Iltis, H. H., Cochrane, T. S. 1989. Revista Acad. Colomb. Ci. Exact. 17 (65): 266.
Type Status:
Holotype
Place:
San Antonia, W of Cali, near summit of Cordillera Occidental., Valle del Cauca, Colombia, South America - Neotropics
Collection Date:
26 Feb 1939 and 2 Mar 1939
Notes:
One of 2 sheets (1770780 & 2271420), both recorded as "isotype" but annotated as "Holotype sheet 1" and "Holotype sheet 2", respectively. Email from Ted Cochrane, July 2017: The HOLOTYPE of Podandrogyne colombiana Iltis & Cochrane is cited (in Revista Acad. Colomb. Ci. Exact. 17(65): 266. 1989) as being in US. However, your herbarium holds two sheets of Killip and García 33917, which were identified as belonging to a single specimen by annotator Iltis in 1959, when he scribbled “Holotype sheet 1” on one and “Holotype sheet 2” on the other. Because they were not cross-labeled as being parts of a single gathering by the collectors or by US staff at the time of labeling, mounting, or accessioning, apparently only one of the two sheets can be the holotype (ICN Art. 8). I take that to be US Catalog No. 2271420/Barcode 00170326, bearing as it does a prime inflorescence as well as leaves, and US No. 1770780/Barcode 00170325 to be an isotype. Whoever entered label information in your collections databse, not feeling that he/she was in a position to make such a decision, listed both sheets as isotypes. REPLY (John K. Boggan): This is a very odd case. US 1770780, judging from both the stamped number and the label, appears to be the original sheet, indicated on the original label as “UNICATE”. But the sheet stamped 2271420 bears a label that was typed at a later date (perhaps by Hugh Iltis himself), with the data copied from the other sheet (including “Unicate”), labeled as “1770780” (typed) with “a” later added in pen. Sheet 1770780 bears indications that material was removed from it (bits of glue from now-absent straps, possibly not visible in the online image), and I believe all this material may have been originally mounted on that one sheet, and later divided at Iltis's request. He indicated the separated material as “1770780 a”, not realizing that US staff would give this sheet its own individual sheet number stamp upon mounting. If this is the case, then I believe these may in fact represent two sheets of a single specimen, as labeled. However, where I am not certain is whether all the annotations in blue pen are by Iltis. Why they were both recorded as “isotype” is a mystery to me (this was done many years ago, by a previous staff member).