Abstract
When publishing the combination Plinia silvestris (Vellozo) Mazine & Sobral in Sobral et al. (2017: 89), the type of the basionym Myrtus silvestris Vellozo (1829: 215) was cited as “probably lost” and hence a lectotype was proposed (Sobral et al. 2017). It was generally acknowledged that Vellozo’s material for Flora Fluminensis was not successfully traceable (Stafleu & Cowan 1986). In the protologue of Myrtus silvestris Vellozo, an illustration “Tab. 64, T. 5” was cited (Vellozo 1829). This citation corresponded to the pagination and volume of Florae Fluminensis Icones (Vellozo et al. 1831), which is considered as part of the original material though it was published two years later. It is reasonable that Sobral et al. (2017) selected that illustration as its lectotype of Myrtus silvestris. However, a lectotypification can only be achieved when the typification statement includes the phrase “designated here” or an equivalent after 1 January 2001 following Art. 7.10 of ICN (McNeil et al. 2012). For this reason the lectotypification by Sobra et al. is not valid. Here I validate it.