
240 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

Cape, koppie west of Robertson, 300’, Jul. 1930, Nese- they missed the fact that Miller’s name E. patula was the
mann sub Dyer 2441 (GRA, lecto., designated here, K, earliest valid name for E. ornithopus.
isolecto.). [Dyer (1935) cited Dyer 2440 (GRA, K) and
Dyer 2441 (GRA, K), so one has been selected as lecto- E. pedemontana L.C.Leach, South African Journal
type.] of Botany 54: 501 (1988). Type: South Africa, Cape,
foot of Matsikamma, Vanrhynsdorp distr., Lavranos &
E. oatesii Rolfe in Oates, Matabeleland Victoria Bleck 20828 (NBG, holo.).
Falls, ed. 2, appendix V: 408 (1889). Type: Zimbabwe,
Matabeleland, Apr. 1878, F. Oates (K, lecto., designated E. pentagona Haw., The Philosophical Magazine, or
here). [Rolfe also cited: Zambia, Rogers 8466 (K); Zim- Annals of Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy, Natu-
babwe, 160 km northeast of Bulawayo, Rand 218 (mis- ral History and General Science, Ser. 2, 3: 187 (1828).
sing).] Type: South Africa, Cape of Good Hope, received 1823,
E. obesa Hook.f., Curtis’ Botanical Magazine 129: t. Bowie (missing). Neotype (designated here): South
7888 (1903). Type: South Africa, Kendrew, near Graaff- Africa, Cape, Kei River Mouth, Flanagan 2344 (BOL;
Reinet, 2 000’, Mar. 1897, MacOwan 3153 (K, holo.). duplicates at GRA, PRE). [The painting number 296/926
at K by G. Bond represents a very weak and imper-
E. symmetrica A.C.White et al.: 964 (1941). E. obesa fectly developed branch without spines (as noted by
subsp. symmetrica (A.C.White et al.) G.D.Rowley: 97 N.E. Brown on the painting) and it is doubtful whether
(1998). Type: South Africa, Cape, 19 miles northwest of this is a reasonable lectotype as it could belong to one
Willowmore on road to Rietbron, Aug. 1939, Dyer 4038 of several species. Brown (1915) also doubted whether it
(PRE, lecto., designated here; K, isolecto.). [Dyer did was made from the plant from which Haworth described
not specify which of these specimens is the holotype and the species, since Haworth (1828) mentioned spines and
so a lectotype is selected.] these are absent from this painting. Rather than use this
painting of somewhat doubtful identity as lectotype, a
E. oxystegia Boiss., Centuria Euphorbiarum: 27 neotype has been selected.]
(1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, between Goedemans-
kraal and Kaus, Drège (S; lecto., designated here; K, P, E. pentops Marloth ex A.C.White et al., The Suc-
W, isolecto.). [Boissier (1860) did not cite a herbarium culent Euphorbieae 2: 963 (1941). Type: South Africa,
here and so a lectotype is selected.] Cape, near Komaggas, 10 June 1930, Herre 5562 (PRE,
holo.).
E. patula Mill., Dict., ed. 8: Euphorbia no. 11 (1768).
Dactylanthes patula (Mill.) Haw., Syn. Pl. Succ.: 132
(1812). Medusea patula (Mill.) Klotzsch & Garcke, E. pillansii N.E.Br., Bulletin of Miscellaneous Infor-
Monatsber. Königl. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1859: 251 mation 1913: 122 (1913). Type: South Africa, Cape,
(1859). Neotype (designated here): South Africa, Cape, near Doornkloof River, between Muiskraal and Ladi-
sheet 328, specimen (one of two) labelled ‘Grimwood’s smith, Aug. 1907, N.S.Pillans sub BOL 12543 (BOL,
St’ by Haworth (OXF). [There are two specimens on holo.; K, iso.). [N.E. Brown wrote ‘1 piece kept for
this sheet in Haworth’s Herbarium at Oxford. The one Kew’ on the specimen at BOL, which is a much larger
selected here is fertile, while the other, labelled ‘My specimen, so this is taken as the holotype.]
own’ is sterile.]
E. pillansii var. albovirens A.C.White et al.: 965
E. ornithopus Jacq.: 76, t. 120, fig. 2 (1809). Type: (1941). Type: South Africa, Cape, Paardekop near
Jacq., Fragm. Bot., 6: t. 120, figure 2 (1809) (lecto., des- Spes Bona, 650 m, 3 Oct. 1925, Marloth 12543 (PRE
ignated here). 0258928-1, lecto., designated here; PRE, isolecto.).
[There are two specimens at PRE, neither was selected
The name Euphorbia patula Mill. has been a by the authors as type so a lectotype is selected here.]
source of considerable confusion. N.E. Brown (1915:
293) suggested that it was a weak form of E. mauri- E. pillansii var. ramosissima A.C.White et al.: 965
tanica and this was taken up by White et al. (1941: (1941). Type: South Africa, Cape, between Montagu and
120), while Carter (2002) referred it to E. tridentata. Touws River, Aug. 1939, Dyer 4100 (missing).
Both Brown (1915) and White et al. (1941) consid-
ered, wrongly, that Dactylanthes patula was published E. polycephala Marloth, South African Gardening &
Haworth (1812), while it was merely a new combina- Country Life 21: 133 (1931). Type: South Africa, Cape,
tion for Miller’s name E. patula. White et al. (1941) also near Mortimer, Aug. 1913, Shoesmith sub Marloth 5295
believed that Robert Sweet (1818) described a new spe- (PRE, lecto., designated here). [Marloth (1931) cited
cies ‘Euphorbia patula’. However, there he referred to also Marloth 12644 but this is missing.]
‘H.S.’, which meant ‘Haworth on Succulent Plants’, i.e.
Haworth (1812). Since this provided a clear reference to E. polygona Haw., Miscellanea naturalia, sive dis-
Haworth’s book and hence back to Miller (1768), it did sertationes variae ad historiam naturalem spectantes:
not constitute publication of a new, and then illegitimate 184 (1803). Neotype (designated here): South Africa,
name Euphorbia patula Sweet, as was assumed in White Cape, Witpoortsberg, 2 000–3 000’, Aug., Drège 8212
et al. (1941) and Carter (2002) but merely referred to (S 2583; duplicates at BM, HBG-2 sheets, K, MO, P, S,
Miller’s E. patula. White et al.(1941) also considered W-3 sheets). [Haworth (1803) mentioned that E. poly-
that Klotzsch & Garcke (1859) published a new name gona was described from material introduced before
Medusea patula but this, too, is wrong and this was also 1790, but nothing was preserved. A neotype has there-
a new combination for E. patula Mill. Consequently, fore been selected.]
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 241

E. horrida Boiss.: 27 (1860). Type: South Africa, niformis by this name. White et al. (1941) assumed that
Cape, Witpoortsberg, 2 000–3 000’, Aug., Drège 8212 Sweet’s (1818) use of ‘Euphorbia procumbens’ was a
(S 2583, lecto., designated here; BM, HBG-2 sheets, K, new name but, since Sweet (1818) referred to Haworth
MO, P, S, W-3 sheets, isolecto.). [Boissier (1860) did not (1812) and thus indirectly to Miller, they were not cor-
cite a herbarium and so a lectotype is chosen.] rect.
E. horrida var. striata A.C.White et al.: 964 (1941). E. pseudoglobosa Marloth, South African Garden-
Type: South Africa, Cape, 15 miles north of Steytler- ing & Country Life 19: 191 (1929). Type: South Africa,
ville, Lückhoff 123 (missing). Cape, near Krombeks River, Riversdale distr., Sept.
1933, Muir 4089 (PRE, holo.).
E. horrida var. noorsveldensis A.C.White et al.: 965
(1941). Type: South Africa, Cape, 1.3 miles north of E. frickiana N.E.Br.: 491 (1931). Type: South Africa,
Jansenville, Aug. 1939, Dyer 4010 (PRE, holo.). Riversdale div., Ferguson comm. Frick (K, holo.).
E. horrida var. major A.C.White et al.: 965 (1941). E. juglans Compton: 126 (1935). Type: South Africa,
Type: South Africa, Cape, Kruidfontein, 19 miles from Cape, about 20 miles west of Ladismith, Feb. 1932,
Willowmore towards Rietbron, Aug. 1939, Dyer 4041 Compton 3951 (BOL, holo.).
(missing).
E. pseudotuberosa Pax, Bulletin de L’Herbier Bois-
E. polygona var. nivea Schnabel: 25 (2011). Type: sier, sér. 2, 8: 637 (1908). Type: South Africa, Transvaal,
South Africa, Long Kloof, Kleinrivier, 508 m, 15 Nov. Pretoria, 1892, Fehr 43 (Z, holo.).
2010, Schnabel 1 (GRA, holo.).
E. pulvinata Marloth, Transactions of the Royal
E. polygona var. exilis Schnabel: 20 (2012). Type: Society of South Africa 1: 315 (1909). Type: South
South Africa, Eastern Cape, foothills of Kouga Moun- Africa, Cape, Queenstown, Marloth 4372 (missing).
tains, 65 m, 16 Nov. 2011, Schnabel 4 (GRA, holo.). Neotype (designated here): South Africa, Cape, Queen-
stown, Nov. 1898, Galpin 2527 (PRE). [The type has
E. procumbens Mill., The Gardener’s Dictionary, not been located. A neotype from the same locality is
ed. 8: Euphorbia no. 12 (1768). Medusea procumbens selected here.]
(Mill.) Haw.: 134 (1812). Neotype (designated here):
J.Burm., Rar. Afric. Pl.: t. 10, fig. 1 (1738). [Miller cited E. quadrata Nel, Jahrbuch der Deutschen Kakteen-
neither material nor figures. The figure designated here Gesellschaft 1: 42 (1935). Type: South Africa, Cape,
as a neotype was cited by Haworth (1812) under his near summit of Stinkfonteinberg, Oct. 1930, Herre sub
‘account’ of Medusea procumbens and so gives an indi- SUG 6519 (BOL, holo.). [Carter (2002) cited this speci-
cation of what was then understood by Miller’s name. men at STE (now incorporated into NBG) and BOL, but
Haworth’s association of this figure with Miller’s name the former does not exist.]
is unlikely to have been co-incidental. Burmann (1738:
t. 10) referred to the plant in this figure as ‘Euphorbium E. stegmatica Nel: 43 (1935). Type: South Africa,
humile, procumbens,...’ so that it is likely that Miller Cape, Stinkfonteinberg, Oct. 1930, Herre sub SUG 6518
adopted Burman’s adjective ‘procumbens’, as White et (BOL, holo.). [Although the illustration in Nel (1935)
al. (1941) suggested.] is clearly of E. oxystegia, the type is a specimen of E.
quadrata.]
E. pugniformis Boiss.: 92 (1862). Type: J.Burm.,
Rar. Afric. Pl.: t. 10, fig. 1 (1738) (lecto., designated by E. francescae L.C.Leach: 563 (1984b). Type: South
Wijnands 1983). Africa, Cape, Cornellsberg, Sept. 1984, Williamson 3248
(NBG, holo.).
E. gorgonis A.Berger: 230 (1910). Type: South
Africa, Cape, neither collector nor locality (missing). E. restituta N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 339 (1915).
[Carter (2002) cited a specimen of Burtt-Davy at PRE E. radiata E.Mey. ex Boiss.: 90 (1862), nom. illegit.,
as the type, but this does not exist, nor is there any non Thunb. (1800). Type: South Africa, Cape, between
evidence that it could possibly be the type of Berger’s Stinkfontein and Garies, Pillans 5579 (BOL, lecto., des-
name. In his discussion of E. gorgonis, Berger (1910) ignated here; K, isolecto.). [Brown (1915) also cited:
mentioned having obtained plants of the recently Schlechter 11098 (BOL); between Zwartdoorn R. and
described E. davyi from Burtt-Davy but not that Burtt- Groen R., Aug, Drege 2941 (missing). The latter is prob-
Davy had supplied him with E. gorgonis. This appears to ably the same as the specimen which Boissier (1862)
have been mis-interpreted by Carter (2002).] cited: between Zwartdoorn R. and Groen R., Aug.,
Drège (S, W).]
The name E. procumbens was not used in Bruyns et
al. (2006). This followed White et al. (1941), who did E. graveolens N.E.Br.: 253 (1915). Type: South
not adopt E. procumbens Mill. as the name for these Africa, Cape, between Stinkfontein and Garies, Dec.
plants, even though it antedated E. pugniformis (based 1910, Pillans 5579 (BOL 137769, lecto., designated
on the same figure) by nearly 100 years, apparently here; BOL, K, isolecto.). [Brown (1915) also cited:
because Miller’s ‘description is too incomplete to permit Bakhuis, Pillans 5486 (K).]
of any certainty’ (p. 337) in its identity and ‘that name
cannot be maintained at all’ (p. 338). However, its iden- E. schoenlandii Pax, Jahresbericht der Schlesischen
tity is clear from Haworth’s references which lead to the Gesellschaft für vaterländische Cultur 82: 24 (1905).
present neotypification and the replacement of E. pug- Type: South Africa, Cape, ‘Clanwilliam (Woodifield)’,
242 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

fl. May 1904, Schonland (GRA, lecto., designated here). South Africa, Beaufort West distr., Willowmore side,
[This specimen was annotated as ‘Co-type’ by Schon- Brauns 1711 (K, holo.).
land and is unlikely to have been seen by Pax. It is pre-
sumed that the other part was sent to Pax and this part E. susannae Marloth, South African Gardening &
remains missing.] Country Life 19: 191 (1929). Type: South Africa, Cape,
Phisantefontein, Oct. 1923, Muir 2762 (BOL 137790,
E. silenifolia (Haw.) Sweet, Hortus Britannicus, ed. 1, lecto., designated here; BOL, PRE, isolecto.). [Marloth
2: 356 (1826). Tithymalus silenifolius Haw.: 61 (1821). (1929) cited also: Marloth 12155 (NBG, PRE).]
Type: Illustration number 810/147 by T. Duncanson at
K of specimen received 1823 from Cape of Good Hope E. systyloides Pax subsp. porcaticapsa S.Carter,
collected by Bowie (lecto., designated here). Kew Bulletin 45: 336 (1990). Type: Zimbabwe,
Hurungwe distr., Zambesi Valley, Rifa R., 520 m, 24
E. elliptica Thunb.: 86 (1800), nom. illegit., non
Feb. 1953, Wild 4085 (K, holo.; EA, SRGH, iso.).
Lam (1786). Tithymalus ellipticus (Thunb.) Klotzsch &
Garcke: 69 (1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, Thunberg E. trichadenia Pax, Botanische Jahrbücher für Sys-
(UPS-THUNB 11446, holo.). tematik 19: 125 (1894). Type: Angola, Lunda, between
Kimbundo and the Quango, Sept. 1876, Pogge 116
Tithymalus bergii Klotzsch & Garcke: 68 (1860). (missing). Neotype (designated here): Angola, Huilla,
Type: South Africa, Cape, Bergius (missing). near Lopollo towards Nene, Oct.-Nov. 1859, Welwitsch
282 (BM; duplicates at G, K). [Although Carter (2002)
Tithymalus longipetiolatus Klotzsch & Garcke: 68
cited this specimen as being at B, there is no such mate-
(1860). Type: South Africa, Cape, Bergius (missing).
rial there.]
Tithymalus attenuatus Klotzsch & Garcke: 69 (1860). E. benguelensis Pax: 741 (1898). Type: Angola,
Type: South Africa, Cape, Bergius (missing). Huilla, source of Luala, Antunes 362 (missing).
E. elliptica var. undulata Boiss.: 93 (1862). Neotype E. subfalcata Hiern: 948 (1900). Type: Angola,
(designated here): Type: Illustration number 810/147 Huilla, near Lopollo towards Nene, Oct.–Nov. 1859,
by T. Duncanson at K of specimen received 1823 from Welwitsch 282 (BM, holo.; G, K, iso.).
Cape of Good Hope collected by Bowie. [Boissier
(1862) cited ‘Tithymalus silenifolius & Tith. crispus E. gossweileri Pax: 88 (1909). Type: Angola, Maland-
Haw., revis. pl. Succul. p. 61 (ex descriptione)’, so he sche, Gossweiler 994 (K, lecto., designated here). [There
took these two names as applying to the same species is no sign that Pax saw this specimen although N.E.
and combined them under this variety. This view is not Brown wrote ‘Type’ on it. Consequently it is selected as
supported here. By selecting a neotype as above, this lectotype.]
name becomes a synonym of E. silenifolia.]
E. trichadenia var. gibbsiae N.E.Br.: 524 (1911–12).
E. mira L.C.Leach: 10 (1986a). Type: South Africa, Type: Zimbabwe, near Isotye, Matopos, 5 000’, Feb.
Cape, near Tulbagh, Bayer sub Leach 17175 (NBG, 1905, Gibbs 234 (BM, holo.; K, iso.). [Brown (1911–12)
holo.; K, PRE, iso.). cited: Gibbs 234 (BM, K) and Victoria, Munro. Two col-
Although the name E. mira L.C.Leach was main- lections of Munro have been located, namely Munro 141
tained as a distinct species in Bruyns et al. (2006), (BM) and Munro 1467 (BM). However, he wrote ‘Type’
observations of populations of E. silenifolia have made on Gibbs 234 (BM) and ‘From the type’ on Gibbs 234
it clear how this species may begin its growth extremely (K) and nothing of this kind on the Munro collections
early (in February, well before winter) and how narrow so it is clear that the Gibbs specimens are holotype and
the leaves may be in some populations, often mixed isotype respectively.]
up with plants with considerably broader leaves. Thus,
E. tridentata Lam., Encyclopédie méthodique
while Leach (1986a: 11) believed he had found three,
2(2): 416 (1788). Medusea tridentata (Lam.) Klotzsch
possibly even four geophytic species of Euphorbia
& Garcke: 251 (1859). Type: South Africa, collector
growing together at the type locality of E. mira, it is
unknown (P-LAM P00381880, holo.; K, iso.).
clear from the photograph (Leach 1986a: figure 2) and
the specimens made, that he found E. tuberosa and vari- E. anacantha Aiton: 136 (1789). Dactylanthes
ous forms of E. silenifolia at this locality. anacantha (Aiton) Haw., Syn. Pl. Succ.: 132 (1812).
E. stellispina Haw., The Philosophical Magazine, or Type: Illustration in J. Burm., Rar. Afric. Pl.: t. 7, fig.
Annals of Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy, Natu- 2 (1738) (lecto., designated here). [This figure and one
ral History and General Science, Ser. 2, 1: 275 (1827). by D’Isnard (1720) were cited by Aiton (1789), The one
Type: Illustration number 803/324 by T. Duncanson at selected as lectotype here corresponds more closely to
K of specimen received 1822 from Cape of Good Hope the concept of E. tridentata adopted here, while that of
collected by Bowie (lecto., designated here). [The paint- D’Isnard is somewhat more suggestive of E. patula.]
ing selected as lectotype was made from the plants seen
E. tuberosa L., Species Plantarum 1: 456 (1753).
by Haworth (of which no material was preserved). There
Tithymalus tuberosus (L.) J. Hill, Hort. Kew.: 172/3
are two figures of E. stellispina by Duncanson and this
(1768). Type: Illustration in J. Burm., Rar. Afric. Pl.: t.
one is selected as the other exhibits very odd growth and
4 (1738) (lecto., designated here). [This figure was cited
is not representative of the species.]
by Linneaus (1753). It was also cited by Carter (2002) as
E. stellispina var. astrispina (N.E.Br.) A.C.White et ‘T: icono’ but this does not constitute valid lectotypifica-
al.: 716 (1941). E. astrispina N.E.Br.: 355 (1915). Type: tion.]
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 243

E. crispa (Haw.) Sweet: 356 (1826). Tithymalus cris- rescences only, is of unknown origin (though suspected
pus Haw.: 61 (1821). Type: none located. of coming from ‘Natal’) and the collector is unknown.
It is not, at present, identifiable with certainty with any
E. tugelensis N.E.Br., Flora capensis 5(2): 335 known species and so is placed among the excluded
(1915). Type: South Africa, Natal, near Tugela River, names.]
received July 1865, Gerrard 1626 (K, holo.; W, iso.).
E. parvimamma Boiss. in DC., Prodr. 15(2): 86
E. wilmaniae Marloth, South African Gardening & (1862). [Boissier (1862) cited no material other than a
Country Life 21: 133 (1931). Type: South Africa, Cape, sterile plant apparently in cultivation under the name E.
Boetsap, Pagan sub Marloth 6125a (PRE, lecto., des- caput-medusae, which may have originated at the Cape
ignated here). [Marloth (1931) cited two specimens: of Good Hope. The description is meagre and identifica-
Boetsap, MacGregor Museum 2337 (missing); Lekker- tion remains uncertain.]
sing, Marloth 12441 (PRE). The latter belongs to E.
celata (Leach 1984a, Bruyns 1992). A specimen anno- E. scolopendria Donn, Hort. Cantab., ed. 3: 88
tated exactly as the first has not been found but Wilman (1804). [Donn mentioned only that this was ‘flat-leaved’
(1946) cited this collection as ‘Boetsap, 2337 Pagan’ and flowered Jun.–Aug. No region of origin was given.]
and so the specimen ‘Boetsap, Pagan sub Marloth
6125a (PRE)’ is strongly suspected to be this collection E. viminalis N.L.Burm., Prodr. Fl. Cap.: 14 (1768).
and is thus taken as the lectotype.] [Both White et al. (1941) and Boissier (1862) cite this
name. Actually no description or diagnosis was given
E. planiceps Marloth ex A.C.White et al.: 963 (1941). by Burman and he merely listed Euphorbia viminalis
Type: South Africa, Cape, farm near Griquatown, Sept. of Linneaus, which is the basionym of Sarcostemma
1939, Venter (BOL, lecto., designated here). [White et viminale (L.) R.Br. (Apocynaceae). Here Burman
al. (1941) designated the collection by Venter as ‘type’ (1768) cited ‘Alp. aegypt. t. 190. Dill elth. t. 368’ and
and that by Mrs Cooke (missing) as ‘type of inflores- he appears to have copied these references directly from
cence’ so a lectotype is designated. The name was first among the five given by Linneaus (1753) for E. vimi-
used by Marloth (Wilman 1946).] nalis L. (= Sarcostemma viminale). In fact these refer-
ences are wrong. In Alpini (1735) there is no t. 190, but
Excluded Names the figure referred to is t. 53 on page 190. This figure is
the lectotype of S. viminale, selected by Liede & Meve
E. aggregata A.Berger, Sukk. Euph.: 92 (1906a).
(1993), though it is wrongly cited there too. Dillen’s
Type: South Africa, Cape (missing). [No preserved
Hortus Elthamensis (Dillen 1732) had only 324 plates
material has been found of this species and it is difficult
in it and here page 386 was meant, where there is no
to be sure whether it falls under E. ferox or E. pulvinata
plate. This was again cited incorrectly in Liede & Meve
or refers to the intermediates between them that occur
(1993).]
widely over the eastern Karoo.]
E. viperina A.Berger, Monatsschr. Kakteenk. 12: 39
E. curvirama R.A.Dyer, Rec. Albany Mus, 4: 104
(1902a). Type: South Africa, Cape of Good Hope?, col-
(1931). Type: South Africa, Cape, 28–30 miles from
lector unknown (missing). [White et al. (1941) placed
Grahamstown towards Peddie, Apr. 1928, Dyer 1403
E. viperina under E. inermis. However, the description
(PRE, holo.; GRA, K, iso.). [This is considered to be a
of Berger does not correspond closely to what we know
hybrid, possibly between E. caerulescens and E. trian-
today as E. inermis. No type has been located for E.
gularis.]
viperina. Berger (1902a) compared the inflorescences of
E. inconstantia R.A.Dyer, Rec. Albany Mus. 4: 93 E. viperina to those of E. caput-medusae and E. parvi-
(1931). Syntypes: Hellspoort, Oct. 1928, Dyer 1076 mamma, but in fact the inflorescences of the latter were
(GRA); Grahamstown, Aug. 1927, Dyer 1076 (GRA); never described and it is not clear that what he called E.
10 miles from Grahamstown on Queen’s road, Nov. parvimamma (Berger 1899) corresponds to Boissier’s
1926, Dyer 669 (GRA); Oct. 1927, Dyer 1077 (GRA); concept of it.]
Nov. 1926, Dyer 669a (GRA). [This is considered to be
a hybid, possibly between E. heptagona and E. poly-
gona.] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

E. mamillosa Lem., Illustr. Hort. II, misc.: 69 (1855). The curators of the herbaria B, BM, BOL, G, GRA,
Type: unknown. [Lemaire (1855) listed ‘mamillosa K, KMG, M, NBG, NY, OXF, P, PRE, S, SBT, SAM, W,
Nob.’, of unknown origin, among 18 names in Sect. WIND, WU and Z are thanked for access to the material
Aculeatea and provided a Latin diagnosis for it. White in their care. Christiane Anderson, University of Michi-
et al. (1941) listed the name as a synonym of E. squar- gan is thanked for copies of many pieces of little-known
rosa (= E. stellata), but it is hard to justify this from the literature and for much assistance with, and helpful dis-
details that Lemaire gave. White et al. (1941) also listed cussion of, nomenclatural matters concerning several
the name ‘Anthacantha mamillosa Lem.’ and gave the of the names in Euphorbia. Paul E. Berry, University
same location as its place of publication, but this name of Michigan, with funds from the U.S. National Sci-
does not exist.] ence Foundation PBI program (award # DEB-0616533),
assisted with the costs of a trip to examine specimens in
E. multifida N.E.Br., Fl. cap. 5(2): 253 (1915). Type: some European herbaria during which many types were
South Africa, Natal?, 1905, Anon sub 10483 (NH, located. He also provided invaluable advice on the sta-
holo.). [The type of E. multifida consists of several inflo- tus of many other types, among extensive comments on
244 Bothalia 42,2 (2012)

an earlier draft of this paper. S.P.Bester, SANBI, Preto- DE CANDOLLE, A.P. 1805. Plantarum historia succulentarum. 27.
ria, helped to clear up certain problems in the collecting Paris.
DE CANDOLLE, A.P. 1813. Catalogus plantarum horti botanici mon-
books of R.A. Dyer and Marloth. Gill Challen, Royal speliesis, addito observationum circa species novas aut non satis
Botanic Gardens, Kew provided assistance with locating cognitas fasciculo. J. Martel, Montpellier.
illustrations and many relevant specimens in K. Fiona DILLEN, J.J. 1732. Hortus elthamensis. London.
Jones, Jagger Library, University of Cape Town, helped DINTER, M.K. 1909. Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika. T.O. Weigel, Leipzig.
DINTER, M.K. 1914. Neue und wenig bekannte Pflanzen Deutsch-Süd-
trace certain works online. Serena Marner, Oxford Uni- west-Afrikas. Okahandja.
versity, checked on specimens attributed to Haworth.
DINTER, M.K. 1921a. Index, der aus Deutsch-Südwestafrika bis zum
This research was also partially funded by grants from Jahre 1917 bekannt gewordenen Pflanzenarten. VIII. Reperto-
the National Research Foundation and from the Uni- rium specierum novarum regni vegetabilis 17: 258–265.
versity Research Committee of the University of Cape DINTER, M.K. 1921b. Index, der aus Deutsch-Südwestafrika bis zum
Town. Jahre 1917 bekannt gewordenen Pflanzenarten. IX. Repertorium
specierum novarum regni vegetabilis 17: 303–311.
DINTER, M.K. 1923. Sukkulentenforschung in Südwestafrika. Verlag
REFERENCES
des Repertoriums, Dahlem.
DINTER, M.K. 1932. Diagnosen neuer südwestafrikanischer Pflanzen.
AITON, W. 1789. Hortus Kewensis, ed. 1. George Nichol, London.
Repertorium specierum novarum regni vegetabilis 30: 180–205.
ALPINI, P. 1735. Historiae Naturalis Aegypti, pars secunda, sive, de
DYER, R.A. 1931. Notes on Euphorbia species of the Eastern Cape
Plantis Aegypti. G. Potvliet, Leiden.
Province with descriptions of three new species. Records from
BENTHAM, G. 1880. Euphorbia zambesiana Benth. Hooker’s Icones the Albany Museum 4: 64–110.
Plantarum 14: t. 1305. DYER, R.A. 1935. Euphorbia nesemannii R.A.Dyer. Bulletin of Mis-
BERGER, A. 1899. Zwei verwechselte Euphorbien. Monatsschrift für cellaneous Information 1934: 267, 268.
Kakteenkunde 9: 88–92. DYER, R.A. 1938. Euphorbia persistens. The Flowering Plants of
BERGER, A. 1902a. Eine neue Euphorbia. Monatsschrift für Kak- South Africa 18: t. 713.
teenkunde 12: 39, 40. DYER, R.A. 1974. Euphorbia triangularis. The Flowering Plants of
BERGER, A. 1902b. Die in Kultur befindlichen Euphorbien der Antha- Africa 43: t. 1687.
cantha-Gruppe. Monatsschrift für Kakteenkunde 12: 105–110. FRICK, G.A. 1934. In R.W. Poindexter, New Garden Species, IV. Cac-
BERGER, A. 1902c. Die in Kultur befindlichen Euphorbien der Antha- tus & Succulent Journal (Los Angeles) 6: 74, 75.
cantha-Gruppe (Schluss). Monatsschrift für Kakteenkunde 12: GOEBEL, K. 1889. Pflanzenbiologische Schilderungen 1. N.G.
123–125.
Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Marburg.
BERGER, A. 1906a. Sukkulente Euphorbien. E. Ulmer, Stuttgart.
GUNN, M. & CODD, L.E. 1981. Botanical exploration of southern
BERGER, A. 1906b. Euphorbia dinteri Berger n. sp. Monatsschrift für
Africa. A.A. Balkema, Cape Town.
Kakteenkunde 16: 109, 110.
HAWORTH, A.H. 1803. Miscellanea naturalia, sive dissertationes var-
BERGER, A. 1910. Einige neue afrikanische Sukkulenten. Botanische
iae ad historiam naturalem spectantes. J. Taylor, London.
Jahrbücher für Systematik 45: 223–233.
HAWORTH, A.H. 1812. Synopsis Plantarum Succulentarum, cum
BLANC, A. 1888. Euphorbias. Catalogue and hints on cacti, 2nd ed.:
descriptionibus, synonymis,.... R. Taylor, London.
68. Philadelphia.
BOERHAAVE, H. 1720. Index alter plantarum quae in horto academi- HAWORTH, A.H. 1819. Supplementum Plantarum Succulentarum, sis-
co Lugduno-Batavo. 1. Petrus van der Aa, Leiden. tens plantas novas vel nuper introductas... J. Harding, London.
BOISSIER, P.-E. 1860. Centuria Euphorbiarum. Leipzig & Paris. HAWORTH, A.H. 1821. Revisiones Plantarum Succulentarum. R. &
BOISSIER, P.-E. 1862. Euphorbieae. In A.P. de Candolle, Prodromus A. Taylor, London.
15, 2: 3–188. HAWORTH, A.H. 1823. Plantae rarae succulentae: a description of
BROWN, N.E. 1909. The Flora of Ngamiland. Bulletin of Miscellane- some rare succulent plants. Philosophical Magazine and Jour-
ous Information 1909: 81–146. nal. 62: 380–382.
BROWN, N.E. 1911–12. Euphorbia, in W.T. Thiselton-Dyer, Flora HAWORTH, A.H. 1827. Description of new succulent plants. Decas
Tropical Africa 6,1: .470–603. nona plantarum novarum succulentarum. The Philosophical
BROWN, N.E. 1913. Diagnoses africanae LIII. Bulletin of Miscellane- Magazine, or Annals of Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy,
ous Information 1913: 118–123. Natural History and General Science, Ser. 2, 1: 271–277.
BROWN, N.E. 1915. Euphorbia, in W.T. Thiselton-Dyer, Flora capen- HAWORTH, A.H. 1828. Description of new succulent plants. Decas
sis 5,2: 222–375. undecima plantarum novarum succulentarum. The Philosophi-
BROWN, N.E. 1925. Addenda and corrigenda. In W.T. Thiselton-Dyer, cal Magazine, or Annals of Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy,
Flora capensis 5,2: 585, 586. Natural History and General Science, Ser. 2, 3: 183–188.
BROWN, N.E. 1931. A new South African Euphorbia. Cactus & Suc- HERRE, H. 1950. Euphorbia superans Nel spec. nov. Desert Plant Life
culent Journal (Los Angeles) 2: 491, 492. Magazine 22: 15.
BRUYNS, P.V. 1992. Notes on African plants, Euphorbiaceae. Notes HIERN, W.P. 1900. Catalogue of the African plants collected by Dr.
on Euphorbia species from the northwestern Cape. Bothalia 22: Friedrich Welwitsch in 1853–61, 1. British Museum, London.
37–42 HOLMGREN, P.K., HOLMGREN, N.H. & BARNETT, L.C. 1990.
BRUYNS, P.V., MAPAYA, R.J. & HEDDERSON, T. 2006. A new sub- Index Herbariorum, Part 1: The Herbaria of the World. New
generic classification for Euphorbia (Euphorbiaceae) in southern York Botanic Garden, New York.
Africa based on ITS and psbA-trnH sequence data. Taxon 55: JACOBSEN, H. 1955. Some name changes in succulent plants—Part II.
397–420. National Cactus & Succulent Journal 10: 80–85.
BURMAN, J. 1738. Rariorum Africanarum Plantarum. Boussière, JACQUIN, N.J. 1797. Plantarum rariorum horti caesari schoenbrun-
Amsterdam. nensis descriptiones et icones. 2. C.F. Wappler, Vienna.
BURMAN, N.L. 1768. Florae indica: cui accedit series zoophytorum JACQUIN, N.J. 1809. Fragmenta botanica, figuris coloratis illustra-
indicorum, nec non prodromus florae capensis. C. Haak, Leiden. ta....., 6. M.A. Schmidt, Vienna.
CARTER, S. 2002. Euphorbia. Pp. 102–203 in U. Eggli, Illustrated JARVIS, C. 2007. Order out of Chaos. Linnaean Plant names and their
Handbook of Succulent Plants: Dicotyledons. Springer, Berlin. types. Linnaean Society & Natural History Museum, London.
COMPTON, R.H. 1935. Euphorbia juglans R.H. Compton. The Journal KLOTZSCH, J.F. & GARCKE, C.A.F. 1859. Linné’s natürliche Pflan-
of South African Botany 1: 126. zenklasse Tricoccae der Berliner Herbariums im Allgemeinen
CROIZAT, L. 1933. A list of annotated observations on the remarks of und die natürliche Ordnung Euphorbiaceen insbesondere.
Dr K. von Poellnitz Concerning A. Berger’s classification of suc- Monatsbericht der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wis-
culent Euphorbiae. Cactus & Succulent Journal (Los Angeles) senschaften zu Berlin 1859: 236–254.
4: 330–334. KLOTZSCH, J.F. & GARCKE, C.A.F. 1860. Linné’s natürliche Pflan-
CROIZAT, L. 1945. ‘Euphorbia esula’ in North America. American zenklasse Tricoccae der Berliner Herbariums im Allgemeinen
Midland Naturalist 33: 231–243. und die natürliche Ordnung Euphorbiaceen insbesondere.
D’ISNARD, A-T. D. 1720. Etablissement d’un Genre de Plante appellé Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Euphorbe. Memoirs de l’Academie Royale 1720: 384–399. Berlin 1859: 1–108.
Bothalia 42,2 (2012) 245

KOUTNIK, D.L. 1984. Chamaesyce (Euphorbiaceae)—a newly recog- NEL, G.C. 1933b. Aus dem botanischen Garten der Universität Stel-
nized genus in southern Africa. South African Journal of Botany lenbosch. Kakteenkunde: 192, 194.
3: 262–264. NEL, G.C. 1935. Jahrbuch der Deutschen Kakteen-Gesellschaft 1:
KRAUSS, C.F.F. 1845. Pflanzen des Cap- und Natal-Landes, gesam- 29–32, 42–43.
melt und zusammengestellt. Flora 28: 82–93. OUDEMANS, C.A.J.A. 1865. Neerland's Plantentuin 1. J.B. Wolters,
KRAUSS, C.F.F. 1846. Beiträge zur Flora des Cap- und Natallandes. Groningen.
Regensburg. PAX, F. 1889. Euphorbiaceae in A. Engler: Plantae Marlothianae. Bota-
KUNTZE, C.E.O. 1898. Revisio generum plantarum 3 (2). A. Felix, nische Jahrbücher für Systematik 10: 1–50.
Leipzig. PAX, F. 1897. Euphorbiaceae africanae. III. Botanische Jahrbücher für
LAMARCK, J.P.A.P.M. 1788. Encyclopédie méthodique. Botanique. 2, Systematik 23: 518–536.
2. Panckoucke, Paris. PAX, F. 1898. Euphorbiaceae.1 in H. Schinz: Beiträge zur Kenntnis der
LEACH, L.C. 1964. Euphorbia species from the Flora Zambesiaca Afrikanischen Flora. Bulletin de L’Herbier Boissier 6: 732–743.
area. The Journal of South African Botany 30: 1–12. PAX, F. 1899. Euphorbiaceae africanae. V. Botanische Jahrbücher für
LEACH, L.C. 1967. Euphorbia species from the Flora Zambesiaca Systematik 28: 18–27.
area: VII. The Journal of South African Botany 33: 247–262. PAX, F. 1900. Euphorbiaceae in A. Engler, Berichte über die bota-
LEACH, L.C. 1975a. Euphorbiae succulentae Angolenses: V. Garcia de nischen Ergebnisse der Nyassa-See- und Kinga-Gebirgs-Expe-
Orta, Sér. Bot. 2: 111–116. dition. III. Botanische Jahrbücher für Systematik 28: 418–421.
LEACH, L.C. 1975b. Euphorbia gummifera, E. gregaria and a new spe- PAX, F. 1904. Euphorbiaceae Africanae. VII. Botanische Jahrbücher
cies from Damaraland Bothalia 11: 495–503. für Systematik 34: 368–376.
LEACH, L.C. 1984a. A new Euphorbia from South Africa. The Journal PAX, F. 1908. Euphorbiaceae. In H. Schinz, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der
of South African Botany 50: 341–345. Afrikanischen-Flora. Bulletin Herbier Boissier sér. 2, 8: 634–637
LEACH, L.C. 1984b. A new Euphorbia from the Richtersveld. The PAX, F. 1909. Euphorbiaceae Africanae. IX. Botanische Jahrbücher für
Journal of South African Botany 50: 563–568. Systematik 43: 75–90.
LEACH, L.C. 1986a. A new Euphorbia (Euphorbiaceae) from the west- PLUKENET, L. 1692. Phytographia 3. London.
ern Cape Province. South African Journal of Botany 52: 10–12. ROWLEY, G.D. 1998. Euphorbia meloformis and E. obesa with two
LEACH, L.C. 1986b. A new Euphorbia from the western Knersvlakte, newly-assigned subspecies. Euphorbiaceae Study Group Bulle-
Cape Province. South African Journal of Botany 52: 369–371. tin 11: 93–98.
LEACH, L.C. 1988a. The Euphorbia juttae–gentilis complex, with a SALISBURY, R.A. 1796. Prodromus stirpium in horto ad Chapel Aller-
new species and a new subspecies. South African Journal of ton vigentium... William Hooker, London.
Botany 54: 534–538. SCHNABEL, D.H. 2011. The mysterious ‘Snowflake’ Euphorbia—a
LEACH, L.C. 1988b. A new species of Euphorbia (Euphorbiaceae) new variety of Euphorbia polygona Haw. Euphorbia World 7:
from the Mossel Bay area. South African Journal of Botany 54: 20–26.
539, 540. SCHNABEL, D.H. 2012. A new variety of Euphorbia polygona Haw.
LEACH, L.C. & WILLIAMSON, G. 1990. The identities of two con- from South Africa—Euphorbia polygona var. exilis D.H. Schna-
fused species of Euphorbia (Euphorbiaceae) with descriptions of bel. Euphorbia World 8: 20–24.
two closely related new species from Namaqualand. South Afri- SCHWEICKERDT, H.G.W.J. 1935. Euphorbia aeruginosa. In Notes
can Journal of Botany 56: 71–78. on the Flora of Southern Africa VI (various authors). Bulletin of
LEMAIRE, C.A. 1855. Miscellanées. Observations diagnostico-nomen- Miscellaneous Information 1935: 205, 206.
claturales sur les Euphorbes charnues du Cap. L’Illustration hor- SCHWEICKERDT, H.G.W.J. & LETTY, C. 1933. Euphorbia lydenbur-
ticole 2: 65–71. gensis. The Flowering Plants of South Africa 13: t. 486.
LEMAIRE, C.A. 1858. Miscellanées. Nouvelles Euphorbes. SCOPOLI, J.A. 1788. Deliciae Florae et Faunae insubricae. 3. S. Sal-
L’Illustration horticole 5: 63, 64. vatoris, Ticini.
LIEDE, S. & MEVE, U. 1993. Towards an understanding of the Sar- SOJÁK, J. 1972. Poznámky K Nomenklatuře Euphorbia L. (s.l.).
costemma viminale (Asclepiadaceae) complex. Botanical Jour- Časopis národniho musea. Oddil přirodovĕdny 140: 168–178.
nal of the Linnaean Society 112: 1–15. STEUDEL, E.G. 1840. Nomenclator Botanicus, edn. 2, 1. J.G. Cottae,
LINNEAUS, C. 1737. Hortus Cliffortianus plantas exhibens quas in Stuttgart.
hortis tam vivis quam siccis.... Amsterdam. SWANEPOEL, W. 2009. Euphorbia ohiva (Euphorbiaceae), a new spe-
LINNEAUS, C. 1753. Species Plantarum. L. Salvius, Stockholm. cies from Namibia and Angola. South African Journal of Botany
MARLOTH, R. 1910a. Some new South African Succulents. Part II. 75: 249–255.
Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 1: 403–409. SWEET, R. 1818. Hortus suburbanus Londinensis. J. Ridgway, London.
MARLOTH, R. 1910b. Some new South African Succulents. Part III. SWEET, R. 1826. Hortus Britannicus, ed. 1, 2. J. Ridgway, London.
Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 2: 33–39. THUNBERG, C.P. 1800. Prodromus plantarum capensium 2. J.F.
MARLOTH, R. 1913. Some new or little known South African Suc- Edman, Uppsala.
culents. Part V. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa WEISS, J.E. 1893. Empfehlenswerte Cacteen. Dr Neubert’s Deutsche
3: 121–128. Garten-Magazin 46: 286–292.
MARLOTH, R. 1928. The Meloformia group of Euphorbias. South WHITE, A.C, DYER, R.A. & SLOANE, B.L. 1941. The Succulent
African Gardening & Country Life 18: 45, 46. Euphorbieae (Southern Africa). Abbey Garden Press, Pasadena,
MARLOTH, R. 1930. A Revision of the group Virosae of the genus California.
Euphorbia as far as represented in South Africa. South African WIJNANDS, D.O. 1983. The Botany of the Commelins. Rotterdam,
Journal of Science 27: 331–340. A.A.Balkema.
MARLOTH, R. 1931. Euphorbias III. South African Gardening & WILLDENOW, C.W. 1814. Enumeratio Plantarum horti regii botanici
Country Life 21: 127, 128, 133. berolinensis, Supplementum. Berlin.
MARX, J.G. 1996. Euphorbia astrophora J.G.Marx, sp. nov., a new WILLIAMSON, G. 1995. Euphorbia versicolores, a new species from
species of Euphorbiaceae from the Eastern Cape Province, South the northwestern Cape, South Africa. Cactus & Succulent Jour-
Africa. Cactus & Succulent Journal (Los Angeles) 68: 311–314. nal (Los Angeles) 67: 284–287.
MARX, J.G. 1999a. Euphorbia suppressa J.G.Marx and Euphorbia WILLIAMSON, G. 2003. A new variety of Euphorbia filiflora Marloth
gamkensis J.G.Marx, two hitherto-unnamed species from the from the Northern Cape Province of South Africa. Bradleya 21:
Western Cape Province, South Africa. Cactus & Succulent Jour- 49–52.
nal (Los Angeles) 71: 33–40. WILLIAMSON, G. 2004. Euphorbia einensis sp. nov. (Euphorbiaceae)
MARX, J.G. 1999b. The South African melon-shaped Euphorbias: the from the lower Orange River Valley in the northwest Richters-
full picture as known to date. Euphorbiaceae Study Group Bul- veld and southwest Namibia. Haseltonia 10: 57–66.
letin 12: 13–34. WILLIAMSON, G. 2007. Notes of Euphorbia multiramosa Nel
MEERBURGH, N. 1789. Plantae rariores vivis coloribus depictae. Leiden. (Euphorbiaceae) and related species. Euphorbia World 3. 8–18.
MILLER, P. 1768. The gardeners dictionary, edn. 8. J. & F. Rivington, WILMAN, M. 1946. Preliminary check list of the flowering plants and
London. ferns of Griqualand West (southern Africa). Deighton Bell & Co.,
MORISON, R. 1699. Plantarum historiae oxoniensis universalis 3. Cambridge, Alexander McGregor Mem. Museum, Kimberley.
Oxford. WILSON, M.L., TOUSSAINT VAN HOVE-EXALTO, TH. & VAN
NEL, G.C. 1933a. Aus dem botanischen Garten der Universität Stel- RIJSSEN, W.J.J. 2002. Codex Witsenii. Iziko Museums, Cape
lenbosch. Kakteenkunde: 134, 135. Town & Davidii Media, Amsterdam.