1,324 research outputs found
Euphorbia neorugosa M. Idrees 2022, nom. nov.
No full textEuphorbia neorugosa Bruyns ex M. Idrees, nom. nov. [“ Euphorbia neorugosa Bruyns ” in Bryuns et al. (2006: 414), nom. inval.]. Replaced synonym:— Monadenium rugosum Carter (2000: 437). Type:— TANZANIA. Masasi Distr.: Mbangala Forest Res., 38 km S of Masasi, 14 March 1991, S. Bidgood, R. Abdallah & K. Vollesen 1976 (holotype: K000253479!, sheet 1, isotype: K000253580!, sheet 2).Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad, 2022, Validation of the name Euphorbia neorugosa (Euphorbiaceae), pp. 86-87 in Phytotaxa 541 (1) on page 86, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.541.1.9, http://zenodo.org/record/637527
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
Litsea pseudolongifolia Kosterm. ex Idrees 2021, nom. nov.
No full textLitsea pseudolongifolia Kosterm. ex Idrees, nom. nov. Type:— Thailand. Loei, PhuKradueng (PooKradeng), alt. 1300 m, 25 Nov. 1958, T. J . SØrensen, K. Larsen, B. Hansen, 6221 (holotype: C!; isotypes: AAU!, BKF!). Replaced name: Litsea pseudoelongata Kosterm., Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 25(3–4): 38. 1974 nom. illeg., non L. pseudoelongata H. Liou, Laurac. Chine & Indochine 179, f. 13. 1934. Distribution: N. E. Thailand: Loei (PhuKradueng, PhuLuang). The species is endemic to Thailand.Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2021, Litsea pseudolongifolia, a new replacement name for L. pseudoelongata Kosterm. (Lauraceae), pp. 259-260 in Phytotaxa 507 (3) on page 259, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.507.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/542567
Piper chaveerachi M. Idrees & Z. Y. Zhang 2022, nom. nov.
No full textPiper chaveerachi M. Idrees & Z.Y. Zhang, nom. nov. Replaced name: Piper serrulatum Chaveer. & Tanee (2007: 213), nom. illeg., non P. serrulatum Yunck. (1957: 535). Type:—CENTRAL MALAYSIA. Pahang: Cameron Highland, Berembun Mountain, alt. 1200–1600 m, evergreen forest, 18 Oct. 2003, A . Chaveerach 302 (holotype BK; isotypes BKF).Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2022, A new name for Piper serrulatum Chaveer. & Tanee (Piperaceae), pp. 299-300 in Phytotaxa 543 (5) on page 299, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.543.5.6, http://zenodo.org/record/647946
Hieracium sellii M. Idrees & Z. Y. Zhang 2022, nom. nov.
No full textHieracium sellii M. Idrees & Z.Y. Zhang, nom. nov. Replaced name:— Hieracium atriglandulosum Sell (2006: 538), nom. illeg., non H. atriglandulosum Brenner (1925: 65). Type:— GREAT BRITAIN. Ben More: 27/4425, Perthshire, v.c. 88, 1980, A.G. Kenneth 2780 (holotype: CGE, not seen). Vernacular name:—Black-glandular Hawkweed.Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2022, A new replacement name for Hieracium atriglandulosum P. D. Sell (Cichorieae, Asteraceae), pp. 88-90 in Phytotaxa 531 (1) on page 88, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.531.1.10, http://zenodo.org/record/585023
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
Dracaena neoserrulata M. Idrees & Z. Yong Zhang 2022, nom. nov.
No full textDracaena neoserrulata M. Idrees & Z.Yong Zhang, nom. nov. Replaced name:— Dracaena serrulata Baker (1894: 342), nom. illeg., non D. serrulata Perr. (1825: 113). Type:— YEMEN. Hills near Dobaibah, 4000 feet, 26 Feb. 1894, W. Lunt 206 (holotype K000401100!). (Figure 1) Etymology:— The specific epithet is derived from the prefix neo -, meaning new, and serrulata, the epithet used originally by Baker (1894). Distribution:— Yemen, Oman, southern Saudi Arabia.Published as part of Idrees, Muhammad, Zhang, Zhiyong, Jiao, Yongqing & Zheng, Xu, 2022, Two new replacement names for Dracaena serrulata Baker and D. robusta Ridley (Asparagaceae, Nolinoideae), pp. 215-218 in Phytotaxa 561 (2) on page 215, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.561.2.10, http://zenodo.org/record/705934
Delphinium yui M. Idrees & Z. Y. Zhang 2023, nom. nov.
No full textDelphinium yui M. Idrees & Z.Y. Zhang, nom. nov. Replaced name:— Delphinium omeiense W.T. Wang (1979b: 613) var. pubescens W.T. Wang (1979b: 614). Delphinium pubescens (W.T.Wang) W.T.Wang (2020: 137), nom. illeg., non Delphinium pubescens DC. (1805: 641). Type:— CHINA. Sichuan: Muli Country, Woosi, margins of the woods near stream, alt. 2600 m, 19 Aug. 1937 T.T. Yü 14022 (holotype PE-00934974!, isotypes A00109013!, PE-00934975!). Etymology:—The specific epithet “ yui ” is name after Tse-Tsun Yü who collected the type specimen.Published as part of Zhang, Zhiyong, Idrees, Muhammad & Dc, D., 2023, Delphinium yui, a new replacement name for D. pubescens (Ranunculaceae), pp. 217-218 in Phytotaxa 600 (3) on page 217, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.600.3.8, http://zenodo.org/record/808089
Agave arceliensis Idrees & Z. Yong Zhang 2023, comb. nov.
No full text<p> <i>Agave arceliensis</i> (Art.Castro, J.G. Zavala & Cruz Durán) Idrees & Z.Yong Zhang, <i>comb. nov.</i></p> <p> <b>Basionym:</b> — <i>Manfreda arceliensis</i> Art.Castro, J.G. Zavala & Cruz Durán (2018: 616).</p> <p> <b>Type:</b> — MEXICO. Guerrero: Arcelia municipality, Filo del Cerro El Tepehuaje, Campo Morado, 1393 m, 19 July 2006 (fl), <i>R. Cruz-Durán et al. 6428</i> (Holotype: FCME, isotype: CIIDIR).</p> <p> <b> <i>Distribution</i>:</b> —Endemic to northern Guerrero, Mexico (Castro-Castro, Zavala-Pérez & Cruz-Durán 2018).</p>Published as part of <i>Idrees, Muhammad & Zhang, Zhiyong, 2023, Nomenclatural transfer of Manfreda arceliensis to Agave (Asparagaceae), pp. 205-206 in Phytotaxa 616 (2)</i> on page 205, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.616.2.12, <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/8389546">http://zenodo.org/record/8389546</a>
Rubus neomultisetosus M. Idrees 2022, nom. nov.
No full text12. Rubus neomultisetosus M. Idrees, nom. nov. Replaced name: Rubus multisetosus Yü & Lu (1985: 201) nom. illeg., non Progel (1882: 102); R. polytrichus Franchet (1890: 203) nom. illeg., non Progel (1882: 102) Type (lectotype designated here):— CHINA. Yunnan: in silvis montis Tsang-chan supra Tali, alt. 2500-3000 m, fl. June 1885, Delavay 954 (barcode P00755446!, isolectotype: A00228272!). [Image available at http://coldb.mnhn. fr/catalognumber/mnhn/p/p00755446]. Etymology: —The specific epithet derives from the prefix neo -, meaning new, and multisetosus, the epithet used by Yü & Lu (1985). Note:— Rubus polytrichus Franchet (1890: 203) is a later homonym of R. polytrichus Progel (1882: 102). Later, Yü & Lu (1985) proposed a new name R. multisetosus Yü & Lu (1985: 201) to replace R. polytrichus Franchet, but this is also illegitimate later homonym (Progel 1882: 102). A new replacement name, Rubus neomultisetosus M. Idrees, is therefore proposed here. In the protologue, Franchet (1890) provided the following locality information: Yunnan: in silvis montis Tsangchan supra Tali, alt. 2500–3000 m, fl. June 1885 (Delavay 1884 & Delavay 954), but did not indicate the holotype. Tropicos (2022) lists “ G. Forrest 4400 ” kept in E as the type, with reference to the Flora of China (Lu & Boufford 2003), but this is not part of the original material and must be disregarded. According to Stafleu and Cowan (1976), Franchet worked at P, and Delavay’s specimens were deposited in K, P and PC. We locate three duplicate specimens, one of them “ Delavay 1884 ” deposited in P (barcode 00755445), and two of them “ Delavay 954 ” in A (barcode 00228272), and P (barcode 00755446). However, all the specimens have Delavay’s annotation and are well preserved. All these collections should be regarded as syntype and it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). We designate the sheet “ Delavay 954 ” in P (barcode 00755446) as the lectotype since it is morphological complete with the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescences 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
- …
