61 research outputs found
Astragalus wui M. Idrees & Z. Y. Zhang 2021, nom. nov.
No full textAstragalus wui M. Idrees & Z.Y. Zhang, nom. nov. Replaced name:— Astragalus sylvaticus Y.H. Wu (2015: 718), nom. illeg., non A. sylvaticus (Pall.) Willd. (1802: 1300). Type:— CHINA. Xinjiang: Yecheng Country, Sukepiya, in border forest, alt. 3000 m, 15 Aug. 1987, Exped. Qinghai-Tibet Wu Yuhu 1067 (holotype: QTPMB, not seen). Etymology:—The specific epithet honours Prof. Dr. Wu Yuhu (Northwest Institute of Plateau Biology, Chinese Academy of Science, Xining, China), author of the replaced name, who first described this new species.Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2021, Astragalus wui, a new replacement name for A. sylvaticus Y. H. Wu (Galegeae, Papilionoideae, Fabaceae), pp. 210-211 in Phytotaxa 524 (3) on page 210, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.524.3.6, http://zenodo.org/record/564936
Salix diazii M. Idrees & J. M. H. Shaw 1015, nom. nov.
No full textSalix × diazii M. Idrees & J.M.H. Shaw, nom. nov. Replaced name:— Salix × longissima T.E.Díaz & J.Andrés (1987: 132), nom. illeg., non S. longissima P.Wessel (1855: 140). Type:— SPAIN. Léon Province: La Martina, 490 m, 29TPH91, 16 June 1985, T.E. Díaz et al. s.n. (holotype, LEB29538!, isotypes LEB29539!, LEB30605!). Etymology:— The specific epithet honours Prof. Dr. Tomás Emilio Díaz González (University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain), author of the replaced name, for his tremendous contributions to the taxonomy of the genus Salix. Distribution:— Spain, Léon Province (La Martina).Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad & Shaw, Julian M. H., 2022, A new name for extant Salix × longissima T. E. Díaz & J. Andrés (Salicaceae), pp. 213-214 in Phytotaxa 550 (2) on page 213, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.550.2.11, http://zenodo.org/record/664103
Rubus coreanus var. nakaianus H. Leveille 1910
No full text5. Rubus coreanus var. nakaianus Léveillé (1910: 358) Type (lectotype designated here):— KOREA. Quelpaert: in silvis Hallaisan, June 1909, T. Taquet 2845 (barcode E00313541!). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/ E00313541]. Note:— Léveillé (1910) cited three collections (Taquet 2834, 2835 & 2845)” in the protologue when he described this variety, but did not indicate the holotype specimen. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), all of the Léveillé’ type specimens have been purchased by E in 1919. We locate three collections, one of them “ Taquet 2834 ” deposited in E (barcode 00010578), one of them “ Taquet 2835 ” in E (barcode 00313542), and the other material “ Taquet 2845 ” in E (barcode E00313541); all these collections should be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICN). All the specimens in E bear the information “ Syntype Rubus coreanus var. nakaianus H. Léveillé ”, and it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). Hence, we designate the blooming specimen of “ T. Taquet 2845 ” in E (barcode E00313541) as the lectotype. The selected sheet bear the same locality and is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, and flower that fully correspond with the protologue.Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2022, Lectotypification of 16 names in Rubus subg. Idaeobatus, 12 names in R. subg. Malachobatus, and 1 name in R. subg. Chamaebatus (Rosaceae), pp. 13-24 in Phytotaxa 559 (1) on page 15, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/700928
Rubus ourosepalus Cardot 1917
No full text29. Rubus ourosepalus Cardot (1917: 290) Type (lectotype designated here):— W. CHINA. July 1903, E.H.Wilson 3484 (barcode P00755302!, isolectotypes: A00040689!, A00133085!). [Image available at http://coldb.mnhn.fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00755302]. Note:—In the protologue, Cardot (1917) described Rubus ourosepalus and cited “ Wilson 1903; Veitch Exped. 3484 ” as the type, but did not indicate where the type preserved. Since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11, Turland et al. 2018). According to Stafleu and Mennega (1995), Cardot’ original materials were deposited at P. We locate three duplicates, two of them deposited in A (barcode 00040689 and 00133085), and one of them in P (barcode 00755302). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1, Turland et al. 2018); hence, a lectotype may be designated (Art. 9.12). We designate the sheet in P (barcode 00755302) as the lectotype, since it is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, and flower that fully correspond with the protologue.Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2022, Lectotypification of 16 names in Rubus subg. Idaeobatus, 12 names in R. subg. Malachobatus, and 1 name in R. subg. Chamaebatus (Rosaceae), pp. 13-24 in Phytotaxa 559 (1) on page 21, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/700928
Rubus sachalinensis Leveille 1909
No full text15. Rubus sachalinensis Léveillé (1909: 332) Type (lectotype designated here):— JAPAN. Insula Sagalien: in silvis Korsakof, 30 July, 30 Sept. 1908, U. Fauire 566 (barcode E00317757!, isolectotype: A00040722!). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00317757]. Note:— Léveillé (1909) mentioned the following locality: “Insula Sagalien: in silvis Korsakof, 30 July, 30 Sept. 1908 (U. Fauire 565 & U. Fauire 566); in herbidis Vladimirof, July 1908 (U. Fauire 597); in montibus Takinosawa, 24 July 1908 (U. Fauire 567 & U. Fauire 598 pro parte” in the protologue when he describing Rubus sachalinensis, but did not indicate the holotype specimen. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), all of the Léveillé’s type specimens have been purchased by E in 1919. We locate five collections, which have been deposited in E (barcode 00010560, 00317757-00317760), and should be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICN); it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). Hence, we designate the blooming specimen of“ U. Fauire 566 ” in E (barcode 00317757) as the lectotype since it is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, inflorescence and flower that fully correspond with the protologue.Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2022, Lectotypification of 16 names in Rubus subg. Idaeobatus, 12 names in R. subg. Malachobatus, and 1 name in R. subg. Chamaebatus (Rosaceae), pp. 13-24 in Phytotaxa 559 (1) on page 17, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/700928
Rubus trianthus Focke 1911
No full text17. Rubus trianthus Focke (1911b: 140) Type (lectotype designated here):— CENTRAL CHINA. Prov. Hupeh [Hubei], June 1900, A. Henry 6045 (barcode K000737777!, isolectotypes:A00040748!, E00010654!, US00095494!). [Image available at http://specimens. kew.org/herbarium/K000737777]. Note:— Focke (1911b) cited two gathering “ A. Henry 6045 ” and “ Wilson s.n.” in the protologue when he described Rubus trianthus, but did not indicate the holotype specimen. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN). Focke’ original type materials were deposited in A, B, BORD, BR, BREM, HAN, K, LE, W and duplicate specimens in M, MO and NY (Stafleu & Cowan 1979). We located four duplicate specimens, four specimen of “ A. Henry 6045 ” deposited in A (barcode 00040748), E (barcode 00010654), K (barcode 000737777), and US (barcode 00095494). However, we did not locate the specimen “ Wilson s.n. ” in any available herbarium. All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (ICN, Art. 9.6). Hence, we designate here the original materials of “ A. Henry 6045 ” kept in K (barcode 000737777) as lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). The selected sheet is complete and well preserved specimens that fully correspond with the protologue.Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2022, Lectotypification of 16 names in Rubus subg. Idaeobatus, 12 names in R. subg. Malachobatus, and 1 name in R. subg. Chamaebatus (Rosaceae), pp. 13-24 in Phytotaxa 559 (1) on page 18, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/700928
Rubus idaeopsis Focke 1911
No full text8. Rubus idaeopsis Focke (1911b: 203) Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Im östlichen Himalaya; in Yünnan, und zwar in Wäldern bei Mongtse in 1500-1600 m. Höhe, A. Henry 10922 (barcode K000737858!, isolectotypes: K000737857!, NY00429685!, US00097923!, US 00996965!). [Image available at http://specimens.kew.org/herbarium/K000737858]. Note:— Focke (1911b) provided the following locality information: “Im östlichen Himalaya; in Yünnan, und zwar in Wäldern bei Mong-tse in 1500-1600 m. Höhe (A. Henry 10922)”, but did not say in which herbarium the type is allocated. Since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), Focke’ type materials were deposited in A, B, BORD, BR, BREM, HAN, K, LE, W and duplicate specimens in M, MO and NY. We located 5 duplicate specimens, two of them deposited in K (barcode 000737857 & 000737858), one in NY (barcode 00429685), and two in US (barcode 00097923 & 00996965). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes (Art. 9.6 of ICN). We designate here the specimen “ A. Henry 10922” kept in K (barcode 000737858) as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN) because it has the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescence that fullycorrespond with the protologue.Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2022, Lectotypification of 16 names in Rubus subg. Idaeobatus, 12 names in R. subg. Malachobatus, and 1 name in R. subg. Chamaebatus (Rosaceae), pp. 13-24 in Phytotaxa 559 (1) on page 15, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/700928
Rubus feddei Leveille & Vaniot 1910
No full text21. Rubus feddei Léveillé & Vaniot (1910: 549) Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Kweichou [Guizhou]: Lo-Fou, March 1909, J. Cavalerie 3576 (barcode E00010594!, isolectotypes: A00040591!, K000737634!, P00755234!, P00755235!). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00010594]. Note:—In the protologue, Léveillé & Vaniot (1910) cited one collection: “ J. Cavalerie 3576 ” as the type, without indicating the herbaria where the specimen was deposited. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11, Turland et al. 2018). We locate five duplicate specimens, deposited in A (barcode 00040591), E (barcode 00010594), K (barcode 000737634), and P (barcode 00755234-00755235). According to Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1 (Turland et al. 2018), none of them can be treated as holotype, but all these collections should be regarded as syntypes; hence, a lectotype may be designated (Art. 9.17 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), all of the Léveillé’ type specimens have been purchased by E in 1919. Thus, we designate here the sheet kept in E (barcode 00010594) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is morphologically complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the diagnostic features in agreement with the protologue.Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2022, Lectotypification of 16 names in Rubus subg. Idaeobatus, 12 names in R. subg. Malachobatus, and 1 name in R. subg. Chamaebatus (Rosaceae), pp. 13-24 in Phytotaxa 559 (1) on page 19, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/700928
Rubus alnifoliolatus Leveille & Vaniot 1906
No full text2. Rubus alnifoliolatus Léveillé & Vaniot (1906: 549) Type (lectotype designated here):— TAIWAN. Formose: lieux pierreux a kushaku, 8 June 1903, U.J. Fauire 132 (barcode E00010563!, isolectotypes: A00040525!, G00437170!, P00755172!, P00755173!). [Image available at https://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00010563]. Note:—In the protologue, Léveillé & Vaniot (1906) cited one collection: “Formose: lieux pierreux a kushaku, 8 juin 1903; U.J. Fauire 132 ” as the type, without indicating the herbaria where the specimen was deposited. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11, Turland et al. 2018). We locate five duplicates, deposited in A (barcode 00040525), E (barcode 00010563), G (barcode 00437170), and P (barcode 00755172- 00755173). According to Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1 (Turland et al. 2018), none of them can be treated as holotype, but all these collections should be regarded as syntypes; hence, a lectotype may be designated (Art. 9.17 of ICN). According to Stafleu and Cowan (1979), all of the Léveillé’ type specimens have been purchased by E in 1919. Thus, we designate here the sheet kept in E (barcode 00010563) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is a complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic features in agreement with the protologue.Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2022, Lectotypification of 16 names in Rubus subg. Idaeobatus, 12 names in R. subg. Malachobatus, and 1 name in R. subg. Chamaebatus (Rosaceae), pp. 13-24 in Phytotaxa 559 (1) on page 14, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.559.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/700928
- …
