identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03EDA207FFBCE402FFFBFEB2FDD2D710.text	03EDA207FFBCE402FFFBFEB2FDD2D710.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cocos nucifera var. palmyrensis (Beccari) Pignotti & Baldini 2020	<div><p>Cocos nucifera var. palmyrensis (Beccari) Pignotti &amp; Baldini, stat. nov.</p> <p>≡ Cocos nucifera f. palmyrensis Beccari in Rock, Bull. Coll. Hawaii Publ. 4: 44. 1916.</p> <p>Lectotypus (designated here): PALMYRA ISLAND: “Palyra [sic!] Islands (Oceano Pacifico)”, 1914, Rock s.n. (FI [FI018792]!). Syntypus: PALMYRA ISLANDS: “Palmyra Islands”, 1914, Rock s.n. (FI [FI018793]!).</p> <p>Notes. – Only two fruits have been retrieved at FI. The largest one [FI018792] and the second largest [FI018793]. The cross-sectioned (Fig. 2A, bottom) and the fourth, slender one (Fig. 2B, bottom) are inexplicably missing. Somewhat blurred annotations in Beccari’s handwriting are present on the smooth surface of the husk of each coconut fruit (Fig. 3). Probably written by fountain pen or indelible pencil, the two annotations had apparently been overlooked since 1937, when Beccari’s Herbarium Palmarum was acquired by FI (CUCCUINI &amp; NEPI, 2006). [FI018792] bears “Palyra [sic!] Islands/ (Oceano Pacifico)/ Dal Sig. Rock 1914/ Collez. O. Beccari” (Fig. 3A) and – on the opposite side – “Palmyra Islands/ Dal Sig. Rock/ 1914”, the latter also present on [FI018793] (Fig. 3B). The larger coconut, [FI018792], is here chosen as the lectotype of Cocos nucifera f. palmyrensis (Fig. 4).</p> <p>Palmyra’s coconut and the dispute on the “cradle” of Cocos nucifera</p> <p>As observed by HARRIES &amp; HARRIES (2018) it was from Rock’s report on Palmyra and how coconut palms thrive there, as well as from his own observations and experiences on these samples, that Beccari was encouraged to publish in 1917 his paper “Origin and dispersal of Cocos nucifera ”, in which he declared himself inclined to think that Cocos nucifera, a halophylous plant highly adapted to sea shore habitats and to dispersal by oceanic currents, had evolved in coral atoll ecosystems and was probably of Asiatic or Polynesian origin rather than American (BECCARI, 1917). This was in open contrast with Cook’s thesis of a South American, dry inland origin of Cocos nucifera, mainly based on the presence there of other native, cocosoid palms (COOK, 1901, 1910) as also supported long before by MARTIUS (1823 –1850). On the other hand, a thoroughgoing review on the issue was published a few years later in Italian by the Italian botanist Emilio Chiovenda (1871–1941), who supported the hypothesis of an Asiatic origin of Cocos nucifera (precisely from regions now submerged in NW Indian Ocean). CHIOVENDA (1921, 1923) took into account the observations and buoyancy experiments made by Beccari on C. nucifera f. palmyrensis, and also supported the hypothesis of sea floating as the main dispersal way. He mentioned the observation made by BECCARI (1916) on Palmyra’s fruits that the spongy, permeable tissue at the germination pole constantly remains upon water thanks to its astonishing low specific weight, so preventing the embryo from hydration and to germinate while still afloat.</p> <p>The large size of the fruits measured by BECCARI (1916) was also an argument of interest to CHIOVENDA (1921, 1923). Forms with large fruits prevail in the Pacific islands, while in the Indian Ocean fruits have as a rule a smaller size, supporting Chiovenda’s hypothesis that the origin of Cocos nucifera from ancestral, small fruited forms should be found in ancient, now submerged land in NW Indian Ocean. The species would have thrived within the coral archipelagos of the Indian Ocean for a long time, until humans carried it to Sri Lanka and India, then to Malaysia. From there, it could have spread spontaneously to the Pacific atolls by ocean currents or, more probably, carried by eastward migrating inhabitants of Malaysia (CHIOVENDA, 1921, 1923).</p> <p>Epilogue</p> <p>The dispute on the geographical and ecological origin of Cocos nucifera and the meaning of its present distribution and variability went on well after Chiovenda’s contribution in the early 1920s: the issue has actually remained controversial until present date. For a thorough review see HARRIES &amp; HARRIES (2018). Recent phylogenetical studies on the tribe Cocoseae (DRANSFIELD et al., 2008; BAKER &amp; DRANSFIELD, 2016) – which includes, in addition to Cocos, a majority of 13 Neotropical genera, two Madagascan, one amphi-Atlantic (Elaeis Jacq.), one South-African (Jubaeopsis Becc.) – although still providing ‘fluid’ results, hint at a South American origin of Cocos nucifera (MEEROW et al., 2009, 2015). Nonetheless, coconut palm evolution and dispersal through coral island systems (atoll ecosystem hypothesis) is well supported and it is noteworthy that the distance among shallow, warm ocean areas suitable for coral atoll formation must have been shorter when this evolution took place than today (BLAKEY, 2008; HARRIES &amp; CLEMENT, 2014), accounting for a route running from South America, through a narrow Atlantic and an archipelago-like southern Europe eastwards to southern Asia and India, which would explain the presence of Paleo-Eocene coconut-like fossils in Colombia (GOMEZ-NAVARRO et al., 2009) and India (SHUKLA et al., 2012).</p> <p>The view of most researchers who have dealt with the origin of the coconut palm – among them FOSBERG (1960) and PURSEGLOVE (1968, 1972) – of all existing coconuts being exclusively a product of human selection from extinct or unknown small wild forms seems a prejudicial constriction not supported by facts (HARRIES, 1978). On this account, the noteworthy length, trigonal cross-section and thickness of the husk of C. nucifera var. palmyrensis arguably suggest that no selection was ever carried out on them by man. These characters were not indeed traditionally favoured by people interested in (and more or less consciously selecting) coconuts as a source of drinkable water (HARRIES, 1978, 1979): elongated, triangular coconuts with thick husk contain less water (liquid endosperm) than spherical ones (HARRIES, 2012). But this syndrome of characters also affects the thickness of kernel and, as a consequence, selection for copra: coconuts with much water also have a thick kernel (solid endosperm), which develops at the expense of the husk and shell. That means that selection for drinkable water and for copra would widely coincide. In turn, a thin husk represents quicker germination, which was a character favoured by farmers; in contrast, thick-husked coconuts are recalcitrant and reach 90% germinability only after 60–220 days (WHITEHEAD, 1965). This is an advantage in the wild, favouring dissemination to new shore localities (HARRIES, 1981), but it is not needed or represents a hindrance in plantations.</p> <p>In conclusion, the C. nucifera var. palmyrensis producing elongated, trigonous, thick-husked, slow-germinating coconuts might have been present before – and might have withstood – any possible introduction therein of selected spherical, thin-husked, quick-germinating seed-nuts (SAUER, 1967; HARRIES, 2012).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EDA207FFBCE402FFFBFEB2FDD2D710	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Harries, Hugh C.;Pignotti, Lia;Baldini, Riccardo M.	Harries, Hugh C., Pignotti, Lia, Baldini, Riccardo M. (2020): Unraveling the taxonomic identity of Cocos nucifera f. palmyrensis (Arecaceae: Cocoseae). Candollea 75 (1): 25-30, DOI: 10.15553/c2020v751a2
