The vascular plant collections of Francisco Newton (1864–1909) in Angola

Estrela Figueiredo

Francisco Newton (18 May 1864–9 December 1909), who was born in Portugal, travelled to Angola at the age of 16 and during his initial stay, which lasted from 1880 until late-1884 or early-1885, he collected plant specimens. At the time Angola was a Portuguese colony. During a second expedition to Angola that lasted from 1903 to 1905, Newton did not collect any plant specimens. Newton’s plant specimens are kept in several European herbaria, including COI, K, LISU, PO, W, and G, but little is known about collecting activities during his first visit to Africa. We provide an analysis of his work while in Angola in the early- to mid-1880s. Information is provided on the typification of names of vascular plants that Newton collected in Angola.

Phytotaxa 413 (3): 207–224 https://www.mapress.com/j/pt/ Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press ISSN 1179-3155 (print edition) Article PHYTOTAXA ISSN 1179-3163 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.413.3.2 The vascular plant collections of Francisco Newton (1864–1909) in Angola ESTRELA FIGUEIREDO1, GIDEON F. SMITH1 & LUIS M.P. CERÍACO2,3 1 Department of Botany, Nelson Mandela University, P.O. Box 77000, Port Elizabeth, 6031 South Africa Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Praça Gomes Teixeira, 4099-002 Porto, Portugal 3 Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia (Museu Bocage), Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Universidade de Lisboa, Rua da Escola Politécnica 56-58, 1250-102 Lisboa, Portugal Author for correspondence: epnfigueiredo@gmail.com 2 Abstract Francisco Newton (18 May 1864–9 December 1909), who was born in Portugal, travelled to Angola at the age of 16 and during his initial stay, which lasted from 1880 until late-1884 or early-1885, he collected plant specimens. At the time Angola was a Portuguese colony. During a second expedition to Angola that lasted from 1903 to 1905, Newton did not collect any plant specimens. Newton’s plant specimens are kept in several European herbaria, including COI, K, LISU, PO, W, and G, but little is known about collecting activities during his first visit to Africa. We provide an analysis of his work while in Angola in the early- to mid-1880s. Information is provided on the typification of names of vascular plants that Newton collected in Angola. Introduction Although commemorated in dozens of animal and plant names, the naturalist Francisco Newton (1864–1909) (Fig. 1) remains little known. He was born in Porto, northern Portugal, on 18 May 1864, and died in Matosinhos, Portugal, on 9 December 1909, at the age of 45. Francisco was the son of Isaac Newton (1840–1906) [not to be confused with the famous British physicist]. Francisco’s father was likewise born in Porto, and of British and Irish descent. The elder Newton was a collector and amateur botanist and it was from him that his son learned botany. In about 1880, when Francisco was about 16 years old, he went to Africa and started collecting natural history specimens. In early 1885 he was back in Portugal and, based on his experience in Africa, in July of that year, he proposed to the Portuguese Government that he should be contracted to explore the natural history and make zoological collections on the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe, off the western equatorial coast of Africa in the Gulf of Guinea. These islands were uninhabited when they were discovered by Portuguese seafarers in the 15th century, and thereafter increasingly inhabited by Portuguese settlers during the 16th century (Ceríaco et al. 2018). Francisco Newton’s proposal to collect on São Tomé and Príncipe was approved by the Government, and from October 1885 to January 1892, under contract to the National Museum of Lisbon, he was based on these islands, with a short visit to Benin (then Dahomey), a French-speaking country in West Africa, in 1886 where he also collected animals and plants. After completing his commission in 1892 he returned to Porto but in the same year he went back to São Tomé and Príncipe to continue the exploration. During this trip he also visited Annobon and Bioko (then Fernando Pó), the other two islands in the Gulf of Guinea. This exploratory trip lasted three years, from 1892–1895. In October 1895, after completing this enterprise, he was contracted again by the Portuguese Government to collect in East Timor, from 1896–1897. The following year, in August 1898, he was again commissioned, this time to collect on the Cape Verde Islands, which he did until 1902, with a visit to Guinea-Bissau in March 1900. He returned to Angola from 1903–1905 as part of a zoological expedition during which he collected in several provinces of the country. However, during this expedition he did not collect any botanical specimens. Francisco Newton, a prolific collector of both zoological and botanical specimens died young, at the age of 45. His botanical accessions are mostly kept at the herbarium of the University of Coimbra, Portugal (COI), but also in several other herbaria such as those of the Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Lisbon, Portugal (LISU), University of Porto, Portugal (PO), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, U.K. (K), Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria Accepted by Piero Delprete: 24 Jul. 2019; published: 1 Aug. 2019 207 (W), Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève, Switzerland (G), and University of Zürich, Switzerland (Z). His vascular plant collections from Angola alone include the types of over 50 names. In this paper we provide a detailed analysis of the work of Francisco Newton during his first foray into Africa. Botanical exploration of Angola in the 1880s Little is known about Francisco Newton’s first trip to Africa. Júlio Henriques (1838–1928), who was then the director of the Botanical Garden at the University of Coimbra, stated that Newton started his explorations in Angola in 1880 (Henriques 1885). This is confirmed by Newton, for example in a letter (Newton 1902a) written on 22 January 1902 in which he noted that he had been overseas for 22 years (‘há 22 annos que estou no Ultramar’). However, the reason why he had gone to Angola at the tender age of 16 is unknown. Likewise it is not known whether he had employment, nor where he lived, but it is likely that the purpose of his trip was to gain field experience with a view to potentially be hired as a naturalist by museums and governments. The same had been previously done by the explorer José Alberto de Oliveira Anchieta (1832–1897). At the time Africa, and to some extent the islands off the west and east African coasts, were being subjected to what is referred as the ‘Scramble for Africa’—the occupation and division of the continent among European powers—with Angola attracting interest from numerous countries, tradesmen, and adventurers (see for example Birmingham 2015). Scientific-natural history exploration also developed and expanded at that time and the 1880s were arguably one of the most interesting decades in the history of the botanical exploration of Angola. The country is host to nearly 7,000 indigenous plant species, many of which had not been recorded at that time (Figueiredo & Smith 2008, 2009, 2017, Figueiredo et al. 2009, Goyder & Gonçalves 2019). A list of plant collectors that were active in Angola during the 1880s (Figueiredo et al. 2008) includes several renowned explorers who essentially followed in the footsteps of the indefatigable Friedrich [Martin Joseph] Welwitsch (1806–1872) who was resident in Angola from 1853 to 1861 (Dolezal 1974; Albuquerque 2008; Figueiredo et al. 2018). His botanical discoveries clearly created considerable excitement in the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Furthermore, in the 1870s, the preceding decade, the first volumes of the Flora of Tropical Africa, under the editorship of Daniel Oliver (1830–1916), started appearing and this no doubt further excited explorers about the plant wealth of, inter alia, the western parts of Africa. Although some collectors in Angola undertook short term expeditions, they usually deliberately travelled to mostly scientifically unexplored or, at best, poorly explored areas, with these ventures resulting in the discovery of numerous undescribed species. For example (Figueiredo et al. 2008), the expeditions embarked on by Germans during that period include those of (with their dates of birth and death here given in parentheses): Alexander von Mechow (1831–1890) from 1879–1881; Paul Pogge (1838–1884) with Hermann Wissmann (1853–1905) from 1880–1884; Maximilian Buchner (1846–1921) from 1878–1882; and Oskar Alexander Richard Büttner (1858–1927) from 1884–1886. The Portuguese expeditions during that period were those of Hermenegildo Carlos de Brito Capello (1839–1926) with Roberto Ivens (1850–1898) from 1884–1885, and that of Henrique Augusto Dias de Carvalho (1843–1909) with Agostinho Sizenando [or Sesinando] Marques (1847–1923) from 1884–1888. The Swiss botanist Hans von Schinz (1858–1941), the French missionary Benedictus Marius Bonnefoux (1861–1937), and the German engineer Karl Hoepfner (1857–1900) also collected during that period, as well as Maria Chaves (dates unknown), the first woman to collect plants in the country. Note though that as her collections are from the Congo River, they could have been from what is today the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Most remarkable during that period was the aforementioned José Anchieta. Anchieta started out by conducting a solo survey in Cabinda and northern Angola, where he collected specimens that he later donated to the National Museum of Lisbon (Andrade 1985). It was at this time that the zoological collector Francisco Pinheiro Bayão met him in Luanda and recommended him to José Vicente Barbosa du Bocage (1823–1907), the director of the Zoological Section of that Museum in Lisbon, to be hired as the official zoological explorer of the country. With Bocage’s constant encouragement and support, Anchieta explored Angola for over 30 years, residing in the country from 1866 until his death. While facing hardships and challenges, he was driven by an insatiable curiosity and love of science. Likewise, the missionary José Maria Antunes (1856–1928), who was sent to Angola in 1881, co-founded and headed the Mission in Huíla, southern Angola. Antunes resided there for 23 years and throughout made extensive plant collections (Gossweiler 1939). Particularly relevant in relation to the collecting activities of Newton in Angola are Henry (‘Harry’) Hamilton Johnston (1858–1827) and Charles Victor Aubert Duparquet (1830–1888). Harry Johnston was an English explorer, artist, colonial administrator, and linguist. In 1923, he recounted his expedition to Angola which had had its start in 1881 when his friend, the zoologist William Alexander Forbes (1855–1883), suggested that Johnston should join an expedition that the Earl of Mayo [Dermot Robert Wyndham-Bourke (1851–1927)] was organising to southwestern Africa. Mayo was enthralled by descriptions of Angola he had heard in London. Mayo initially proposed to cross Angola, from Namibe, in the south, to the then almost unknown southern Congo River basin, or less ambitiously ‘at 208 • Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press FIGUEIREDO ET AL. any rate as far as the upper course of the Cunene River’ (Johnston 1923). In reality they eventually only travelled on the Cunene River for a short distance northeast of Humbe, likely up to Cafu (Sharbau 1883). Johnston decided to join Mayo in this venture, with the purpose of studying the languages and making natural history collections. In April 1882 they left Liverpool on the steamer Benguela. After calling at Sierra Leone, Nigeria, and Cameroon, and being concerned about Johnston’s health, Mayo allowed him to be transferred from the ‘sordid’ Benguela to the gunboat Rambler of the West African Squadron, which they had encountered off the coast of Nigeria. Johnston’s journey proceeded with more comfort, the Rambler also calling at several places, including at Banana (DRC) and Luanda (Angola), and finally arriving at the coastal town of Moçâmedes (called Namibe from the late 1970s, and recently reverting to Moçâmedes) in southern Angola. Moçâmedes was ‘the most flourishing town, perhaps, in all Portuguese Africa’ inhabited by ‘mostly refined, well-educated, hospitable people’ that occupied their time with ‘afternoon receptions, musical evenings, tea and whist [a card game] and even periodical evening parties’ (Johnston 1884). After a short stay they proceeded to the interior, riding mules or walking, so crossing the 40 miles [60 km] of desert west of Moçâmedes and reaching the Chela Mountains in three to four days, likely through Bruco Pass (see below for itineraries). For a while Johnston became separated from his companions and spent a night at the house of a young Portuguese man who was one of the many convicts exiled to Angola for crimes committed in Portugal. The next day he rejoined Mayo and the day after that the party reached the Humpata plateau (Huíla). From there they travelled down the embankments of the Caculovar River for several months. The Caculovar joins the Cunene River at Humbe. The 200 mile journey from Humpata to Humbe, was then made along a wagon road, ‘dotted at rare intervals with Portuguese forts and garrisons’, and teeming with wildlife: ‘great herds of giraffes, elands, zebras, and antelopes […] together with occasional elephants, rhinoceroses, and buffaloes’, and ‘abundant lions’ (Johnston 1884). At Humbe Johnston left Mayo and returned to Luanda to pursue his own project of journeying along the Congo River and meeting Henry Morton Stanley (1841–1904). Humbe, with its fort with a commandant and a garrison of ten soldiers, and a trading post belonging to a trader/slave dealer was then the farthest southern extension of Portuguese colonisation in Angola. It was there that Charles Duparquet was managing the Mission of the Sacred Heart of Mary. Charles Victor Aubert Duparquet was a French missionary and explorer. His first visit to Angola took place in 1866 when he disembarked in Moçâmedes in a failed attempt to establish a mission at Capangombe, about halfway between Moçâmedes and Lubango in the interior of southern Angola (Estermann 1941). He had to abandon the idea of establishing a mission at Capangombe because of opposition encountered from the Portuguese government. Later Duparquet founded the Landana Mission in Cabinda, and afterwards, in 1878, he returned to southern Africa as viceprefect of Cimbebasia (the name used then for western southern Africa, south of the Cunene River), arriving at Cape Town with the intention of proceeding north overland. Not going further than Kimberley (Northern Cape Province, South Africa), he returned to Cape Town and later, in August 1878, he went to Walvis Bay (Namibia) by sea and from there to Omaruru where he established a mission. He then continued travelling further north. In 1880 he joined an expedition of Axel Wilhelm Eriksson (1846–1901), a trader, farmer, and explorer who travelled widely collecting natural history specimens. In July 1880, while travelling in ox wagons, they crossed the Cunene River into Angola and Duparquet went as far as Humbe (Duparquet 1953). Soon afterwards he was recalled to Portugal, to prepare for the establishment of a new mission in Huíla. With other missionaries, including J.M. Antunes (mentioned above) he arrived at Huíla on 7 December 1881 and, after preliminary work to establish the Mission, he started travelling again, departing for Humbe and Cuanhama (Estermann 1941). Duparquet completed his work in Huíla and returned to Portugal in 1885 (Gunn & Codd 1980). Newton’s itineraries in Angola Henriques (1885) published an overview of the itineraries of Francisco Newton in Angola during the period 1880– 1883. Although Henriques did not provide references in his analysis of Newton’s travels, the itineraries seem to have been mostly based on an investigation of the collecting localities and dates given on the labels of Newton’s herbarium specimens. Henriques knew Newton personally and was friends with Newton’s father, Isaac, who collected plants for the herbarium at Coimbra and was a member of the Portuguese botanical society known as Sociedade Broteriana that Henriques established. After Newton left Angola, following his first expedition, and was back in Porto, he wrote to Henriques his earliest letter known to exist at the University of Coimbra; the letter was dated August 1885 (Newton 1885). In this letter Newton commented on a previous document he had sent to Henriques, as well as a list of localities that he attached to the letter of August 1885. It might be based on these documents, in addition to information provided on specimen labels, that Henriques described Newton’s travels. Regrettably neither the document that Newton referenced and that previously had been sent to Henriques, nor the list of localities is extant at the University of Coimbra (M. Dias da Silva, pers. comm.). FRANCISCO NEWTON (1864–1909) IN ANGOLA Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press • 209 During his first trip to Angola, Newton stayed in that country until late-1884 or early-1885, as it is known that he was back in Lisbon, Portugal, in March 1885 (Gossweiler 1939). In Angola Newton started by exploring the vicinity of Moçâmedes, between the Curoca and Giraul Rivers and the Namibe Desert and then travelled further inland, to the Chela Mountains, Humpata, and Huíla (Fig. 2). According to Silva (1940), Newton stayed in the house of Nestor da Costa (dates of birth and death unknown), ‘the lion hunter’. Although Silva mentioned that Costa’s house was situated in Huíla, it seems that Costa was a ‘landowner and farmer in Bibala’. In 1882 Silva led an indigenous force against a local Soba (Almeida 1912: 292). Capello & Ivens (1886) also referred to Costa as a lion hunter and owner of the area between Pedra Providência and Nascente farm, on the margins of the Munhino River. All these localities are on the route to the Chela Mountains. In c. 1879 traders used several routes from Moçâmedes to Huíla. These were described by Ribeiro (1885) and later by Nascimento (1892). A traveller would leave Moçâmedes, cross both the Bero and the Giraul Rivers, and reach the Munhino River after mostly travelling through arid land. The journey would continue along the valley of the Munhino, across scrubland, until the Capangombe plain was reached. At Capangombe there were several farms and a fort. According to Ribeiro (1885) there were three possible routes to ascend the Chela Mountains from Capangombe: the Portela do Bruco [Bruco Pass] ascent, the Banja ascent, further south [Banja River gorge], and the Caleba ascent, further north [Leba River gorge]. The route most commonly taken was the Bruco ascent. It started at Bruco and followed the watercourse of the Bruco River up to a small plain, the Chão da Chela. From there, the top of the mountain was reached via a steep ascent, leading to the northern edge of the Tchivinguiro valley. Later Nascimento (1892) described five possible ascents from Capangombe to the Chela Mountains. Likewise, these typically followed gorges: 1) Portela do Bruco; 2) Portela da Leba, a narrow valley facing Tampa, northwest of the fort [the ‘Caleba ascent’ of Ribeiro (1885)]; 3) Quilemba, following an opening facing the Bibala valley and which was used by ox wagons that travelled to the north of Lubango; 4) Tandirikita River valley, the shortest and steepest route, accessed from Bibala; and 5) Portela do Hoque, a route that shortly before had been discovered by the Boers (farmer-settlers who arrived from South Africa as part of the so-called ‘Dorsland Trek’), and that started south of Capangombe, passed Bata-bata, and ended at Jau. Once the mountain summit had been scaled, Humpata and Huíla were within easier reach. At the time, Huíla was occupied by 30 settler farmers and 40 traders and Humpata had been settled by Boers since January 1881. The routes and means used by Newton to ascend the mountain were not recorded in the literature. As Newton returned to Moçâmedes a few times (Henriques 1885) he was likely based in that coastal settlement. Newton’s first plant collections from Angola that we could trace date from April 1881 and consist of bryophytes from Huíla. The last collection made during this trip appears to be one dated March 1884, cited by Hoffmann (1897: 24) as Helichrysum nitens Oliver & Hiern (1877). This collection could not be found at COI (F. Covelo, pers. com.). After starting his collecting in Namibe and Huíla in October 1881, Newton (1881) wrote from Moçâmedes to Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817–1911) at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, noting that he was ‘now getting collections of natural history’ and enquiring on the possibility of corresponding with the Linnean Society and sending plants (likely to Kew). In reply to a letter (not extant) received from Hooker, Newton wrote again in March 1882, stating it was not possible for him to send any plants at that time but that he would send them as soon as possible (Newton 1882a). The following month, in April 1882, Newton was in Humpata and later accompanied Duparquet along the Caculovar River down to Humbe (Henriques 1885). This is confirmed by collections from Humpata that are dated 1882, and a letter written by Newton to Hooker in December 1882 (Newton 1882b) where Newton noted that he had been in Huíla during the previous rainy season (i.e., between October 1881 and April 1882) where he had collected orchids. It was likely then that he accompanied Duparquet on a journey to Humbe. Duparquet (1953) provides an idea of the method and time scale involved in these journeys. It would take fifteen days to travel from Moçâmedes to Huíla, and a further eight days from Huíla to Humbe. Unlike the Boers, who travelled by ox wagon, the Portuguese travelled usually with porters. The routes taken were those used by the traders. From Huíla to Humbe the route was always along the Caculovar River. At Humbe, Newton joined a hunting party of Eriksson (mentioned above). They travelled up the Cunene River towards Mulondo (Henriques 1885). This is confirmed by several collections from the embankments of the Cunene River and from Mulondo that date from July 1882. According to Henriques (1885), Newton then went to the country of the ‘otchiaviguas’ (the Herero people known as Chavícuas, that lived west of Humbe) and then the Cunene waterfalls (likely the Ruacana Falls). In August he was back in Moçâmedes, and the following month he again went to Humbe (Henriques 1885). Considering the short time frame involved it is not certain if Newton returned to Moçâmedes in August, as described by Henriques. In October 1882 Newton returned from Donga (Namibia) to Humbe and there met the Earl of Mayo (Henriques 1885; Gossweiler 1939). 210 • Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press FIGUEIREDO ET AL. FIGURE 1. Francisco Newton. Copyright Arquivo Histórico Museu Bocage. FRANCISCO NEWTON (1864–1909) IN ANGOLA Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press • 211 FIGURE 2. Map of Angola indicating the area (pink) and the three currently recognised provinces, Namibe, Huíla, and Cunene (grey), where Newton travelled from 1880–1884 or 1885. On the map of Africa the entire Angola is grey-shaded. Harry Johnston, who had been travelling with Mayo, had left the party at Humbe (see above). Johnston left Luanda in October 1882 and headed towards the Congo River (Johnston 1895), therefore most likely he did not meet Newton. According to Johnston (1923) Mayo then got another friend to accompany him for the continuation of the journey from Humbe up the Cunene River. We were unable to establish the identity of this ‘friend’. Mayo’s journey proceeded along the Cunene in a northeasterly direction apparently to the vicinity of Cafu (Sharbau 1883), after which the party returned to Humbe. It is possible that Newton met the party somewhere along the Cunene as, according to Henriques (1885), Newton crossed the Cunene on his way back to Humbe from Donga, and then met Mayo. The letter to Hooker mentioned above, was dated December 1882 and is stated to have been mailed from the Cunene River (Newton 1882b). In this letter Newton reported that he had collected 300 species (likely specimens) of flowering plants and 25 ferns. Afterwards Newton returned to Moçâmedes with the Mayo party (Henriques 1885). In Newton’s letter addressed to Henriques in 1885 (Newton 1885), Newton wrote that he had sent a box of plants to the Earl of Mayo. Collections made by Newton from Gambos (north of Humbe) that date from December 1882 indicate that the party was on its way back to Humpata at that time. The specimens sent to Mayo were integrated into Johnston’s collection and are deposited in the herbarium (K) of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Between 1883 and 1888 Johnston collected and sent 1436 ‘plants’ [sic, likely meaning collections] to K; these collections originated from Sierra Leone, DRC, Angola, the Nile River, and Tanzania (Jackson 1901). This number includes Newton’s collections. Some of Johnston’s collections are labelled as ‘coll. & com.’ [meaning collected and communicated] by Johnston, while others are only stated as ‘com.’ by Johnston. The latter collections have original labels all in the same handwriting, in Portuguese, with dates ranging from May 1882 to May 1883. At least one of the labels examined was indisputably signed by Newton. These collections are thus correctly cited as ‘leg. Newton comm. Johnston’. Incidentally, Johnston’s collections from 212 • Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press FIGUEIREDO ET AL. Angola are labelled with the date September 1883. However, this appears to have been the date on which they were received at K, and not the date on which they were collected, as by the end of 1882 Johnston had left Angola and was travelling on the Congo River (Johnston 1895, 1923). In the ensuing years, until he left Angola in 1884 or early 1885, Newton made several hundred collections in Namibe and Huíla but not further inland. He eventually returned to Angola in 1903, on a two year zoological mission for the Natural History Museum of the Polytechnic Academy of Porto (predecessor of the current University of Porto). At the time, Augusto Nobre (1865–1946) was the chief naturalist of the Zoological Museum of the institution, and a long-time friend of Francisco Newton; the two had grown up together and were friends since their childhood days in Leça da Palmeira, on the outskirts of Porto (Nobre 1946). During this trip Newton collected zoological material in the Luanda, Bengo, Cuanza Norte, Cuanza Sul, Malange, and Namibe provinces, which led to the description of several new amphibian and reptile taxa (Ferreira 1904, 1906; Ceríaco et al. 2014), as well as the publication of several ornithological and mammalogical contributions (e.g. Seabra 1905a, 1905b, 1906, 1907). The majority of these collections are still extant at the Museu de História Natural e da Ciência of the University of Porto. So far, no plant collections are known from this last expedition. However, the herbarium where they most likely would be held (PO) is not fully databased and it was not possible to access its collections. The alternative names and unclear identity of Francisco Newton Henriques (1885) was the first author to mention Francisco Newton in a publication, and referred to him as ‘Frank Newton’. The next year, Henriques published some more information on Newton’s collecting activities, but this time referred to him as ‘F. Newton’ only (Henriques 1886a). Bocage, director of the Zoological Section of the National Museum of Lisbon and main beneficiary of Newton’s Gulf of Guinea 1885–1895 collections, referred to the explorer as ‘sr. Francisco Newton’, ‘sr. Newton’, or simply as ‘F. Newton’ in all his publications in Portuguese (e.g. Bocage 1892, 1893) and as ‘M. F. Newton’, ‘M. Francisco Newton’ and ‘M. Newton’ in articles published in French (e.g. Bocage 1890, 1903). In 1939, Gossweiler published a selection of short biographical notes on plant collectors in Angola and provided Newton with the full name of Francisco Xavier Oakley [sic, O’Kelly] de Aguiar [also spelled Aguilar] Newton. Soon after, Silva (1940) spelled the full name as Francisco Xavier Cackley [sic, O’Kelly] de Aguiar Newton. Since then this full name has been used in most references and databases. However, it must be noted that the official name under which Newton was registered at baptism is simply ‘Francisco Newton’ (Arquivo Distrital do Porto 2013). During the 19th century it was customary to add the surnames of ancestors to a person’s given name to show their ancestry, which explains the information given by Gossweiler. On herbarium specimen labels Newton’s first name appears as ‘F.’, ‘Fr.’, ‘Francisco’, or ‘Frank’ (see specimens at JSTOR Global Plants, https://plants.jstor.org/). Some extant zoological specimens housed in both the Museu Nacional de História Natural e da Ciência, Lisbon (mostly collected in the Gulf of Guinea from 1885–1895, and in Cape Verde Islands) and in the Museu de História Natural e da Ciência, University of Porto, Porto (these collected during Newton’s 1903–1905 zoological expedition to Angola), bear the names ‘Sr. Newton’ and ‘F. Newton’. The alternative names ‘Frank’ and ‘Francis’ also appear in correspondence. The letters that Newton wrote from Angola (mentioned above) are all signed ‘Frank Newton’ or ‘Frank W. Newton’. The handwriting in the letters matches that of the labels of the specimens collected in Angola, some of the labels being signed ‘Frank Newton’. Another letter sent to Kew (Newton 1902b) is signed ‘Francis Newton’. This letter was sent much later, and its date (1902) and the place from which it was mailed (Cape Verde Islands) correspond to the period of Francisco Newton’s stay on those islands. Also from that time and place Newton wrote (1901) to Walter Rothschild (1868–1937) of the Zoological Museum at Tring (Hertfordshire, England) as ‘Francis Newton’ and later as ‘Francisco Newton’ (1902c). The letter addressed to Henriques and that dates from 1885 (Newton 1885) is signed ‘Francisco’, as he did in other letters he wrote to Portuguese correspondents. The signatures and handwriting vary considerably but it must be taken into account that the correspondence spans almost 20 years. The middle initial ‘W.’ in one of the early letters cannot be explained. However, in the signature of a further letter by Newton (1895) deposited at Kew, the name ‘Francisco’ is written in such a way that it could be read as ‘Francis w’. Another person by the name of Newton is connected to the botanical exploration of Angola. In 1890 Schinz described the new species Anticharis aschersoniana Schinz (1890: 188), in the protologue of which he cited a collection from ‘Provinz Mossamedes’ by Newton. In a footnote he added that he had received the specimen from O. Hoffmann and that it had been sent to Hoffmann by Robert Scott Newton, at the time British consul in Luanda [‘Das Exemplar gehört zu einer mir von Herrn Dr. O. Hoffmann zur Bearbeitung überwiesenen Collection von Pflanzen, die von Herrn Robert Scott Newton, engl. consul in Loanda übersandt wurden’]. A few years later, in 1902 Schinz described another species, Aeschynomene newtonii Schinz (1902: 948), and cited a single specimen from ‘Mossamedes, margens do rio Humpata’ also collected by Robert Scott Newton with the number ‘80’. FRANCISCO NEWTON (1864–1909) IN ANGOLA Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press • 213 Robert Scott Newton was a Scotsman who resided in Luanda from at least 1873 to 1883 and was the British viceconsul or acting consul (Frere 1873; Johnston 1923). He owned a store and a line of steamers that travelled up and down the Cuanza River. Johnston, who had met R.S. Newton during his trip to Angola with Mayo in 1882 (Johnston 1884, 1923), embarked on a voyage up the Cuanza River in one of the steamers of the Quanza Navigation Company that was run by Newton’s trading firm, Newton, Carnegie and Co. Robert S. Newton was a very influential figure as almost everybody in Luanda was dependent on his company for material goods (Birmingham 1998). The specimen of Aeschynomene newtonii, with barcode Z-000021371, is available for examination in the online database of the Zürich Herbaria (https://www.herbarien.uzh.ch/en.html). It does not have an original label and the collector is simply named Newton. The handwriting on the label matches that on other F. Newton specimens that were distributed. The specimen cited in 1890, which is the type of Anticharis aschersoniana, with barcode Z-000064425, is also available online. Examination of this specimen confirms that R.S. Newton was not the collector of the material. The original label of the specimen is in the same handwriting as found on other labels of specimens collected by a ‘Newton’ in Angola from 1881–1884 that we have examined; some of these are signed ‘Frank Newton’. Therefore we believe Z-000064425 was collected by Frank Newton, and not by ‘Robert Scott Newton’. The specimen Z-000021371 is also to be attributed to F. Newton. Notwithstanding, Aeschynomene newtonii commemorates Robert S. Newton, even if the type was collected by F. Newton, and R.S. Newton merely sent it to Europe. It is not known how Hoffmann obtained information on the sender of the material. Hoffmann (see below) was well acquainted with Newton’s collections. This incident raises the question of whether the two Newtons were related, which we were unable to ascertain beyond doubt. More importantly, it could cast doubt on the identity of the individual named ‘Frank Newton’. For example, could Frank Newton have been a relative of R.S. Newton, rather than being the same person as Francisco Newton? Circumstantial evidence indicates that this is not the case, given that the Earl of Mayo is the thread that connects ‘Frank Newton’ and ‘Francisco Newton’. Frank Newton collected for Mayo, as evidenced by the specimen labels, and Francisco Newton stated that he accompanied Mayo and had sent him a box of plants. Since the specimen labels were written in Portuguese this also excludes any foreigners named Newton as possible collectors of the specimens. Newton used English equivalents of his name, at least when he was dealing with non-Portuguese speakers, as shown in the way he signs his letters to foreign correspondents. Newton’s legacy Francisco Newton’s herpetological collections from Benin, studied and published by Bocage (1887) were the first herpetological records from that African country. The zoological collections he made in the Gulf of Guinea, namely those in the islands of São Tomé and Príncipe, were the most extensive and complete at the time, and largely contributed to the knowledge of the vertebrate fauna of the islands (Bocage 1903, 1905). It can be said that he is most likely the most important zoological collector for São Tomé and Príncipe ever. Francisco Newton is commemorated in at least 22 names of vascular plants and he collected specimens that became types of over 50 plant names. Concerning zoological taxa, the explorer is commemorated in at least seven names of vertebrates (birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles), and his collected specimens formed the basis of the description of at least 34 vertebrate taxa, from the Gulf of Guinea Islands, Benin, and Angola. Newton’s vascular plant collections, collection numbers, duplicates and implications for typification As noted above, the plant collections of Francisco Newton in Angola that were sent to K with Johnston’s collections have handwritten labels with details of the collecting locality, some characteristics of the plant, the date of the collection, and in a few cases ‘Frank Newton encontrou’ [Frank Newton found it] written on it. However, the collections are unnumbered. Other collections made by Newton were deposited at the University of Coimbra (COI) and duplicates were distributed from there. Some collections have numbers that have erroneously been cited as collection numbers and used to link duplicates and determine type status, which is not correct as explained below. A chronological listing of these ‘collection numbers’, i.e., according to collecting date, does not yield a sequential list. Furthermore in several cases there are different numbers on the same specimen. For example the specimen mentioned above carries two different numbers, ‘nº9’ and ‘(46)’, in different handwritings. These numbers are not original field numbers; rather they are ‘distribution numbers’ added later when the specimens were distributed in numbered sets (see below). Henriques received Newton’s collections, as well as those collected by others in Africa, at the incipient herbarium of the University of Coimbra. Since COI lacked a good reference herbarium, literature, and specialists in exotic floras, he sent the material abroad for determination by numerous specialists (Exell 1944). Some of the specimens dispatched were duplicates that the specialist could keep, while other specimens were unique and were to be returned to COI. The specimens were sent in numbered sets, with inconsistent numbering systems that included many errors. As explained 214 • Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press FIGUEIREDO ET AL. at length by Exell (1944: 383) with reference to material originating from São Tomé and Príncipe, in some cases both the collector’s number and Henriques’ distribution number were noted in the original collecting labels (‘tickets’ as Exell called them), which allowed for identifying duplicates. However the original labels were not always kept at COI. While collections kept at COI do not carry Newton’s original label, a duplicate sent to K (K000366279), for example, that is date-stamped as being from 1914 (likely the date when it was received at K) includes Newton’s original label. One of the specialists that Henriques contacted for specimen identification was the German Karl August Otto Hoffmann (1853–1909). In 1885 Henriques sent Hoffmann the overwhelming number of 499 specimens for identification; 362 were donated to Hoffmann, while 137 had to be returned. Of these, 360 specimens were collected by Newton in Angola. Hoffmann, who was quite busy in his career as a high school teacher, had to identify (at least part of) the material during his holidays. In October 1885 he sent Henriques a list of determinations. These determinations were later published by Henriques (1886b). The letter from Hoffmann with the list of determinations (Hoffmann 1885) includes a note where specimens to be kept at his herbarium are listed as 1 to 287, and specimens to be returned as ‘(1)’ to ‘(73)’. This explains the numbers in brackets that appear on some labels. Later, Henriques sent other packages of specimens to Hoffmann. A postcard (Hoffmann 1893a) from Hoffmann to Henriques dated 1893 states that some numbers in the material Hoffmann had received were repeated. In fact, Henriques created new numerical lists, each likely starting with ‘1’, for each of the packages of material he mailed to Hoffmann, which explains the repeated numbers on herbarium labels attached to very different specimens. For example, Newton 66 is referred to in a list of determinations of Asteraceae that Hoffmann returned to Henriques in 1893 (that would result in the papers published by Hoffmann in 1892 and 1897; Hoffmann 1893b) as ‘(66)’. The specimen was unique and returned to COI and thus it is the holotype of the name Anisopappus angolensis Hoffmann (1892: 176). In the first list returned by Hoffmann, mentioned above, number ‘66’ was used for a legume of which the specimen was not unique. On the other hand, Omphalopappus newtonii Hoffmann (1892: 176) appears in this list as the determination for number 28, which is not marked as a unique specimen. Omphalopappus newtonii was based on a single collection of Newton from Humpata, without duplicates recorded, therefore the holotype of this name is the specimen that Hoffmann kept. Hoffmann’s extensive and well-curated herbarium (Bonifacino et al. 2009) was eventually donated to the Berlin Herbarium (B). Many of his specimens were destroyed during the bombing of Berlin in World War II, including several of Newton’s specimens. Specimens of some families or special collections at Berlin Herbarium survived the destruction and are still extant (see https://www.bgbm.org/en/general-herbarium for a list of extant material). Another specialist contacted by Henriques was the Austrian agrostologist Eduard Hackel (1850–1926), in St. Pölten, to whom Henriques sent a package with 63 specimens of Poaceae. Hackel had a private herbarium that was eventually integrated into the Natural History Museum in Vienna (W). Less complacent than Hoffmann towards requests for mass identifications, Hackel in his letter of February 1885 addressed to Henriques (Hackel 1885a) gave lengthy reasons why he could not satisfy the request, and concluded the letter by renouncing the ‘halo of the clever grass identifier, as Munro who, because he scattered his time with identifications, did not publish a single line of the monograph he had been promising to the Candolle gentlemen for 12 years’ [‘J’ai donc renoncé à l’auréole de l’habile déterminateus de Graminées, tel qu’il fut Munro, qui justement par cette raison, qu’il éparpillait son temsps en déterminations, ne publia pas un ligne de sa Monographie promise à MM de Candolle depuis 12 ans’]. Regardless, Hackel then proceeded by returning a list of determinations to Henriques, as well as the descriptions of four new species that Henriques could publish. Soon afterwards Henriques (1885) indeed published some of these. In Hackel’s list, numbers 1–58 were duplicates for retention in Hackel’s herbarium, while numbers 59–63 had to be returned. As in the case of the specimens sent to Hoffmann, these numbers match those that appear on some labels. For example, the specimen of Andropogon newtonii Hackel (1885b: 137) held at the United States National Herbarium, Smithsonian Institution (US), specimen with barcode US00156708, is a fragment obtained from the herbarium of the Natural History Museum in Vienna (W) in 1922; this material originated from Hackel’s herbarium and is marked ‘(22)’ and ‘146’. The number for the specimen of this species in Hackel’s list of duplicates is indeed ‘22’. However, it is not known what the number ‘146’ refers to. Number 22 is within the range of specimens that Hackel kept in his own herbarium which was later integrated into W. The examples above show that each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits. To add to the confusion of duplicates, it also appears that Henriques grouped some collections received at Coimbra by taxon under a single number (Exell, 1944), as Friedrich Welwitsch did with his own collections (Albuquerque et al. 2009). Some of Newton’s specimens have labels that indicate that they were collected in different localities. This means the specimens consist of plants from different areas and even if they appear as a single gathering under one number, they are not duplicates. For example, for Andropogon newtonii discussed above, an unnumbered fragment that was received from COI on an unknown date is kept at K. If it belonged to the same gathering as the holotype, it would be a duplicate and isotype. FRANCISCO NEWTON (1864–1909) IN ANGOLA Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press • 215 However, as the labels of the specimens of A. newtonii have more than one locality (Huíla, Lubango, and Humpata), the specimens cannot be regarded as being from a single gathering. Although recorded as an isotype of the name Andropogon newtonii, the fragment at K has no type status. Furthermore, since Newton’s collections were initially unnumbered and the numbers that appear on labels were added later for distribution purposes, specimens that appear with the same number are not necessarily duplicates. Finally it must be noted that Henriques (1885, 1886b) did not refer to any collection numbers when citing Newton’s specimens. Collecting localities A list of localities as given on the labels of the collections by Newton, or mentioned in this text was compiled and is given in Table 1. The equivalent actual name [following Centro de Geografia do Ultramar, (1973) and Figueiredo & Smith (2008)] and location on the map (Fig. 3), coordinates or descriptive notes on their location are given based on information derived from historical and contemporary maps (Bandeira & Leal 1864, Missão Geográfica de Angola 1959–1960, Centro de Geografia do Ultramar 1973). We could not establish the location of some toponyms. Over the past two centuries many changes were made to geographical names used in Angola and several toponyms are no longer known. It must be noted that several names that are now names of towns, at the time were names of states or regions that would have covered a much larger area (e.g. Humbe and Humpata); this also applies to the names of rivers (e.g. Humpata and Palanca). Furthermore, as there are no field books and the information on the few original, extant labels is scant, it is not possible to determine the exact locations where Newton made collections. For these reasons we only show approximate locations on the map. FIGURE 3. Map of southern Angola indicating the approximate location of toponyms mentioned in the text (1: Bibala; 2: Humpata; 3: Capangombe; 4: Huíla; 5: Bumbo; 6: Humbe; 7: Ruacaná; 8: Palanca; 9: Hahi; 10: Chicusse; 11: Quitibe; 12: Tongo-tongo; 13: Chibemba; 14: Mulondo). Types of names of vascular plants collected by Newton in Angola Note that in the list presented here the numbers that follow Newton’s surname are given in single quotation marks as they are not to be interpreted as collection numbers. These ‘distribution numbers’ were added later when material was distributed. For consistency and to facilitate access to information by users, family classification follows Figueiredo & Smith (2008). 216 • Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press FIGUEIREDO ET AL. ACANTHACEAE Barleria newtonii Lindau (1895: 117). Holotype:—Chela, July 1883, Newton ‘193’ (B, likely destroyed). Blepharis obmitrata Clarke in Burkill & Clarke (1899: 101). Syntype:—Humbe, on the R. Cunene and Gambos, s.d., [F.] Newton comm. H.H. Johnston s.n. (K [barcode K000394262]). Dyschoriste cunenensis Clarke in Burkill & Clarke (1899: 74). Holotype:—Mulondo, Rio Cunene, 1 July 1882, F. Newton comm. H.H. Johnston s.n. (K [barcode K000393908]). The label is signed Frank Newton. Petalidium huillense Clarke in Burkill & Clarke (1899: 91). Holotype:—Chivique, margens do Cunene, 15 July 1882, F. Newton comm. H.H. Johnston s.n. (K [barcode K000394088]). The label is signed F. Newton. Phaulopsis johnstonii Clarke in Burkill & Clarke (1899: 86). Lectotype (designated by Manktelow 1996: 2):— Gambos, s.d., [F.] Newton s.n. (K [barcode K000394063]). Syntype: Gambos, s.d., [F.] Newton comm. H.H. Johnston s.n. (K [barcode K000394064]). ANTHERICACEAE Anthericum basilanatum Von Poellnitz (1943: 60). Holotype:—Gambue [Gambos], December 1882, [F.] Newton s.n. (B [barcode B 10 0165972]). Von Poellnitz stated in the protologue that the type was at B. Anthericum gambuense Von Poellnitz (1943: 66). Holotype:—Gambue [Gambos], November 1882, [F.] Newton ‘167’ (B [barcode B 10 0165951]). Von Poellnitz stated in the protologue that the type was at B. ASTERACEAE Anisopappus angolensis Hoffmann (1892: 176). Holotype:—Humpata, March 1883, F. Newton ‘66’ (COI [barcode COI00077150]). In Hoffmann’s list ‘(66)’ is a unique specimen that had to be returned to COI. Antunesia angolensis Hoffmann (1892: 179). Holotype:—Monhino, [date not stated], [F.] Newton [number not stated, likely ‘12’] (B, likely destroyed). In Hoffmann’s list (Hoffmann 1893a) the name appears for specimen number ‘12’, which was a gift. Therefore the holotype of the name Antunesia angolensis is the specimen that was deposited at B. Hoffmann had previously described the new genus Newtonia, with the species Newtonia angolensis Hoffmann (1890: 285). The genus name was illegitimate because of the pre-existence of the genus name Newtonia Baillon that was published in 1888. Incidentally, Newtonia Baillon commemorates the physicist Sir Isaac Newton. Soon after, Hoffmann described the new genus Antunesia (so commemorating J.M. Antunes, see above) to accommodate the species. Berkheyopsis angolensis Hoffmann (1892: 180). Syntype:—Humpata, [date not stated], [F.] Newton [number not stated, likely ‘39’] (B, likely destroyed). In Hoffmann’s list (Hoffmann 1893a) this name appears for specimen number ‘39’, a gift from Henriques. The syntype should be the specimen deposited at B. The other syntypes are [F.] Welwitsch 3795 and 3799, with locality not stated, and [J.] Anchieta [number not stated] from Quissange. Geigeria acicularis Hoffmann (1892: 175). Syntype:—Angola, [date not stated], Newton [number not stated]. The name is not on the Hoffmann lists (Hoffmann 1885, 1893a) we examined and the protologue gives no further information on the collection. At COI a specimen from Nene, March 1883, Newton ‘29’ (COI [barcode COI00077213]) has a label in German, in Hoffmann’s handwriting, indicating that it originated from him. Hoffmann might have received this specimen at a later date. This is likely the syntype. The other syntype, also from Angola, is [F.]Welwitsch 3986. Geigeria angolensis Hoffmann (1892: 175). Syntype:—Huíla, [date not stated], [F.] Newton [number not stated]. The name is not on the Hoffmann lists (Hoffmann 1885, 1893a) we examined and the protologue gives no further information on the collection. The syntype was likely destroyed at B. The other syntype, also from Angola, is [F.]Welwitsch 3701. Geigeria spinosa Hoffmann (1892: 175). Holotype:—Areais de Moçâmedes, Baía dos Tigres, [date not stated], [F.] Newton [number not stated, likely ‘11’] (B). In Hoffmann’s list (Hoffmann 1893a) the name appears for specimen number 11, a gift from Henriques, the specimen at B was likely destroyed. A specimen at COI (barcode COI00077149) is also number ‘11’ but since two localities are mentioned in the protologue of the name, this specimen could be part of a different gathering and is not considered to be a duplicate. Jaumea angolensis Hoffmann (1892: 178). Syntype:—Humpata, Huíla, Chela, [date not stated], [F.] Newton [number not stated, likely ‘4’] (B, likely destroyed). In Hoffmann’s list (Hoffmann 1893a) the name appears for specimen number ‘4’, as a gift from Henriques. Therefore the syntype is the specimen that was deposited at B. The other syntypes are also from Angola: [J.M.] Antunes [number not stated] from Huíla and [J.E.] Teusz 470 from Malange. Mollera angolensis Hoffmann (1890: 205). Syntype:—[locality not stated in the protologue but cited as Humpata in Hoffmann (1892)], [date not stated], [F.] Newton [number not stated] (B, likely destroyed). The other syntype is [F.] Welwitsch [number not stated in protologue but cited as 3984 in Hoffmann (1892)] from Angola. FRANCISCO NEWTON (1864–1909) IN ANGOLA Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press • 217 Oligothrix newtonii Hoffmann (1897: 33). Holotype:—Rio Palanca, March 1883 [the year 1884 in protologue is wrong], Newton ‘24’ [the number was added in ink to the original label which was written in pencil; the number is likely a distribution number] (COI [barcode COI00077165]). The specimen has a label from the Berlin Herbarium, and it was signed by Hoffmann, indicating it was received from Berlin. The number is not in Hoffmann’s lists (Hoffmann 1885, 1893a) we examined but it is cited in the protologue. Oligothrix xyridopsis Hoffmann (1897: 33). Syntype:—Humpata, September 1883, [F.] Newton ‘27’ [likely a distribution number] (B, likely destroyed). The other syntype is [F.] Welwitsch 3992 from Angola. Omphalopappus newtonii Hoffmann (1892: 177). Holotype:—Humpata, margens do Rio Nene ou Neve, [date not stated], [F.] Newton [number not stated, likely ‘28’] (B, likely destroyed). In Hoffmann’s list (Hoffmann 1893a) the name appears for specimen number ‘28’. Pleiotaxis newtonii Hoffmann (1893b: 537). Holotype:—Serra da Chela, June 1883, [F.] Newton ‘64’ [number not stated in protologue] (COI [barcode COI00069233]). In Hoffmann’s list (Hoffmann 1893a) the name appears for specimen ‘(64)’ meaning it was a unique specimen to be returned to COI. This number was added in ink to the original pencil-written label. The specimen is incorrectly labelled ‘Isotype’. Sphaeranthus calcareus Robyns (1924: 192). Holotype:—Huíla, Humpata, omaramba, 15 July 1883, [F.] Newton comm. H.H. Johnston s.n. (K [barcode K000274195]). The original label is signed Frank Newton. CYPERACEAE Bulbostylis cylindrica Clarke (1902: 446). Holotype:—Huíla, Humpata, April 1883, [F.] Newton ‘28’ (BM [barcode BM000922584]). There is a specimen at COI with the same number, from the same locality and date, likely an isotype (Humpata, April 1883, F. Newton ‘28’, barcode COI00071497). The specimen at BM has a label by Clarke stating that it is the type. Fuirena glomerata var. angolensis Clarke (1902: 466). Syntype:—Gambos, [date not stated], F. Newton comm. H.H. Johnston s.n. (K [barcode K000416827]). The other syntypes are: [H.H.] Johnston [number not stated] from Huíla to Humpata, [J.W.] Gregory 102 from Athi [Kenya], [M.] Rautanen [number not stated] from Amboland [Ovamboland, Namibia]. EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia subterminalis Brown in Brown, Hutchinson & Prain (1911: 504). Syntype:—River Cunene, 17 July 1882, F. Newton comm. H.H. Johnston s.n. (K [barcode K000253172]). The original label is signed Frank Newton. The other syntype is [H.H.] Johnston [number not stated] from between Huíla and Humpata. FABACEAE Aeschynomene newtonii Schinz (1902: 948). Holotype:—Moçâmedes, Humpata, margens do Rio Nene, February 1883, [F.] Newton ‘80’ (Z [barcode Z-000021371]). Cassia huillensis Welwitsch ex Mendonça & Torre (1955: 32). Paratype:—Humpata, February 1883, F. Newton ‘217’ (COI [barcode COI00000790]). Cassia newtonii Mendonça & Torre in Exell & Mendonça (1955: 32). Holotype:—Huíla, May 1883, F. Newton ‘98’ (COI [barcode COI00000864]; fragments removed from the holotype at BM [barcode BM000799430] and LISC [barcode LISC001579]). The number was added in ink to the original label that was written in pencil. Crotalaria newtoniana Torre (1960: 30). Paratype:—Serra da Chela, June 1883, F. Newton ‘55’ (COI [barcode COI00002478]). The number was added to the original label. Lotononis newtonii Dümmer (1913: 303). Holotype:—Munhino, July 1883, [F.] Newton ‘95’ (Z [barcode Z000022972]; fragment ex Z at K [barcode K000413497]). Tephrosia newtoniana Torre (1960: 62). Paratype:—Humpata, February 1883, F. Newton (COI [barcode COI00004109]). LAMIACEAE Coleus newtonii Briquet (1906: 826). Holotype:—Huíla, cascata, May 1883, [F.] Newton ‘105’ (Z [barcode Z000018893]). Leonotis newtonii Briquet (1903: 1093) Holotype:—Humpata, March 1883, [F.] Newton ‘106 ‘(Z [barcode Z000018839]). Leucas newtonii Briquet (1903: 1089). Holotype:—Munhino, base da Serra da Leoa, July 1883, [F.] Newton ‘(46)’ (Z [barcode Z-000018846]). The number was added to the original label. 218 • Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press FIGUEIREDO ET AL. Orthosiphon newtonii Briquet (1903: 990). Holotype:—Humpata, February 1883, [F.] Newton ‘108’ (Z [barcode Z-000018972]). OLEACEAE Jasminum newtonii Gilg & Schellenberg (1913: 95). Holotype:—[locality not stated], December 1882, [F.] Newton [number not stated] (B, likely destroyed). POACEAE Andropogon newtonii Hackel (1885b: 137). Holotype:—Lubango, Humpata e Huíla, March 1883, F. Newton ‘(22)’ (W [barcode W19160027565]). It was listed by Hackel (Hackel 1885a) as number 22, a gift from Henriques to his herbarium. A fragment of the type is at US (barcode US00156708); it has numbers ‘22’ and ‘146a’ and was obtained from W. A fragment at K (barcode K000280180), originated from COI and not from Hackel, and is not a duplicate. Three collecting localities are cited in the holotype specimen and therefore it has no duplicates. Andropogon poecilotrichus Hackel (1885b: 138). Syntypes:—Campos da Humpata, pr. Rio Nene, March 1883, F. Newton ‘23’ (W [barcode W19160027555]; fragment ex W at US [barcode US00156718]; K [barcode K000280222], K [barcode K000280223]. The fragment at US was obtained in 1922 from Hackel’s herbarium held in W. A specimen at K (barcode K000280222) received from COI in 1914, has the original Newton label, to which the distribution number ‘(23)’ was added. This label reads that ‘todas 3 dos campos da Humpata’ [all three from the fields of Humpata] which indicates that three specimens were collected at the same locality and on the same date. Even though unnumbered originally, we consider them as parts of the same gathering (duplicates) and syntypes. The third specimen that likely is at COI could not be examined as we did not have access to that herbarium. Another specimen at K (barcode K000280223) is a fragment obtained from COI, likely from that specimen. Aristida tenuirostris Henrard (1928: 622). Syntypes:—Munhino, July 1883, F. Newton ‘18’; Bibala e Munhino, July 1883, F. Newton ‘31’; Serra Giraul, July 1883, F. Newton ‘45’ [given as ‘41’]. In the protologue Henrard cited ‘Angola: Biballa e Mouhino, Serra Giraul, terra ferruginosa, VII. anno 1883 leg. F. NEWTON no. 18, 31 et 41. Typus speciei in Herb. Hackel Vindobon. sub no. 22488’ . A specimen at W (barcode W19160022499) is a mixed sheet, with three plants and three labels with the numbers ‘18’, ‘31’ and ‘45’. The citation of ‘41’ in the protologue is likely a mistake for ‘45’, as number ‘41’ in Hackel’s list (Hackel 1885a) is a specimen of Andropogon and not Aristida. The three labels likely correspond to the three specimens that are directly above each label. The W database notes: ‘number 18, label in the middle, is for the type specimen’. However it is not clear if a formal lectotypification has been undertaken. Avena newtonii Stapf (1897: 291). Holotype:—Chela, April 1883, F. Newton ‘6’ (K [barcode K000345093]). Brachiaria pooides Stapf (1919: 554). Syntypes:—Munhino, [date not stated], [F.] Newton ‘7’; Serra da Chela, [F.] Newton ‘3’. Both syntypes are likely at K where Stapf worked when he published the name. At K there is a Newton specimen (barcode K000281902) sent from COI, with the number ‘3’ written on it. This specimen was noted as being from Chela; it could be a syntype even though it is not so identified. There are also two Newton specimens (barcode K000257090 and barcode K000257091) with number ‘7’ written on them but they were collected on a later date, in Benin, and apparently correspond to another numbering system and sequence. In Hackel’s list (Hackel 1885a) of the material kept in his herbarium, numbers ‘7’ and ‘3’ are species of Panicum. At W there is a specimen (barcode W19160022703) with the number ‘7’, from Monino, July 1883, identified as Brachiaria pooides. The other syntypes are: [H.H.] Pearson 2849 from Moçâmedes, [H.H.] Pearson 2446 from Gambos Fort and Mission Station and [T.G.] Een [number not stated] from Damaraland [Namibia]. Cleistachne teretifolia Hackel (1901: 153). Holotype:—Humpata, Rio Nene, March 1883, F. Newton ‘24’ (W [barcode W19160027615]); fragment at US [barcode US01231523]). Eragrostis angolensis Hackel (1903: 199). [new name for E. brachyphylla Hackel (1902: 305) nom. illeg.]. Syntypes:—Bibala, July 1883, F. Newton ‘46’ (W barcode W19160017498]; K [barcode K000366279]; K [barcode K000366281]). In Hackel’s list (Hackel 1885a) number 46 is a species of Eragrostis. Specimen with barcode K000366279 at K ex COI in 1914 bears an original label in Newton’s handwriting with locality Bibala and date July 1883. Specimen with barcode K000366281 has the number ‘9’ and is also labelled as being from Bibala, July 1883. These three specimens appear to be from the same gathering. A further specimen, with barcode K000366280, also ex COI, is labelled as being from Bibala, with the numbers ‘(46)’ and ‘9’ added, and annotated co-type. As it is undated it could refer to another gathering. Rottboellia agropyroides Hackel (1885b: 135). Holotype:—Lobango, Humpata et Huíla, March 1883, F. Newton ‘21’ (W [barcode W19160038840]). This specimen is registered as isotype, but being from Hackel’s herbarium we FRANCISCO NEWTON (1864–1909) IN ANGOLA Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press • 219 believe it is the holotype, unless there was a holotype, also at Hackel’s herbarium, that is no longer extant. A fragment exists at US (US01231649). Considering the multiple localities indicated in the label, other specimens cannot be considered as duplicates of the same gathering. Willkommia newtonii Hackel (1896: 810). Holotype:—Bibala, base of Serra da Chela, July 1883, [F.] Newton (W [barcode W19160030501]). The specimen with barcode W19160030501 has a label in Hackel’s handwriting with the word ‘typus’ written on it, and therefore has been considered to be the holotype. Another specimen at W (barcode W19160030502) has the handwritten label that was added to the Newton material sent from Coimbra, and the number ‘(9)’ written on it. This number in Hackel’s list is identified as a species of Chloris. A specimen at K (K000257105) from the same locality but dated June 1883 and with numbers ‘5’ and ‘(9’) written on it, and another specimen at K (K000257106) with number ‘5’ written on it, do not have type status. Fragments on a sheet at US (barcode US01231729) obtained from Hackel have a label to which ‘(9)’ was added in a different colour ink, apparently at a later date. SANTALACEAE Thesium angolense Pilger (1907: 58). Holotype:—Gambos, November 1882, [F.] Newton ‘165’ (B [barcode B 10 0160827]); fragment at K [barcode K000431474]). SCROPHULARIACEAE Anticharis aschersoniana Schinz (1890: 188). Syntype:—Monhino, July 1883, Newton ‘(3)’ (Z [barcode Z000064425]). The protologue cites two collections: one from the province of Moçâmedes obtained from R.S. Newton (see discussion), the other is [F.] Welwitsch 5815, locality not stated. Buchnera humilis Skan in Hemsley & Skan (1906: 379). Holotype:—Rio Palanca, May 1882, F. Newton s.n. (K [barcode K000379703]). The original label is signed ‘F.N.’ Lindernia newtonii Engler (1897: 503). Holotype:—Humpata, Rio Nive [Nene], February 1883, [F.] Newton ‘252’ (COI, not online). Engler (1897) stated that the type is at COI. Selago angolensis Rolfe (1900: 271). Syntype:—Cunene, Caculovar, s.d., F. Newton s.n. (K [barcode K000405536]). The specimen is labelled lectotype by O.M. Hilliard but the publication where the lectotypification was effectively done was not specified. The other syntype is [H.H.] Johnston [number not stated] from between Huíla and Humpata. SOLANACEAE Solanum newtonii Dammer (1912: 251). Holotype:—Humpata, April [year not stated], [F.] Newton ‘200’ (B, likely destroyed). THYMELAEACEAE Gnidia newtonii Gilg (1896: 205). [syn. Arthrosolen newtonii Pearson (1910: 236)]. Holotype:—Huíla, Chela, Mupula, Humpata, Bibala, in montibus divulgata, December [year unknown], Newton ‘10’ (B, likely destroyed). There is a fragment of Newton ‘10’ at K (barcode K000378890) that was received from Gilg but since the collection was made in several localities, it is not a duplicate of the type. TILIACEAE [Malvaceae] Grewia newtonii Burret (1910: 189). Syntype:—Humpata, February 1883, [F.] Newton ‘234’ (B, likely destroyed). The other syntype is [F.] Welwitsch 1374 from Morro de Lopolo. XYRIDACEAE Xyris humpatensis Brown (1901: 15). Holotype:—Humpata, Rio Nene, May 1882, [F.] Newton comm. H.H. Johnston s.n. (K [barcode K000321289]). Acknowledgements We are grateful to Susana Matos for helpfully providing extremely useful information on maps of Angola. Cristiana Vieira (Herbarium PO, Museu de História Natural e Ciência, Univ. of Porto) and Filipe Covelo (Herbarium COI, Univ. 220 • Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press FIGUEIREDO ET AL. of Coimbra) are thanked for information on Newton specimens held at PO and COI. The Arquivo Histórico Museu Bocage is thanked for permission to reproduce the photograph of Francisco Newton. Two reviewers are thanked for useful comments on the manuscript. References Albuquerque, S. (2008) Friedrich Welwitsch. In: Figueiredo, E. & Smith, G.F. (Eds.) Plants of Angola/Plantas de Angola. Strelitzia, vol. 22. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, p. 2. Albuquerque, S., Brummitt, R.K. & Figueiredo, E. (2009) Typification of names based on the Angolan collections of Friedrich Welwitsch. Taxon 58: 641–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.582028 Almeida, J. (1912) Sul d’Angola; relatório de um governo de distrito (1908–1910). Typ. do Annuario Commercial, Lisboa. Andrade, A.A.B. (1985) O naturalista José de Anchieta. Estudos de História e Cartografia Antiga, Memórias nº 24. Instituto de Investigação Científica Tropical, Lisboa. Arquivo Distrital do Porto (2013) Registo de baptismo, Porto, Cedofeita, ano 1864. Available from: http://pesquisa.adporto.arquivos. pt/viewer?id=781577 (accessed 4 April 2019) Bandeira, M.S. & Leal, F.C. (1864) Angola. Mapa coordenado pelo Visconde de Sá da Bandeira, tenente general, ministro da guerra e por Fernando da Costa Leal, tenente coronel, governador de mossâmedes. Publisher unrecorded, Lisboa. Available from: http://purl. pt/4497 (accessed 4 April 2019) Birmingham, D. (1998) Merchants and Missionaries in Angola. Lusotopie 5: 345–355. Birmingham, D. (2015) A short history of modern Angola. Jonathan Ball Publishers, Jeppestown, Johannesburg. Bocage, J.V.B. (1887) Mélanges herpétologiques. II. Reptiles du Dahomey. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 11 (44): 192–197. Bocage, J.V.B. (1890) Sur une espèce nouvelle à ajouter à la faune erpètologique de St. Thomé et Rolas. Jornal de sciencias mathematicas, physicas e naturaes Sér. 2, 2 (5): 61–62. Bocage, J.V.B. (1892) Aves de Dahomé. Jornal de sciencias mathematicas, physicas e naturaes Sér. 2, 2 (7): 185–187. Bocage, J.V.B. (1893) Mammiferos, aves e reptis da ilha de Anno-Bom. Jornal de sciencias mathematicas, physicas e naturaes Sér. 2, 3 (9): 43–46. Bocage, J.V.B. (1903) Contribution à la faune des quatre îles du Golfe de Guinée. Jornal de sciencias mathematicas, physicas e naturaes Sér. 2, 7 (25): 25–59. Bocage, J.V.B. (1905) Contribution à la faune des quatre îles du Golfe de Guinée (suite). Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes Sér. 2, 7 (26): 65–96. Bonifacino, J.M., Robinson, H.E., Funk, V.A., Lack, H.W., Wagenitz, G., Feuillet, C. & Hind, D.J.N. (2009) A history of research in Compositae: early beginnings to the Reading meeting (1975). In: Funk, V.A., Susana, A., Stuessy, T.F. & Bayer, R.J. (Eds.) Systematics, Evolution, and Biogeography of Compositae. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT), Vienna, Austria, pp. 3–38. Briquet, J. (1903) Leucas newtonii Briq., sp. nov. In Schinz, H., Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Afrikanischen (Neue Folge) XV. Bulletin de l’Herbier Boissier Ser. 2, 3: 1089–1090. Briquet, J. (1903) Leonotis newtoni Briq., sp. nov. In Schinz, H., Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Afrikanischen (Neue Folge) XV. Bulletin de l’Herbier Boissier Ser. 2, 3: 1093–1094. Briquet, J. (1903) Orthosiphon newtonii Briq., sp. nov. In Schinz, H., Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Afrikanischen (Neue Folge) XV. Bulletin de l’Herbier Boissier Ser. 2, 3: 990–991. Briquet, J. (1906) Labiatae. Bulletin de l’Herbier Boissier Ser. 2, 6: 824–827. Brown, N.E. (1901) Xyrideae. In: Thiselton-Dyer, W.T. (Ed.) Flora of Tropical Africa 8 (1). L. Reeve and co, London, pp. 6–25. Brown, N.E., Hutchinson, J. & Prain, D. (1911) Euphorbiaceae. In: Thiselton-Dyer, W.T. (Ed.) Flora of Tropical Africa 6 (1). L. Reeve and co, London, pp. 441–1020. Burkill, I.H. & Clarke, C.B. (1899) Acanthaceae. In: Thiselton-Dyer, W.T. (Ed.) Flora of Tropical Africa 5 (1). L. Reeve and co, London, pp. 1–262. Burret, M. (1910) Die afrikanischen Arten der Gattung Grewia L. Botanische Jahrbücher fur Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 45 (1): 156–203. Capello, H. & Ivens, R. (1886) De Angola á contra-costa; descripção de uma viagem atravez do continente africano. Vol. 1. Imprensa Nacional, Lisboa. FRANCISCO NEWTON (1864–1909) IN ANGOLA Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press • 221 https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.63972 Centro de Geografia do Ultramar (1973) República Portuguesa. Estado de Angola. 1:2000000. Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisboa. Ceríaco, L.M.P., Blackburn, D.C., Marques, M.P. & Calado, F.M. (2014) Catalogue of the amphibian and reptile type specimens of the Museu de História Natural da Universidade do Porto in Portugal, with some comments on problematic taxa. Alytes 31: 13–36. Ceríaco, L.M.P., Marques, M.P. & Bauer, A.M. (2018) Miscellanea Herpetologica Sanctithomae, with a provisional checklist of the terrestrial herpetofauna of São Tomé, Príncipe and Annobon islands. Zootaxa 4387 (1): 91–108. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4387.1.4 Clarke, C.B. (1902) Cyperaceae. In: Thiselton-Dyer, W.T. (Ed.) Flora of Tropical Africa 8 (2/3). L. Reeve and co., London, pp. 266– 524. Comissão de Cartographia (1885) Carta de Angola. Contendo indicações de producção e salubridade. Comissão de Cartographia, Lisboa. Dammer, U. (1912) Solanaceae africanae II. Botanische Jahrbücher fur Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 48 (1/2): 224–260. Dolezal, H. (1974) Friedrich Welwitsch. Vida e Obra. Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Lisboa. Dümmer, R.A. (1913) A synopsis of the species of Lotononis, Eckl. & Zeyh. and Pleiospora Harv. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 3: 275–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/00359191309519700 Duparquet, C. (1953) Viagens na Cimbebásia. Versão e Prefácio de Gastão de Sousa Dias. Museu de Angola, Luanda. Engler, A. (1897) Scrophulariaceae africanae. Botanische Jahrbücher fur Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 23 (4): 497–517. Estermann, C. (1941) Contribuição dos missionários do Espírito Santo para a exploração científica do sul de Angola. Boletim Geral das Colónias 196: 3–15. Exell, A.W. (1944) Catalogue of the vascular plants of S.Tomé (with Príncipe and Annobon). British Museum (Natural History), London. Exell, A.W. & Mendonça, F. (1955) Novidades da Flora de Angola IV. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana Sér. 2, 29: 29–46. Ferreira, J.J.B. (1904) Reptis e Amphibios da região ao Norte do Quanza, Collecção Newton. Jornal de sciencias mathematicas, physicas e naturaes Sér. 2, 7: 111–117. Ferreira, J.J.B. (1906) Algumas espécies novas ou pouco conhecidas de Amphibios e Reptis de Angola (Collecção Newton - 1903–1904). Jornal de sciencias mathematicas, physicas e naturaes Ser. 2, 7: 159–171. Figueiredo, E., Matos, S., Cardoso, J.F. & Martins, E.S. (2008) List of collectors. In: Figueiredo, E. & Smith, G.F.(Eds.) Plants of Angola / Plantas de Angola. Strelitzia 22. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, pp. 4–11. Figueiredo, E., Silva, V. & Smith, G.F. (2018) Friedrich Welwitsch and the horticulture of succulents in Portugal in the 19th century. Bradleya 36: 200–211. https://doi.org/10.25223/brad.n36.2018.a15 Figueiredo, E. & Smith, G.F. (2008) Plants of Angola / Plantas de Angola. Strelitzia 22. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, 282 pp. Figueiredo, E. & Smith, G.F. (2009) The succulent flora of Angola. Haseltonia 15: 69–78. https://doi.org/10.2985/026.015.0107 Figueiredo, E. & Smith, G.F. (2017) Common names of Angolan plants. Second edition. Protea Book House, Pretoria, 399 pp. Figueiredo, E., Smith, G.F. & César, J. (2009) The flora of Angola: a first record of diversity and endemism. Taxon 58: 233–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.581022 Frere, H.B.E. (1874) Opening address, Session 1873-1874. Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society 18: 4–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/1799944 Gilg, E. (1896) Thymelaeaceae africanae II. Botanische Jahrbücher fur Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 23 (1/2): 203–207. Gilg, E. & Schellenberg, G. (1913) Oleaceae africanae. Botanische Jahrbücher fur Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 51 (1): 64–103. Gossweiler, J. (1939) Elementos para a história da exploração botânica de Angola. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 13: 283–305. Goyder, D.J. & Gonçalves, F.M.P. (2019) Chapter 5. The Flora of Angola: Collectors, Richness and Endemism. In: Huntley, B.J., Russo, V., Lages, F. & Ferrand, N. (Eds.) Biodiversity of Angola. Springer International Publishing, pp. 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03083-4_5 Gunn, M. & Codd, L.E. (1981) Botanical exploration of southern Africa. An illustrated history of early botanical literature on the Cape flora. Biographical accounts of the leading plant collectors and their activities in southern Africa from the days of the East India 222 • Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press FIGUEIREDO ET AL. Company until modern times. A.A. Balkema, Cape Town. Hackel, E. (1885a) Letter dated 23 February 1885. Arquivo do Deptº Ciências da Vida, Univ. de Coimbra. Identifier: Fundo JH - Pasta Gi-Hem (454) - HAC (E)-28. Available from: http://bibdigital.bot.uc.pt/ (accessed 4 April 2019) Hackel, E. (1885b) Gramineae. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 3: 135–140. Hackel, E. (1896) Gramineae. Bulletin de l’Herbier Boissier 4: 810–811. Hackel, E. (1901) Neue Gräser. Oesterreichische botanische Zeitschrift 51: 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01672754 Hackel, E. (1902) Neue Gräser. Oesterreichische botanische Zeitschrift 52: 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01791091 Hackel, E. (1903) Neue Gräser. Oesterreichische botanische Zeitschrift 53: 194-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01791222 Hemsley, W.B. & Skan, S.A. (1906) Scrophulariaceae. In: Thiselton-Dyer, W.T. (Ed.) Flora of Tropical Africa 4 (2). L. Reeve and co, London, pp. 261–462. Henrard, J.T. (1928) A critical revision of the genus Aristida. Mededelingen Van ‘s Rijks Herbarium 54 (B): 465–701. Henriques, J. (1885) Contribuição para o estudo da flora d’algumas possessões portuguezas. Plantas colhidas por F. Newton na África occidental. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 3: 129–140. Henriques, J. (1886a) Explorações botanicas na África. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 4: 250–252. Henriques, J. (1886b) Contribuição para o estudo da flora d’algumas possessões portuguezas. Plantas colhidas na Africa occidental por F. Newton, Capello e Ivens, M. R. Pereira de Carvalho e J. Cardoso. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 4: 222–234. Hoffmann, O. (1885) Letter dated 25 October 1885. Arquivo do Deptº Ciências da Vida, Univ. de Coimbra. Identifier: Fundo JH - Pasta Hen-Kec (495) - HOF (O)-10. Available from: http://bibdigital.bot.uc.pt/ (accessed 4 April 2019) Hoffmann, O. (1890) Compositae. In: Engler, A. & Prantl, K. (Eds.) Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilie iv. 5. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelman, Leipzig, pp. 87–387. Hoffmann, O. (1892) Compostas da Africa portugueza. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 10: 170–185. Hoffmann, O. (1893a) Letter dated 27 May 1893. Arquivo do Deptº Ciências da Vida, Univ. de Coimbra. Identifier: Fundo JH - Pasta HenKec (495) - HOF (O)-16. Available from: http://bibdigital.bot.uc.pt/ (accessed 4 April 2019) Hoffmann, O. (1893b) Compositae africanae I. (Tribus Mutisieae) Botanische Jahrbücher fur Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 15 (5): 536–547. Hoffmann, O. (1897) Compostas da Africa portugueza II. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 13: 11–35. Jackson, B.D. (1901) A list of the collectors whose plants are in the Herbarium of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, to 31st December, 1899. Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information, Kew 1901 (169/171): 1–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/4113200 Johnston, H.H. (1884) The Portuguese colonies of west Africa. Journal of the Society for Arts 32 (1630): 231–260. Johnston, H.H. (1895) The river Congo from its mouth to Bolobo with a general description of the natural history and anthropology of its western basin. 4th ed. revised by the author. Sampson Low, Marston & Company, London. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.58200 Johnston, H.H. (1923) The story of my life. The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Indianapolis. Lindau, G. (1895) Acanthaceae africanae III. Botanische Jahrbücher fur Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 22 (1): 112–127. Manktelow, M. (1996) Phaulopsis (Acanthaceae): A monograph. Symbolae Botanicae Upsaliensis 31 (2): 1–183. Missão Geográfica de Angola (1959–1960) Cartas de Angola. Levantamento aerofotogramétrico. Escala 1:100 000. Junta das Missões Geográficas e de Investigações do Ultramar. Nascimento, J.P. (1892) O districto de Mossamedes. Typographia do jornal As Colonias Portuguezas, Lisboa. Newton, F. (1881) Letter dated 11 October 1881. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Identifier: KADC0915. Available from: https://plants.jstor. org/ (accessed 4 April 2019) Newton, F. (1882a) Letter dated 9 March 1882. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Identifier: KADC0916. Available from: https://plants.jstor. org/ (accessed 4 April 2019) Newton, F. (1882b) Letter dated 21 December 1882. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Identifier: KADC0917. Available from: https://plants. jstor.org/ (accessed 4 April 2019) Newton, F. (1885) Letter dated 23 Aug. 1885. Arquivo do Deptº Ciências da Vida, Univ. de Coimbra. Identifier: Fundo JH - Pasta Me-N (755) - FRA (N)-1. Available from: http://bibdigital.bot.uc.pt/ (accessed 4 April 2019) Newton, F. (1895) Letter dated 22 June 1895. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Identifier: KADC1202. Available at: https://plants.jstor.org/ (accessed 4 April 2019) Newton, F. (1901) Letter dated 8 October 1901. The Natural History Museum, London, Archives. Identifier: TM1/58/2. FRANCISCO NEWTON (1864–1909) IN ANGOLA Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press • 223 Newton, F.(1902a) Letter dated 22 January 1902. Arquivo Histórico do Museu Bocage/Museu Nacional de Hisória Natural e da Ciência, Lisboa. Identifier: 139 - AHMB - CN/N-146. Newton, F. (1902b) Letter dated 31 May 1902. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Identifier: KADC6089. Available from: https://plants.jstor. org/ (accessed 4 April 2019) Newton, F. (1902c) Four letters dated January to April 1902. The Natural History Museum, London, Archives. Identifier: TM1/65/2. Nobre, A. (1946) Leça da Palmeira. Recordações e estudos de há sessenta anos. Gráf. Augusto Costa, Porto. Oliver, D. & Hiern, W.P. (1877) Compositae. In: Oliver, D. (Ed.) Flora of Tropical Africa 3. L. Reeve and co, London, pp. 253–461. Pearson, H.H.W. (1910) Thymelaeaceae. In: Thiselton-Dyer, W.T. (Ed.) Flora of Tropical Africa 6 (1). L. Reeve and co, London, pp. 212–255. Pilger, R. (1908) Santalaceae africanae. Botanische Jahrbücher fur Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie 40 (1): 57– 59. Ribeiro, M.F. (1885) Homenagem aos heroes que precederam Brito Capello e Roberto Ivens na exploração da África Austral 1484 a 1877. Lallemant Frères, Lisboa. Robyns, W. (1924) Revision of the genus Sphaeranthus. Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) 1924 (5): 177–199. https://doi.org/10.2307/4111746 Rolfe, R.A. (1900) Selagineae. In: Thiselton-Dyer, W.T. (Ed.) Flora of Tropical Africa 5 (2). L. Reeve and co, London, pp. 264–272. Schinz, H. (1890) Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Flora von Deutsch-Südwest-Afrika und der angrenzenden Gebiete. IV. Hierzu Tafel III. Verhandlungen des Botanischen Vereins für die Provinz Brandenburg 31: 179–230. Schinz, H. (1902) Leguminosae. In: Schinz, H. (Ed.) Kenntnis der Afrikanischen Flora. Bulletin de l’Herbier Boissier Ser. 2, 2 (11): 945–949. Seabra, A. (1905a) Mammiferos e aves da exploração de F. Newton em Angola. Jornal de sciencias mathematicas, physicas e naturaes Sér. 2, 7 (26): 103–110. Seabra, A. (1905b) Aves de Angola da exploração de F. Newton. Jornal de sciencias mathematicas, physicas e naturaes Sér. 2, 7 (26): 118–128. Seabra, A. (1906) Aves da exploração de Fr. Newton em Angola – Subsidios para o conhecimento da destribuição geographica das aves d’Africa occidental. Annaes de sciencias naturaes 10: 153–159. Seabra, A. (1907) Sur quelques oiseaux d’Angola envoyés par Francisco Newton. Contribution à l’étude de la distribution géographique des oiseaux de l’Afrique occidentale. Bulletin de la Société Portugaise des Sciences Naturelles 1: 41–45. Sharbau, H. (1883) Map of the southern part of Portuguese possessions on the west coast of Africa: to illustrate the Earl of Mayo’s journey in 1882–1883. Royal Geographical Society, London. Silva, J.D. (1940) Francisco Newton. Explorador naturalista. (Apontamentos para uma biografia). Colecção Pelo Império nº68. Agência Geral das Colónias, Lisboa. Stapf, O. (1897) 577. Avena newtonii Stapf. Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) 1897 (128/129): 291. Stapf, O. (1919) Gramineae. In: Prain, D. (Ed.) Flora of Tropical Africa 9 (3/4). L. Reeve and co, London, pp. 385–768. Torre, A.R. (1960) Taxa angolensia nova vel minus cognita – I. Memórias da Junta de Investigações do Ultramar Sér. 2, 19: 21–66. Von Poellnitz, K. (1943) Die Anthericum-Arten Angolas. Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana Sér. 2, 17: 55–91. 224 • Phytotaxa 413 (3) © 2019 Magnolia Press FIGUEIREDO ET AL.

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The vascular plant collections of Francisco Newton (1864–1909) in Angola

The vascular plant collections of Francisco Newton (1864–1909) in Angola

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS