Note: Hillebrand cited both East and West Maui collections, and Sherff (Brittonia 5: 315.1945) indicated the B sheet as likely the type, but without seeing the specimen. The photo of the now destroyed B sheet shows both a Hillebrand East Maui collection and a West Maui collection by Bishop mounted together. We have selected the best extant material as the lectotype; it is of the pubescent collection mentioned by Hillebrand as from West Maui. Unfortunately, it seems that when both collections were sent to K either a label for the Bishop West Maui collection was omitted or lost. The label ([East Maui,] Haleakala South, Aug. 1858, Hillebrand s.n.) on the K sheet is associated only with the small, glabrous inflorescence in the upper right-hand corner of the sheet. Additional small branches of the East Maui Hillebrand syntype (fragment BISH-501313!, BM!, K! pro parte, US! [photo F])

Note: Hillebrand cited both East and West Maui collections, and Sherff (Brittonia 5: 315.1945) indicated the B sheet as likely the type, but without seeing the specimen. The photo of the now destroyed B sheet shows both a Hillebrand East Maui collection and a West Maui collection by Bishop mounted together. We have selected the best extant material as the lectotype; it is of the pubescent collection mentioned by Hillebrand as from West Maui. Unfortunately, it seems that when both collections were sent to K either a label for the Bishop West Maui collection was omitted or lost. The label ([East Maui,] Haleakala South, Aug. 1858, Hillebrand s.n.) on the K sheet is associated only with the small, glabrous inflorescence in the upper right-hand corner of the sheet. Additional small branches of the East Maui Hillebrand syntype (fragment BISH-501313!, BM!, K! pro parte, US! [photo F])

*Verification: W.L. Wagner, S.G. Weller.