1. Family: Myrtaceae Juss.
    1. Genus: Eugenia P.Micheli ex L.
      1. Eugenia magnisepala Bünger & Mazine

        This species is accepted, and its native range is Brazil (Bahia).

    [KBu]

    de Oliveira Bünger, M., Mazine, F.F. & Stehmann, J.R. Kew Bull (2018) 73: 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12225-018-9760-7

    Type
    Type: Brazil, Bahia, Maracás, 13°28'S, 40°24'W, 15 Feb. 2004, (fl.) M. V. Moraes 600 (holotype BHCB 001912!; isotype HUEFS).
    Habit
    Shrubs; young twigs glabrous
    Leaves
    Leaves petiolate, petioles 3.7 – 5.8 × 0.5 – 0.82 mm, canaliculate, pubescent; blades elliptic, 42 – 45 × 15.6 – 20.6 mm, membranaceous, discoloured, pubescent on both sides, glandular dots not visible on either side, apices acute; bases attenuate; margins flat or slightly revolute; midveins sulcate adaxially, raised abaxially; lateral veins c- 15 on each side, not visible on either side; marginal vein c- 0.8 mm from the margin
    Inflorescences
    Inflorescences auxotelic, pedicels 8.3 – 13.7 mm long, pubescent; bracteoles concealing the ovary deltate, 6.9 – 16.4 × 6.2 – 13.9 mm, apices acute, pubescent, not ciliate, persistent at anthesis
    Buds
    Buds obpyriform 9.1 – 14 × 7.4 – 11.3 mm; calyx lobes 4, of equal size, elliptic, apices acute, 12.4 – 19.8 × 5.3 – 9.2 mm, pubescent, not ciliate; petals 4, 11 – 13.8 × 8.9 – 10.2 mm, glabrous, not ciliate; ovary 4.5 – 5.7 × 2 – 4 mm, tomentose, costate; style 9 – 12 mm long, staminal ring subquadrate
    Fruits
    Fruits not seen.
    Note
    Eugenia magnisepala is recognisable by its larger calyx lobes (12.4 – 19.8 mm long), membranaceous and smaller blades (42 – 45 mm long) and costate ovary. Eugenia itacarensis Mattos, E. macrobracteolata Mattos and E. regia Bünger & Sobral also have larger calyx lobes (more than 12 mm long), however they have larger (more than 50 mm long) and coriaceous blades and the ovary is not costate.

    Eugenia magnisepala is so named in recognition of its large calyx lobes.

    Eugenia magnisepala resembles morphologically similar populations of E. involucrata growing in dry areas and presenting smaller leaf blades. The new species has larger calyx lobes (12.4 – 19.8 mm long vs 7 – 15 × 3.3 – 4.9 mm long). Eugenia sect. Phyllocalyx species with larger calyx lobes are E. itacarensis, E. macrobracteolata and E. regia, but these species have significantly larger blades (more than 50 mm long vs 15 – 20 mm long in E. magnisepala). Another significant morphological trait is the costate ovary of E. magnisepala. Among Eugenia sect. Phyllocalyx species, only E. selloi has a costate ovary but this species is restricted to the restingas of Rio de Janeiro State and has smaller calyx lobes (3.4 – 4.2 mm long vs 12.4 – 19.8 mm long).

    Distribution
    Known only from the municipality of Maracás in Bahia (Brazil) (Map 1).
    Ecology
    About 9000 m a.s.l. in the central-southern region of Bahia, in the municipality of Maracás. This region is semi-arid with two rainy periods during the year. Caatinga vegetation is arboreal and shrubby although other types of vegetation such as Matas de Cipó (liana forests) are found in the region (IBGE 2016).
    Conservation
    Recent fieldwork attempted to recollect Eugenia magnisepala but only non-fertile material was found. The area of occurrence of E. magnisepala was observed to be surrounded by Eucalyptus plantations; there are no officially protected areas in the region. Eugenia magnisepala is considered Endangered (EN) under the IUCN (2016) conservation status criteria B1ab(iii). Criterion B1 recognises an extent of occurrence of less than 5,000 km2 (just one collected specimen), criterion “a”, occurrence in less than five localities (one locality) and “b(iii)”, a continuing decline in the area and quality of the habitat.
    Phenology
    Eugenia magnisepala flowers in February.

    Distribution

    Native to:

    Brazil Northeast

    Eugenia magnisepala Bünger & Mazine appears in other Kew resources:

    First published in Kew Bull. 73(3)-38: 2 (2018)

    Literature

    Kew Bulletin
    • IBGE (2016). IBGE Cidades. http://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/default.php (accessed 01 August 2016).
    • IUCN (2016). Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 12. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf (accessed 27 June 2016).
    • Govaerts, R., Sobral, M., Ashton, P., Barrie, F., Holst, B. K., Landrum, L. R., Matsumoto, K., Mazine, F. F., Nic Lughadha, E., Proença, C., Soares-Silva, L. H., Wilson, P. G. & Lucas, E. (2016). World checklist of selected families: Myrtaceaehttp://www.kew.org/wcsp/ (accessed 01 August 2016).
    • Moro, M. F., Nic Lughadha, E., Araújo, F. S. & Martins, F. R. (2016). A Phytogeographical Metaanalysis of the Semiarid Caatinga Domain in Brazil. Bot. Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12229-016-9164-z.
    • Sobral, M., Proença, C., Souza, M., Mazine, F. & Lucas, E. (2016). Myrtaceae. Lista de Espécies da Flora do Brasil. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro. http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/jabot/floradobrasil (accessed 11 February 2015).
    • Thiers (continuously updated). Index Herbariorum: a global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium. Available from: http://sweetgum.nybg.org/ih/ (accessed 01 August 2016).
    • Tuler, A. C., Peixoto, A. L. & Proença, C. E. B. (2016). A new endangered species of Psidium (Myrtaceae, Myrteae) from Bahia, Brazil. Phytotaxa 288: 161.Google Scholar
    • Bünger, M. O., Einselohr, P., Neves, M. L. & Stehmann, J. R. (2015). Resolving Species Delimitations in the Eugenia involucrata Group (Eugenia sect. Phyllocalyx - Myrtaceae) with Morphometric Analysis. Syst. Bot. 40(4): 995 – 1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    • Coutinho, K., Oliveira, M. I. U & Funch, L. S. (2015). Four new species of Eugenia (Myrtaceae) from the Caatinga and Atlantic Forest of northeastern Brazil. Phytotaxa 234(3): 215 – 226.  https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.234.3.2
    • Lucas, E. J. & Bünger, M. O. (2015). Myrtaceae in the Atlantic forest: their role as a ‘model’ group. Biodivers. Conservation 24: 2165 – 2180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    • Mazine, F. F., Souza, V. C., Sobral, M., Forest, F. & Lucas, E. (2014). A preliminary phylogenetic analysis of Eugenia (Myrtaceae: Myrteae), with a focus on Neotropical species. Kew Bull. 69(1) 9497: 1 – 14.Google Scholar
    • Bünger, M. O., Sobral, M. & Stehmann, J. R. (2013). Two new Atlantic Forest Myrtaceae from Brazil. Phytotaxa 147(2): 55 – 60.  https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.147.2.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    • ESRI (2011). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands.Google Scholar
    • Oliveira-Filho, A. T. (2009). Classificacao das fitofisionomias da America do Sul cisandina tropical e subtropical: proposta de um novo sistema — pratico e flexivel — ouumainjecao a mais de caos? Rodriguésia 60: 237 – 258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    • Macedo, G. E. L. (2007). Composiçãoflorística e estrutura do componentearbóreolianescente de um trecho de florestaestacionalsemidecidual no município de Jequié, Bahia, Brasil. Tese de doutorado, Programa de Pós-GraduaçãoemBotânica da Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco.Google Scholar
    • Oliveira-Filho, A. T. & Fontes, M. A. L. (2000). Patterns of floristic differentiation among Atlantic forests in southeastern Brazil, and the influence of climate. Biotropica 32: 793 – 810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    • Giulietti, A. M. et al. (1997). Espinhaco range region. In: S. D. Davis et al. (eds), Centres of Plant Diversity, Vol. 3: 397 – 404. The Americas. WWF-IUCN, Washington.Google Scholar
    • Mori, S., Boom, B., Carvalho, A. M. & Santos, T. (1983). Ecological Importance of Myrtaceae in an Eastern Brazilian Wet Forest. Biotropica 15: 68 – 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    • Radford, A. E., Dickison, W. C., Massey, J. R. & Bell, C. R. (1974). Vascular plant systematics. Harper & Row Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
    • Kiaerskou, H. (1893). EnumeratioMyrtacearumbrasiliensium. In: E. Warming (ed.), SymbolarumadFloramBrasiliae Centralis Cognoscendam 39: 1 – 200. Vidensk. Meddel. Naturhist. Foren. Kjøbenhavn. Google Scholar
    • Niedenzu, F. (1893). Myrtaceae. In: A. Engler & K. Prantl (eds), Die NatürlichenPflanzenfamilien, Vol. 3: 57 – 105. Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
    • Berg, O. (1856). RevisioMyrtacearumAmericae. Linnaea 27: 1 – 472.Google Scholar

    Sources

    Kew Backbone Distributions
    The International Plant Names Index and World Checklist of Selected Plant Families 2019. Published on the Internet at http://www.ipni.org and http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/
    © Copyright 2017 World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0

    Kew Bulletin
    Kew Bulletin
    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0

    Kew Names and Taxonomic Backbone
    The International Plant Names Index and World Checklist of Selected Plant Families 2019. Published on the Internet at http://www.ipni.org and http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/
    © Copyright 2017 International Plant Names Index and World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0