diff --git a/data/2B/5E/87/2B5E87CCFFDD845F00ED6E4AFC12F6AC.xml b/data/2B/5E/87/2B5E87CCFFDD845F00ED6E4AFC12F6AC.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..a23931c2365 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/2B/5E/87/2B5E87CCFFDD845F00ED6E4AFC12F6AC.xml @@ -0,0 +1,2650 @@ + + + +A review and analysis of the early nomenclature and taxonomy associated with the genus name Kalanchoe (Crassulaceae subfam. Kalanchooideae), published by Michel Adanson (1727 - 1806) in 1763, with notes on the late- 18 century taxonomy of the genus + + + +Author + +Smith, Gideon F. +0000-0002-5417-9208 +Ria Olivier Herbarium, Department of Botany, Nelson Mandela University, P. O. Box 77000, Gqeberha, 6031 South Africa. +smithgideon1@gmail.com + + + +Author + +Figueiredo, Estrela +0000-0002-8511-8213 +Ria Olivier Herbarium, Department of Botany, Nelson Mandela University, P. O. Box 77000, Gqeberha, 6031 South Africa. +epnfigueiredo@gmail.com + +text + + +Phytotaxa + + +2024 + +2024-01-05 + + +633 + + +2 + + +108 +124 + + + + +http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.633.2.2 + +journal article +10.11646/phytotaxa.633.2.2 +1179-3163 +13879210 + + + + +Valid publication of the genus name +Kalanchoe +: + + + + +—In the nomenclatural system that +Adanson (1763) +used, species were named in the same way as genera, i.e., by means of a single name—also referred to as a unitary name (see + +Bai +et al +. 2023: 152 + +). +Parkinson (1987a) +argued that the genus names of Adanson were used simultaneously at two different ranks (those of genus and species) and that they were therefore not validly published, i.e., that they were contrary to the 1983 +International Code of Botanical Nomenclature +( +IBCN +) (see + +Voss +et al +. 1983 + +: Art. 20.4( +b +)), currently the +International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants +( +ICN +) (see + +Turland +et al +. 2018 + +: Art. 20.4( +b +)). This resulted in the validity of Adanson’s generic names being widely questioned more than 30 years ago [see for example +Parkinson (1987a +, b, c) in general, and +Dorr & Parkinson (1990: 131) +on + +Ravenala +Adanson (1763: 67) + +in particular]. + + +Parkinson (1987a: 85–86) +submitted a proposal for consideration by the then Committee for Spermatophyta for + +Kalanchoe + +and other genus names of Adanson to be regarded as not having been validly published. These names, depending on the circumstances, would consequently require a positive conservation decision to allow their usage to continue. In the case of + +Kalanchoe + +, its conservation against + +Vereia +Andrews (1798 + +: t. 21) was proposed formally ( +Parkinson 1987a: 85–86 +). + + +However, in the interests of nomenclatural stability, the views of +Parkinson (1987a +, b, c) were not approved, with +Brummitt (1990: 295–296) +recording that: “The committee [i.e., the then Committee for Spermatophyta] unanimously rejects Parkinson’s proposition on Adanson’s names, and the proposals […] [including on conserving + +Kalanchoe + +against + +Vereia + +] are therefore to be rejected as unnecessary.” As a result Adanson’s genus names, including + +Kalanchoe + +, were ruled as in fact validly published (see +Brummitt 1993: 874 +and +Nicolson 1993: 443 +). + + +Adanson’s description of +Kalanchoe +:—When +Adanson (1763: 248) +validly published the genus name + +Kalanchoe + +, in “XXXIII. Famille Les Jourbarbes. +Seda +.”, i.e., what is known today as the +Crassulaceae +, he provided the following description for the genus in an analytical Table: “ +Feuilles +. Oposées, simples & ailées. +Fleurs +. Corymb. +Calice +. +4 f. +[feuilles]. +Corolle +. Tube long. 4 divis. +Etamines +. 8, inégales sur 2 rangs. +Pistil +. 4[,] ovaires. +Graines +. Nombreuses, menues, cylindriques”. This description, in translation, is here interpreted as: “ +Leaves +opposite, simple, winged [further discussed below under ‘ +Identity of kalanchooid material at Adanson’s disposal +:—’]. +Flowers +[carried in a] corymb. +Calyx +4 leaved [i.e., consisting of 4 sepals]. +Corolla +long tube. 4-divided [i.e., elongated and consisting of 4 petals]. +Stamens +8, unequal, in two ranks. +Pistil +[consisting of] 4 ovaries. +Seed +numerous, small, cylindrical.” + + +Although this description of + +Kalanchoe + +was subsequently inevitably expanded, refined, and clarified, it still well defines the genus in the context of the +Crassulaceae +, and confirms, at least to some degree, Adanson’s approach of using multi-character descriptions when classifying biological organisms. + + +The tetramerous nature of the flowers of at least one species, + +Cotyledon laciniata +Linnaeus (1753: 430) + +, which, pre-Adanson, was included in + +Cotyledon +Linnaeus (1753: 429) + +, +nom. cons +., was well-known. Linnaeus himself had noted this deviation from the pentamerous flowers of + +Cotyledon + +, as understood at present, in the first ( +Linnaeus 1753: 430 +) and second ( +Linnaeus 1762: 615 +) editions of his + +Species +plantarum + +, and after +1753 in +the 5 +th +edition of his + +Genera +plantarum + +( +Linnaeus 1754a: 196 +), the first edition of which had appeared in 1737. However, more vaguely, the corolla and calyx of a broadly defined + +Cotyledon + +were noted as “semiquinquefidum” in +Linnaeus (1737: 136) +. + + +Additional information provided by Adanson when he described +Kalanchoe +:—For the genus name + +Kalanchoe + +[“ + +Kalanchoè + +.”], +Adanson (1763: 248) +provided the following three statements in the first column of the analytical Table: [1.] “ +Chin +.”; [2.] “ +Tjsacarbebe +. +Rumph +. 5. +t +. 95.”; and [3.] “ + +Cotyledon + +. +Boerh +. +I +. +B +. +t +. 288.” ( +Table 1 +). These statements were added to on p. 530 and p. 614 of +Adanson (1763) +. + + + +TABLE 1. +Additional information included by +Adanson (1763: 248 +, 530, 614) when he published the genus name +Kalanchoe +and provided a description for the genus (on p. 248). The information tabulated here is discussed in detail in the main text. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+# + + +Information provided by +Adanson (1763) +for the genus name + +Kalanchoe + + + +Explanation +
+A. +p. 248 +
1. + +Kalanchoè + + +Genus name [with a grave accent on the ‘ +è +’] +
2. +Chin +. +Linguistic or geographical origin of the name
3. +Tjsacarbebe +. +Rumph +. 5. +t +. 95. + +Vernacular name and reference to +Rumphius (1747) +
4. + +Cotyledon + +. +Boerh +. +I +. +B +. +t +. 288. + +Reference to a pre-Linnaean phrase name in +Boerhaave (1720) +
+B. +p. 530 (under the letter ‘C’) +
5. +KALANCHOE +.[;] +Sin +.[;] +Camell +. 248 + +Genus name [without a grave accent on the ‘E’][;] linguistic or geographical origin of the name[;] reference to +Camello (1704) +and p. 248 of Adanson +
6. +Tsjakarbebe.[;] +Rumph +. + +Vernacular name; and reference to +Rumphius (1747) +
7. +Cotyledon +. +Boerh +. + +Reference to a pre-Linnaean phrase name in +Boerhaave (1720) +
+C. +p. 614 +
8. +Tsjakarbebe. +Rumph +.[;] V. + +Kalanchoè + + +Vernacular name and reference to +Rumphius (1747) +[;] +vide +the genus name [on p. 248], again with a grave accent on the ‘ +è +’ +
+ + +For ease of reference all the statements, sequentially numbered, that were associated with the name + +Kalanchoe + +by +Adanson (1763: 248 +, 530, 614) are included in +Table 1 +and discussed in the text that follows. + + +“ + +Kalanchoè + +.” ( +Adanson 1763: 248 +, 614):—[ +Table 1 +rows A.1, B.5 and C.8] Since it was the genus name published by Adanson, on p. 248 “ + +Kalanchoè + +” was printed in bold and in a slightly larger font size than the rest of the text associated with it. On p. 530 the genus name was printed in small capitals and the ‘E’ lacked a grave accent, and on p. 614 it was again given with a grave accent on the ‘ +è +’. + + +“ +Chin +. / “ +Sin +.” ( +Adanson 1763: 248 +, 530):—[ +Table 1 +rows A.2 and B.5] Of the 11 genera that +Adanson (1763: 248–249) +recognised in the “Famille Les Jourbarbes. +Seda +.”, it was only for + +Kalanchoe + +that Adanson added a statement, (“ +Chin +.”), about the origin of the name [ + +Kalanchoe + +, not of “ +Tjsacarbebe +”, see ‘“ +Tjsacarbebe +. +Rumph +. 5. +t +. 95.” ( +Adanson 1763: 248 +, 530, 614):—’, below]. The work ( +Adanson 1763 +) was written mostly in French, in which “ +China +” translates as “ +Chine +”, hence the abbreviation “ +Chin +.”. The statement “ +Chin +.” is not regarded as an indication of the origin of the +material +that Adanson included in + +Kalanchoe + +, but rather as the linguistic or geographical origin of the + +name +Kalanchoe + +. In contrast to +Adanson (1763: 248) +, where “ +Chin +.” is given, the abbreviation “ +Sin +.” is used on p. 530, i.e., the Latin abbreviation for “ + +Sina + +” [ +China +] (further discussed below under ‘“ +Tjsacarbebe +. +Rumph +. 5. +t +. 95.” ( +Adanson 1763: 248 +, 530, 614):—’). + + +“ +Tjsacarbebe +. +Rumph +. 5. +t +. 95.” ( +Adanson 1763: 248 +, 530, 614):—[ +Table 1 +rows A.3, B.6, and C.8, in +Adanson (1763: 530 +, 614) as “Tsjakarbebe”, i.e., spelled with a ‘k’, not a ‘c’, to so provide the phonetical transcription of the name; and only “ +Rumph +.” given in +Adanson (1763: 530) +] Adanson was not enamoured with the binomial system of nomenclature introduced by Linnaeus 10 years before his own +Familles des plantes +was published (also see for example +McOuat 2001 +). This contributed to contemporary fellow botanists and natural historians failing to appreciate the significance of Adanson’s work, which, in the case of the publication of the name + +Kalanchoe + +, was not adopted for several decades. For example, + +K. crenata + +( +Andrews 1798 +: t. 21) +Haworth (1812: 109) +, which was first described as + +Vereia crenata +Andrews (1798 + +: t. 21) 25 years after Adanson’s +Familles des plantes +was published, is one indication that Adanson’s publication of the genus name + +Kalanchoe + +in 1763 was either overlooked (unlikely) or ignored (probably). In addition, Adanson’s preference to not follow Linnaeus’s binomial system has unfortunately resulted in considerable nomenclatural confusion concerning Adanson’s genus names and some of these are still being typified 260 years later (see for example + +Bai +et al +. 2023: 156 + +). + + +For species names, Adanson had a preference for using one-word vernacular names instead of the Latin binomials introduced by Linnaeus and “ +Tjsacarbebe +” is the common name of the (apparently but, as argued further on, very likely not single) species he included in + +Kalanchoe + +. + + +“ +Rumph +.” is a reference to the German-born, Dutch naturalist Georg Eberhard Rumphius [Rumpf] (1628–1702) who is best known for having authored the posthumously published, “ +Herb. amboin +.” ( +Rumphius 1747 +[1741–1750]). The ‘ +Index universalis in sex tomos et Auctuarium Herbarii amboinensis Cl. Georgii Everhardi Rumphii +’ ( +Rumphius 1755 +), edited by Dutch botanist Johannes Burman (1706–1779) is credited as the first place in the literature in which an author other than Linnaeus or his students used Linnaean binomials, following their introduction by +Linnaeus (1753) +two years earlier ( +Stafleu & Cowan 1983: 990 +, +Jarvis 2019 +). + + +Rumphius (1747 +: vol. 5: 276 and “ +Tab. XCV +” on the facing p.), which was also posthumously “ +nagezien en uitgegeven +” [edited and published] by “Joannes Burmannus”—Rumphius had been deceased for 45 years—included the following text: “Tabula Nonagesima Quinta ( +Fig. 1A +). +Plantam +exhibet + +Anatis Rumphio + +dictam, cum ejus +caule florifero +A separato, qui quam rarissime prodit. Observatio. Haec est + +Cotyledon + +foliis laciniatis +H. Cliffort. p. +175 & Cotyledon Afra, folio crasso, lato, laciniato, flosculo aureo. +Boerh. Ind. H. L. B. part. +I. +p. 288. +ubi vide iconem; & +Telephium Africanum +, angustiore folio, flore aurantiaco. +Plukn. Almag. p. 362. Tab +. 228. +Fig +. 3. [English: “Ninetyfifth Plate. Shows Rumphius’s Planta A[Á]natis, with its flower-carrying stem [peduncle] which is rarely borne. Observation. This is the + +Cotyledon + +foliis laciniatis of +Hort. Cliffort +. +p +. 175. and Cotyledon Afra, folio crasso, lato, laciniato, flosculo aureo of +Boerh. Ind. H. L. B. part. +I. +p +. 288. where the Figure can be seen, and the +Telephium Africanum +, angustiore folio, flore aurantiaco of +Plukn. Almag. p +. 362. +Tab +. 228. +Fig +. 3.”] As noted further on, the reference to “ +Telephium +[…] flore aurantiaco” was an error. + + +The description included in +Rumphius (1747: 276) +, as well as the material illustrated, coincide with what is today known as + +K. laciniata + +, which is not indigenous to +Ambon +( +Indonesia +), where Rumphius worked, but according to him it was found in cultivation. The plant was named “ +Planta Anatis +” by +Rumphius (1747: 276) +. +Linnaeus (1754b: 21) +, who attempted to provide binomial names for some of the species described by Rumphius (see +Jarvis 2007: 93 +), equated “ +Planta Anatis +” with + +Cotyledon laciniata + +. Note that the designations listed in the left-hand column of +Linnaeus (1754b) +were not names accepted by Linnaeus upon publication and are not validly published ( + +Turland +et al +. 2018 + +. Ex. 2 under Art. 36). +Merrill (1917: 243) +noted that the description of Rumphius might also apply to + +K. pinnata + +, but “primarily, however, +Planta anatis +is certainly + +Kalanchoe laciniata + +”. + + +Rumphius (1747: 276) +also noted the Malay vernacular name of the species as “Tsjaccarbebe” [spelled with two ‘c’s]. + + +The citation of “ +Plukn. +” in +Rumphius (1747: 276) +is a reference to Leonard Plukenet (1642–1706) [Plukenetius], a British botanist and physician (see +Stafleu & Cowan 1983: 300 +). In the context of + +Kalanchoe + +, two of Plukenet’s publications are of relevance: + + +• Plukenet’s +Phytographia +of 1692; and + + +• Plukenet’s +Almagestum +of 1696. + + +“ +Plukn. Almag. p +. 362. +Tab +. 228. +Fig +. 3.” is a reference to the “ +Almagestum +” ( +Plukenet 1696 +). On p. 362 of +Plukenet (1696) +there is mention of: “ + +Telephium maximum +Africanum + +flore aurantiaco [orange], ex +Cod. Benting Phytogr. Tab +. 228 +fig +. 3. Itèm ex + +Hollandiâ + +habuimus.” In turn, “ex +Cod. Benting Phytogr. Tab +. 228. +fig +. 3” is a reference to +Plukenet (1692) +, i.e., to his “ +Phytographia +”, which was published four years earlier. Figure 3, in the centre of the plate “Tab. 228”, i.e., “TAB. CCXXVIII”, is distinctly a rendition of a species of + +Kalanchoe + +, but certainly not of + +K. laciniata + +, which has characteristically incised leaves ( +Fig. 1B +). In the caption to “TAB. CCXXVIII”, Figure 3 is described as “ + +Telephium max, Africanum +flore aurantiaco. ex + +Cod. Benting.” This text clearly coincides closely with the phrase name and text included in +Plukenet (1696: 362) +. + + +Apart from where + +Kalanchoe + +had been validly published on p. 248 of +Adanson (1763) +, this genus name was also referenced on pp. 530 and 614. On p. 530 the following information was provided: “ +KALANCHOE +. +Sin +. [here given as the Latin abbreviation for “ + +Sina + +” [ +China +], and not as “ +Chin +.”, as on p. 248]. +Camell +. Tsjakarbebe [note the spelling with a ‘k’, not a ‘c’, as on p. 248]. +Rumph +. + +Cotyledon, +Boerh +. + +” + + +“ +Camell +.” ( +Adanson 1763: 530 +) [ +Table 1 +row B.5] is a reference to Georg Joseph Camel (1661–1706), a Jesuit missionary and pharmacist who worked in the +Philippines +( +Gicklhorn & Gicklhorn 1954: 20–25 +, +Cullum 1956 +, +Stafleu & Cowan 1979: 491 +, + +Kroupa +et al +. 2020: 174–179 + +). Camel’s name is variously spelled, as Kamel, Cameli, Camelli, Camello, or Camellus. He himself signed his name as ‘Camel’ ( +Reyes 2009: 273 +, Note 1) and this spelling is adopted in this paper, but “Camello” is used in the reference to “Camello, G.J. (1704)”. + + + +FIGURE 1. A +. The plate of the “ +Eende-Plant +, zoo als die van +Rumphius +genaamt werd” included in +Rumphius (1747 +: “ +Tab. XCV +” on the page facing p. 276). The material figured coincides well with what is today known as + +Kalanchoe laciniata + +with its laciniate leaf blades, shown in +B +. +C +. The material illustrated in +Boerhaave (1720 +: [unnumbered] page facing p. 288) also corresponds with what today is known as + +K. laciniata + +. +D +. The leaves of + +K. laciniata + +are variously and virtually throughout deeply incised. +E +. The flowers of + +K. laciniata + +are yellow and quite small, which coincide with what +Rumphius (1747: 276 +and “ +Tab. XCV +” on the facing page) described as “[…] gout-geel bloempie[s] […]”. All photographs, except 1A and 1C, by Gideon F. Smith. + + + +Camel corresponded with several notable botanists and plant collectors in +Great Britain +and continental Europe, including John Ray (1627–1705) and James Petiver ( +ca +. 1665–1718), himself a pharmacist ( +Gicklhorn & Gicklhorn 1954: 76–78 +, +Kroupa 2016 +), and through Petiver, some of Camel’s preserved specimens, drawings, and texts were taken up in the herbarium of Hans Sloane (1660–1753). Sloane bequeathed his collections to the British nation, so providing an early nucleus for the British Museum, later the Natural History Museum, London, where some of Camel’s Philippine materials still survive ( +Cristini 2022: 25 +). Camel died of dysentery in the +Philippines +at the age of 45 ( +Cullum 1956: 336 +, + +Kroupa +et al +. 2020: 177 + +). The horticulturally popular genus + +Camellia +Linnaeus (1753: 698) + +commemorates Camel. Tea, the globally popular beverage consumed hot or cold, also is at present included in + +Camellia + +, as + +C. sinensis +( +Linnaeus 1753: 515 +) Kuntze (1887: 195) + +. Camel is botanically best known for his work +Herbarium aliarumque stirpium in insula Luzone Philippinarum +: […] ( +Camello 1704 +). “ +Herb. philipp +.”, as it is known when abbreviated, was published as an appendix to volume three of John Ray’s +Historiae plantarum tomus tertius +( +Stafleu & Cowan 1979: 492 +, +1983: 609 +). + + +As recorded by + +Kroupa +et al +. (2020: 178–179) + +, citing + +Gossypium arboreum +Linnaeus (1753: 693) + +, tree cotton, as an example, which is indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, there existed “[…] early modern networks of commerce and migration that brought the two regions [the Indian subcontinent and the +Philippines +] together” and that “Through the lens of Kamel’s plants, we can recreate the bustling, cosmopolitan world of early modern +Manila +”. It is therefore clear that plant material from mainland Asia, including from the Indian subcontinent and +China +, could easily have reached the +Philippines +. + +Kalanchoe laciniata +( +Linnaeus 1753: 430 +) +Candolle (1802 + +: t. 100) was indeed recorded from southern +India +by +Wight & Walker-Arnot (1834: 360) +(see also +Philcox 1999: 63 +, +Descoings 2003: 160 +). + + +A further significant aspect of Camel’s work in the +Philippines +is that he recorded the indigenous, vernacular names of the plants he collected and investigated ( +Turner & Veldkamp 2009: 190 +, + +Kroupa +et al +. 2020: 179 + +). In +Camello (1704: 6 +, no. 18) he describes a plant as “ + +Telephium Sempervivum + +, seu +Sinarum Kalanchauhuy +” where “ +Sinarum +” indicates that the genus name + +Kalanchoe + +has a Chinese origin ( +Don 1834: 108 +, +Wittstein 1856: 137 +, +Harvey 1862: 378 +and, more recently, +Bayton 2020: 173 +). Although +Cristini (2022: 25) +correctly noted that +Adanson (1763: 248) +derived “ + +Kalanchoè + +” from “ +Kalanchauhuy +”, +Cristini (2022) +further noted that the latter name was a vernacular name obtained from “[…] the Chinese people (“ +Sinarum +”)”, a statement for which we found no evidence. “ +Sinarum +” means “of +China +” and here it refers to the common name “ +Kalanchauhuy +” having a geographical origin in +China +. We concur with +Pattock (2022: 148) +that the name had an origin in one of the Chinese languages. Further to this, +Eggli & Newton (2004: 125) +speculated that + +Kalanchoe + +might have been derived from “ancient Indian”, as in “‘kalanka-’, spot, rust; and ‘chaya’, gloss; perhaps for the glossy and perhaps sometimes reddish leaves of the Indian + +K. laciniata + +.” (see also +Smith & Figueiredo 2023: 231 +). + + + +FIGURE 2. A +. The non-laciniate leaves of + +Kalanchoe crenata + +are crenate along the margin, as in the material illustrated in +Plukenet (1692 +: t. 228, Figure 3). +B +. Several forms of + +K. crenata + +have orangey-yellow flowers, or, as described in “ +Plukn. Almag. p +. 362. +Tab +. 228. +Fig +. 3.”, i.e., ( +Plukenet 1696 +), “golden-yellow flowers”. +C +. + +Kalanchoe pinnata + +, in the vernacular often known as Goethe’s kalanchoe, was, at first, in 1786, described as + +Cotyledon pinnata + +. +D +. Close-up of flowers of + +K. pinnata + +. All photographs by Gideon F. Smith. + + + +“ + +Cotyledon + +. +Boerh +. +I +. +B +. +t +. 288.” ( +Adanson 1763: 248 +, 530):—[ +Table 1 +rows A.4 and B.7, with the book and plate references not given on p. 530 of +Adanson (1763) +and Boerhaave’s work not having been mentioned on p. 614 of the same)] “ +Boerh +.” is a reference to the Dutch physician, chemist, and botanist Herman Boerhaave (1668–1739), who is best known botanically for his two works that appeared in 1710 ( +Index plantarum, quae in horto academico Lugdano Batavo reperiuntur +. [ +Ind. pl. hort. Lugd. Bat. +]) and in 1720 ( +Index alter plantarum quae in horto academico Lugduno-Batavo aluntur +. [ +Ind. alter hort. Lugd.-Bat +. +] +), respectively ( +Stafleu & Cowan 1976: 250 +). Post-1720, these two works were sometimes bound and distributed or sold together. + + +Specifically, “ + +Cotyledon + +. +Boerh. I. B. t +. 288.” and “ +Cotyledon +. +Boerh +.”, as included in +Adanson (1763) +on p. 248 and p. 530, respectively, are references to the entry: “10. +Cotyledon +; Afra; folio crasso, lato, laciniato, flosculo aureo [golden]. + +Telephium +, +maximum +, +Africanum +, flore aurantio + +. +Ex Cod. Bent +. +Plukn. Phyt +. 228 3? +H. R. D +.” ( +Boerhaave 1720: 288 +). The black-and-white line drawing linked with entry no. 10 and similarly captioned appears on the page facing p. +288 in +Boerhaave (1720) +. The material illustrated in +Boerhaave (1720 +: [unnumbered] page facing p. 288) clearly corresponds with material of what today is known as + +K. laciniata + +( +Fig. 1C +). The “?” that appears in entry no. 10 on p. 288 of +Boerhaave (1720) +is an indication that, as discussed above under ‘“ +Tjsacarbebe +. +Rumph +. 5. +t +. 95.” ( +Adanson 1763: 248 +, 530, 614):—’, the plate in +Plukenet (1692 +: “TAB. CCXXVIII, Fig. 3”), while of a species of + +Kalanchoe + +, cannot be reconciled with material today known as + +K. laciniata + +. + + +Notably, mention of “ + +Cotyledon + +” in “ + +Cotyledon + +. +Boerh +. +I +. +B +. +t +. 288.” is not a reference to the broadly conceived + +Cotyledon + +of +Linnaeus (1753: 429–430) +. In fact, nowhere where dealing with + +Kalanchoe + +did +Adanson (1763: 248 +, 530, 614) include a direct reference to +Linnaeus (1753) +. However, the protologue of the name + +Cotyledon laciniata +Linnaeus (1753: 430) + +included the following information: + +“ +laciniata + +, 6. +COTYLEDON +foliis laciniatis, floribus quadrifidis. +Hort. cliff +175. +Roy. lugdb +. 454. +Cotyledon afra +, folio crasso lato laciniato, flosculo aureo. +Boerh. lugdb +. I. +p +. 288. +t +. 288. +Telephium africanum +, angustiori folio, flore aurantiaco. +Pluk. alm +. 362. +t +. 228. +f +. 3. +Habitat in +AEgypto.” + + +Identity of kalanchooid material at Adanson’s disposal +:—Material with deeply invaginated, i.e., ‘laciniated’, leaf blades that is referenced or mentioned in +Adanson (1763) +, +Rumphius (1747) +, and +Linnaeus (1738) +, in the latter two instances typically with phrase names ( +Table 2 +), very likely refers to the species at present known as + +K. laciniata + +( +Figs 1D and 1E +). For example, reference to the “winged” leaves [as “ +Feuilles +. Oposées, simples & ailées.”] of [one of] the kalanchoes that +Adanson (1763: 248) +had at his disposal when he described the genus is an indication that he was very likely referring to + +K. laciniata + +. Especially the lower leaves of the species create the impression that they consist of a central blade with two or more lateral “wings” ( +Figs 1B and 1D +). + + +It may be tempting to argue that +Adanson (1763: 248 +, 530, 614) had material of + +K. ceratophylla +Haworth (1821: 24) + +at his disposal, rather than of + +K. laciniata + +, when publishing + +Kalanchoe + +and the vernacular name Tjsacarbebe. [Note that the protologue associated with the name + +K. ceratophylla + +was published in +Haworth (1821: 23) +, and not in +Haworth (1819) +, as stated by +Descoings (2003: 144) +.] However, with the exception of the material from +Ambon +( +Indonesia +) cited by +Rumphius (1747) +, in the references cited by +Adanson (1763) +, the material was clearly stated as of African origin. Some 40 years after + +Kalanchoe + +was described, +Haworth (1821: 24) +noted, in contrast, that + +K. ceratophylla + +originated from +China +, when he stated for this species “ +Habitat +in Sina [ +China +]”. However, +Descoings (2003: 144) +treated the name + +K. ceratophylla + +as being of uncertain application, which probably gave rise to +Eggli & Newton (2004: 125) +rather proposing + +K. laciniata + +as (one of) the species referenced by +Adanson (1763: 248) +, when suggesting one of two possible derivations for the genus name. The other species mentioned by +Eggli & Newton (2004: 155) +was + +K. spathulata +Candolle (1801 + +: t. 65), which was introduced earlier from +China +. However, the latter does not have incised leaves. + + +When early in his career Adanson spent six years conducting natural history explorations in +Senegal +he might have gained first-hand experience of African kalanchoes. However, no kalanchoes have thus far been recorded as indigenous to that country. + +Kalanchoe crenata + +[ +Sierra Leone +and +Guinea +(see + +Smith +et al +. 2019: 148–154 + +)] and + +K. laciniata + +[ +Ivory Coast +, +Benin +, and +Morocco +(see +Maire 1977: 258–260 +and + +Smith +et al +. 2019: 165–169 + +)] are the two species of + +Kalanchoe + +whose known natural geographical distribution ranges come closest to +Senegal +. + +Kalanchoe laciniata + +, the +type +species of + +Kalanchoe + +, was cited by +Haworth (1829: 302) +as doubtfully also occurring in +Egypt +[“AEgypto”], indicated with a “?”, apart from it having been found “in +India +”. In its very broad definition currently widely upheld, the species possibly occurs in +Egypt +(but see +Dobignard & Chatelain 2011: 369 +) and has been recorded from neighbouring +Sudan +( +Pickering & Darbyshire 2015: 155–156 +). + +Kalanchoe crenata + +is a widely used medicinal species and has been recorded in infant healthcare in western, central, and eastern Africa, for example ( + +Sibeko +et al +. 2023: 125 + +). + + + +TABLE 2. +Information about, and identity of, material mentioned,typically by means of phrase names, in the pre-Linnaean (i.e., pre-1753) literature references cited by +Adanson (1763) +, +Rumphius (1747) +, and +Linnaeus (1738) +. “ +K +.” = “ + +Kalanchoe + +”. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
#Reference [Reference as cited in this paper]Phrase nameIdentity of materialGeographical origin
+A. + +References included in +Adanson (1763) + +
1. +Rumph +. 5. +t +. 95. [ +Rumphius (1747: 276 +and “ +Tab. XCV +” on the facing p.)] + +i. + +Cotyledon + +foliis laciniatis +Hort. Cliffort +. +p +. 175 + + +K. laciniata + + +Not stated; Africa according to +Linnaeus (1738: 175) +
+ii. +Cotyledon Afra +, folio crasso, lato, laciniato, flosculo aureo. + +Boerh. Ind. H. L. +B. part + +. I. +p +. 288 + + +K. laciniata + +Africa
+iii. +Telephium Africanum +, angustiore folio, flore aurantiaco. +Plukn. Almag. p +. 362. +Tab +. 228. +Fig +. 3. + +Possibly + +K. crenata + +given that +Plukenet (1696: 362) +gave the flower colour as orange +Africa (Plukenet obtained material from The Netherlands)
2. +Boerh +. +I +. +B +. +t +. 288. [ +Boerhaave (1720: 288) +] + +Cotyledon +; Afra; folio crasso, lato, laciniato, flosculo aureo. + +Telephium +, +maximum, Africanum +, flore aurantio + +. +Ex Cod. Bent +. +Plukn. Phyt +. 228 3? +H. R. D +. + +Probably + +K. laciniata + +Africa
3. +Camell +. [ +Camello (1704: 6 +, no. 18)] + + +Telephium Sempervivum + +, seu +Sinarum Kalanchauhuy + + +K. laciniata + +Not stated
+B. + +References included in +Rumphius (1747) +[see rows A.1.i–A.1.iii, above] + +
4. +Hort. Cliffort +. +p +. 175. [ +Linnaeus (1738: 175) +] +See rows C.6 and C.7, below--
5. +Plukn. Almag. p +. 362. +Tab +. 228. +Fig +. 3. [ +Plukenet (1692 +: t. 228, 1696: 362)] +See row A.1.iii, above, and C.7, below--
+C. + + +References included in +Linnaeus (1738: 175) +[both C.6 and C.7 were cited under +COTYLEDON +foliis laciniatis] + +
6. +Boerh. lugdb +. 1. +p +. 288 +t +. 288. [ +Boerhaave (1720: 288) +] + +Cotyledon afra +, folio crasso lato laciniato, flosculo aureo + +Probably + +K. laciniata + +Africa
7. +Pluk. alm +. 362. +t +. 228. +f +. 3. [ +Plukenet (1692 +: t. 228, Figure 3, 1696: 362]) + +Telephium africanum +, angustiori folio, flore aurantiaco1 + +Possibly + +K. crenata + +, given that +Plukenet (1696: 362) +gave the flower colour as orange +Africa (Plukenet obtained material from The Netherlands)
+ + + +1 +As discussed in the main text, in this instance the wrong phrase name was cited by +Linnaeus (1738: 175) +, and by +Rumphius (1747: 276) +, for that matter. It should have been “ + +Telephium maximum +Africanum + +flore aurantiaco, ex +Cod. Benting Phytogr. Tab +. 228 +fig +. 3. Itèm ex + +Hollandiâ + +habuimus”. + + + +Of the African kalanchoes, + +K. faustii +Font Quer (1935: 149) + +from +Morocco +, a + +K. laciniata + +look-alike, is the species with the most northwesterly natural distribution range. Some sources, for example +Dobignard & Chatelain (2011: 369) +, uphold + +K. faustii + +as a species distinct from + +K. laciniata + +, while other sources, for example +Descoings (2003: 160) +place it, as well as + +K. laciniata +subsp. +faustii +(Font Quer) +Maire (1977: 260) + +, in the synonymy of + +K. laciniata + +. + + +Shortly after + +K. faustii + +was described, +Maire (1938: 418) +, while still regarding it as an accepted species, and not as warranting recognition at the rank of subspecies, noted a relationship between + +K. laciniata + +and + +K. crenata + +, the two species here suggested as having been known to +Adanson (1763: 248 +, 530, 614): “Les fleurs de cette be’le plante, qui atteint +1 m +50 de hauteur, sont jaune d’or et diurnes; elles se ferment la nuit. Les espèces les plus affines sont les + +K. crenata +Haw. + +et + +K. laciniata + +(L.) D.C. de l’Afrique tropicale. Nous cultivons cette plante à +Alger +où elle se développe vigoureusement en pleine terre; le Jardin Botanique de l’Université d’Alger en distribue les graines et des boutures.” [English: “The flowers of this beautiful plant, which reaches a height of +1.5 m +, are golden-yellow and diurnal; they close at night. The most closely related species are + +K. crenata +Haw. + +[sic, (Andrews) Haw.] and + +K. laciniata + +(L.) DC. from tropical Africa. We cultivate this plant in +Algiers +where it grows vigorously in the ground; the Botanical Garden of the University of +Algiers +distributes its seeds and cuttings.”] + + +Both + +K. crenata + +and + +K. laciniata + +are widely cultivated as ornamentals and at least + +K. crenata + +( +Figs 2A and B +) and possibly also + +K. laciniata + +, are known to escape and become naturalised with ease in places well away from where they occur naturally ( +Maire 1977: 260 +, + +Vargas +et al +. 2022: 3–4 + +, 6, 11–12 of 22), especially through the germination of copiously produced seed, and it is possible that Adanson had access to both species while based in +Senegal +. + + + +Kalanchoe crenata + +, of which the basionym is + +Vereia crenata + +, was described from a plant cultivated in the garden of James Vere, a wealthy merchant based at Kensington Gore, London, +England +, and a patron of botany; Vere was commemorated in the genus name + +Vereia +Andrews (1798 + +: t. 21). The plant that was cultivated in Vere’s garden originated from +Sierra Leone +, where it had been collected in 1793 by Adam Afzelius (1750–1837), a Swedish botanist. Incidentally, Afzelius is commemorated in + +K. afzeliana +Britten (1871: 393) + +, which also is today included in the synonymy of + +K. crenata + +. However, as noted by +Fernandes (1980: 338) +it is possible—in fact, very likely—that plants of + +K. crenata + +were known in Europe long before it was described in 1798, given that the figure published by +Plukenet (1692 +: t. 228, Fig. 3) that he later described as ‘ + +Telephium maximum +Africanum + +flore aurantiaco, ex +Cod. Benting. Phytogr. Tab. +228. +fig. 3 +. Item ex + +Hollandiâ + +habuimus’ ( +Plukenet 1696: 362 +) very likely refers to + +K. crenata + +and was published more than 100 years before the species was finally described post-1753. + + +According to + +Fu +et al +. (2001a: 204 + +, b), + +K. ceratophylla + +is the only species of + +Kalanchoe + +indigenous to +China +that has “pinnately lobed” leaves. In this regard, +Ohba (2003: 248) +drew attention to similarities between it and + +K. laciniata + +in terms of the laciniate leaves of both species. However, + +K. ceratophylla + +was only “introduced [to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew,] from +China +in 1820 by Captain Nisbett” ( +Wickens 1982: 674 +), i.e., almost 60 years after +Adanson (1763) +published the genus name + +Kalanchoe + +. This is the material that +Haworth (1821: 23) +described, from cultivation at Kew, as + +K. ceratophylla + +. Material of + +K. spathulata + +was earlier introduced from +China +, but this species does not have laciniate leaves. Two years after + +Fu +et al +. (2001a: 204–205) + +was published, + +K. ceratophylla +var. +indochinensis +Ohba (2003: 254) + +was described for incised-leaved material “[…] with many elongate lateral branchlets […]”from +Laos +and +Vietnam +. + + +Fernandes (1980: 377) +had doubts about the identification of Rumphius’s plant from +Ambon +as + +K. laciniata + +because of a reported lack of pubescence of specimens from +Malaysia +, as opposed to the pubescent +type +material of the species name, and suggested that only the examination of further material from the region might confirm it. In this instance it is possible that +Fernandes (1980: 377) +might have referred to material of + +K. ceratophylla + +. However, as we argue here, there is sufficient evidence that probably placed + +K. laciniata + +in cultivation in the +Philippines +. + + +The first species of “ + +Cotyledon + +” that +Linnaeus (1738: 175) +, i.e., pre-1753, included under “ +COTYLEDON +g. pl +. [ + +Genera +plantarum + +] 382 [the genus number, not the page number].” was “1. +COTYLEDON +foliis laciniatis.”, which he noted as “ +Crescit in +[grows in]Africa.” He also provided the following two references: “ +Cotyledon afra +, folio crasso lato laciniato, flosculo aureo. +Boerh. lugdb +. 1. +p +. + +288 +t + +. 288.” and “ +Telephium africanum +, angustiori folio, flore aurantiaco +Pluk. alm +. 362. +t +. 228. +f +. 3.” However, “ +Telephium africanum +, angustiori folio, flore aurantiaco”, as cited by +Linnaeus (1738: 175) +with reference to “ +t +. 228. +f +. 3” is not convincingly of a species today referable to + +Kalanchoe + +. +Fernandes (1980: 375) +identified it as a species of + +Sedum +Linnaeus (1753: 430) + +. In fact, “ +Telephium africanum +, angustiori folio, flore aurantiaco”, was illustrated in Plate +216 +, + +Figure +2 + +, and not in Plate 228, Figure 3 ( +Plukenet 1692 +: t. CCXVI)”. Four years after “Phytogr.” ( +Plukenet 1692 +) was published, +Plukenet (1696: 362) +stated for the latter species that it had been previously considered to be a + +Portulaca +Linnaeus (1753: 445) + +: “ + +Telephium +Africanum + +, angustiori folio, flore aurantiaco è +Cod. Bent +. sub Portulacae titulo in +Phytogr. Tab +. + +216 +fig + +. +2 +. +hujus Icon exhibetur +.” Like +Linnaeus (1738) +, +Rumphius (1747: 26) +, earlier, also cited Plukenet’s Plate 228, Figure 3, as being associated with “ +Telephium africanum +, angustiori folio, flore aurantiaco”. + + +The legitimacy of +Kalanchoe +:—To determine the legitimacy of the genus names that +Adanson (1763) +published, including of + +Kalanchoe + +, it is necessary to check whether he cited any previously published, legitimate genus names under his own genus names, in his analytical Tables or in the associated indices. This is additionally because in several instances +Adanson (1763) +did cite such earlier, legitimate genus names under his genera, which would make his names superfluous under + +Turland +et al +. (2018 + +: Art. 52.1 and Art. 52.2). For example (see + +Turland +et al +. 2018 + +: Ex. 1 under Art. 52.2), +Adanson (1763: 166) +cited the genus name + +Chrysophyllum +Linnaeus (1753: 192) + +as a synonym under + +Cainito +Adanson (1763: 166) + +so rendering + +Cainito +Adans. + +illegitimate because it was superfluous when published—Adanson should have adopted + +Chrysophyllum + +L. A similar situation applies in the “Famille Les Jourbarbes. +Seda +.” of +Adanson (1763) +, i.e., the +Crassulaceae +, when “ + +Rhodiola +. Lin + +.” was included in the synonymy of + +Rhodia +Adanson (1763: 248) + +— Adanson should have adopted + +Rhodiola +Linnaeus (1753: 1035) + +. + + + +Turland +et al +. (2018 + +: Art. 52.1 and 52.2) state, respectively, that: “A name, unless conserved […], is illegitimate and is to be rejected if it was nomenclaturally superfluous when published, i.e. if the taxon to which it was applied, as circumscribed by its author, definitely included the +type +[…] of a +name +that ought to have been adopted […]” and that “For the purpose of Art. 52.1, definite inclusion of the +type +of a +name +is effected […]” (italicised emphasis on ‘ +name +’ introduced here). + + +In the case of + +Kalanchoe +, +Adanson (1763: 248 + +, 530, 614) included references to “ + +Cotyledon +. Boerh. I. B. t + +. 288” [on p. 248] and to “ +Cotyledon +. +Boerh. +” [on p. 530], with both of these being references to the same pre-Linnaean phrase name (of Boerhaave). The other references cited by Adanson, i.e., “ +Rumph +. 5. +t +. 95” and “ +Camell +.”, which did not include mention of “ + +Cotyledon + +”, but rather referenced “ +Telephium +” ( +Plukenet 1696: 362 +) and “Sempervivum” ( +Camello 1704: 6 +, no. 18), were also to publications that predated +1 May 1753 +, the starting point for the valid publication of names for non-fossil Spermatophyta (and some other groups, for that matter) ( + +Turland +et al +. 2018 + +: Art. 13.1). The pre-Linnaean ‘names’ published in the works cited by +Adanson (1763: 248 +, 530, 614) were not validly published and are therefore not “names” in the sense of + +Turland +et al +. (2018 + +: Art. 6.3). + + +None of the elements included in + +Kalanchoe + +by +Adanson (1763: 248 +, 530, 614) is the type of a genus name that ought to have been adopted instead of + +Kalanchoe + +. +Fernandes (1980: 376) +designated the specimen +Herb. Clifford 175 +[“l’Hortus Siccus Cliffortianus”] held at Herb. BM under barcode BM000628567 as the type of the name + +K. laciniata + +. It was corrected to +lectotype +by +Jarvis (2007: 451) +. + +Kalanchoe laciniata + +is the type of the genus + +Kalanchoe + +. This element represents the type of a legitimate species name, which is in fact a representative of + +Kalanchoe + +as presently circumscribed. + + +The two elements, “ +Cotyledon afra +, folio crasso lato laciniato, flosculo aureo. +Boerh. lugdb +. i. +p +. 288. +t +. 288” and “ +Telephium africanum +, angustiori folio, flore aurantiaco. +Pluk. alm +. 362. +t +. 228. +f +. 3.”, that were cited in the protologue of the name + +Cotyledon laciniata + +by +Linnaeus (1753: 430) +, were applied to the same species, i.e., to + +Cotyledon laciniata + +. No other elements were cited for + +C. laciniata + +by +Linnaeus (1753: 430) +, and + +Cotyledon + +, i.e., the genus name itself, was eventually conserved and typified on + +C. orbiculata +Linnaeus (1753: 429) + +, a species with pentamerous flowers (see [Tölken in Jarvis in] +Nicolson 1992: 561 +, and +Barrie 2006: 795–796 +, +Jarvis 2007: 451 +, and + +Wiersema +et al +. 2018 + ++ [continuously updated] for summaries). Note, however, that, as discussed above, the wrong phrase name, which does not apply to “ +Tab +. 228 +fig +. 3” was still used by +Linnaeus (1753: 430) +, after this error was introduced in +Linnaeus (1738: 175) +. It should have been “ + +Telephium maximum +Africanum + +flore aurantiaco, ex +Cod. Benting Phytogr. Tab +. 228 +fig +. 3. Itèm ex + +Hollandiâ + +habuimus”. However, +Linnaeus (1753: 430) +cited the correct Figure number. + + +In summary, in the protologue of + +Kalanchoe +( +Adanson 1763 +) + +, reference to + +Cotyledon + +was not to the genus + +Cotyledon +sensu +Linnaeus (1753) + +, and no +types +of species names currently included in + +Cotyledon + +, as conserved and typified with a pentamerous-flowered species, were mentioned. The genus name + +Kalanchoe +Adans. + +, which dates from 1763, is not homotypic with + +Cotyledon + +L., +nom. cons +., which dates from 1753, and + +Kalanchoe + +is a legitimate genus name. + + +The name “ +Tjsacarbebe +” cited by +Adanson (1763) +was merely a Malay vernacular name and not intended as a genus name, nor as a species name (a binary combination, therefore) in the sense of + +Turland +et al +. (2018 + +: Art. 23.1). + + + +The 18 +th +century taxonomy of species today included in + +Kalanchoe +:—The taxonomy of + +Kalanchoe + +started off conservatively in the 18 +th +century with only + +Cotyledon laciniata + +, i.e., + +K. laciniata + +, having been included in +Linnaeus (1753: 430) +. Apart from + +K. laciniata + +having been known at the time, + +K. crenata + +[first published as + +Vereia crenata + +in 1798] was also, as discussed above, very likely available in Europe since pre-Linnaean times, but it was not included in Linneaus (1753) as a taxon distinct from his + +C. laciniata + +. + + +As far as could be determined, only two further species that are today included in + +Kalanchoe + +were described in the 1700s, by +Lamarck (1786) +, also as species of + +Cotyledon + +following the broadly conceived Linnaean concept of + +Cotyledon + +, rather than Adanson’s narrower recognition of the tetramerous-flowered ‘cotyledons’ as kalanchoes. However, +Lamarck (1786: 139 +, 141), like Linnaeus, realised the disparate nature of + +Cotyledon + +in terms of the number of flower parts of the species that he included in the genus and, in a rudimentary identification key, he separated the species with pentamerous flowers [“*Fleurs quinquefides”] from the three that he recognised with tetramerous flowers [“**Fleurs quadrifides”]. + + +Species no. 12 included in + +Cotyledon + +by +Lamarck (1786) +, + +C. pinnata +Lamarck (1786: 141) + +, is the present-day + +K. pinnata + +( +Figs 2C and D +). This species is often in the vernacular known as Goethe’s kalanchoe ( +Goethe 1857: 161–162 +) and is well-known in mild-climate parts of the world for easily becoming established—even naturalised and invasive—in places well-beyond its natural geographical distribution range in +Madagascar +( +Smith & Figueiredo 2018a: 220 +, + +Smith +et al +. 2019: 263–268 + +, + +Smith +et al +. 2021: 9–12 + +, 18, +Smith 2023b: 12 +). The species was eventually transferred to the genus + +Bryophyllum +Salisbury (1805 + +: t. 3), as + +B. pinnatum +(Lam.) +Oken (1841: 1966) + +, but + +Bryophyllum + +is at present included in + +Kalanchoe + +, as +K +. subg. + +Bryophyllum + +(see +Smith & Figueiredo 2018b: 169 +). + + +Species no. 14 included in + +Cotyledon + +by +Lamarck (1786) +, as + +C. aegyptiaca +Lamarck (1786: 142) + +, was the second new species of + +Kalanchoe + +described in that work. A combination for this species in + +Kalanchoe + +, as was the case for + +K. laciniata + +and + +K. crenata + +, was only published in the early 1800s, as + +K. aegyptiaca +(Lam.) +Candolle (1801 + +: t. 64). For the “Kalanchée d’Égypte”, referenced by +Candolle (1801 +: t. 64) as “Cotylet d’Egypte. LAM. +Dict +. +n +. 14 [1786, species number 14 on p. 142]”, it was stated that: “Elle est originaire d’Egypte. On l’y cultive dans les jardins, où elle fleurit à la fin de l’hiver; on la nomme +Vudni +, +Forskahl +dit qu’elle est indigène du mont Melhân, où on lui donne le nom de +Odejn +.” [English: “It originates from +Egypt +. It is grown there in gardens, where it flowers at the end of winter; it is called Vudni. Forskahl [see under + +Cotyledon deficiens +Forsskål (1775: 89) + +] says it is indigenous to the Melhân Mountains, where it is called Odejn.” The description and plate of + +K. aegyptiaca + +immediately preceded the text and plate of + +K. spathulata +Candolle (1801 + +: t. 65) that originated from +China +. + + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/7C/4B/87/7C4B87F4FF8BFF95FF4CFBE5FCB1CC8E.xml b/data/7C/4B/87/7C4B87F4FF8BFF95FF4CFBE5FCB1CC8E.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..8d5aa342aa0 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/7C/4B/87/7C4B87F4FF8BFF95FF4CFBE5FCB1CC8E.xml @@ -0,0 +1,232 @@ + + + +Liparis bomiensis (Orchidaceae, Epidendroideae, Malaxideae), a new species from Xizang, China + + + +Author + +Ye, Chao +0000-0003-2271-4461 +State Key Laboratory of Plant Diversity and Specialty Crops, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China. & University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. & China National Botanical Garden, Beijing, China. +cqyc4959@163.com + + + +Author + +Ma, Chongbo +0000-0001-5869-8649 +State Key Laboratory of Plant Diversity and Specialty Crops, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China. & University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. & China National Botanical Garden, Beijing, China. +macb@ibcas.ac.cn + + + +Author + +Jin, Xiaohua +0000-0002-9987-5602 +State Key Laboratory of Plant Diversity and Specialty Crops, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China. & China National Botanical Garden, Beijing, China. +xiaohuajin@ibcas.ac.cn + +text + + +Phytotaxa + + +2024 + +2024-01-11 + + +634 + + +1 + + +91 +97 + + + + +http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.634.1.9 + +journal article +10.11646/phytotaxa.634.1.9 +1179-3163 +13878990 + + + + + +Liparis bomiensis +X.H. Jin & C. Ye + +, + +sp.nov. + +Fig. 2 +& 3 +Ǿffl¥H" + + + + +Type. + +China +. +Xizang Autonomous Region +, +Bomi County +, elev. + +2000 m + +. + +2 May, 2022 + +, + +Xiaohua Jin +& +Chongbo Ma +38577 + +( +holotype +PE +!, + + +isotype +, +PE +!) + +. + + + + +Diagnosis. + +Liparis bomiensis + +is morphologically close to + +L. rostrata + +with 2 thick projections at base of column, but differs from by having purple and rhombic lip about +15 mm +long, sepals and petals more than +15 mm +long. + + +Terrestrial plants, about +8–10 cm +long. Pseudobulbs ovate, +1 cm +long, about +5 mm +in diam., enclosed by persistent leaf sheaths. Leaves 2, withered during winter, petiole forming pseudostem about +2 cm +long, blade plicate, ovate, +5–6 cm +long, +2–3 cm +wide, acute. Inflorescence arising from pseudostem, +6–10 cm +long, winged along the inflorescence. Bracts triangular, +1 mm +long. Flowers green, lip purple. Ovary and pedicel +7–9 mm +long. Sepals linear, +16 mm +long, +1.2 mm +wide, 1-veined; dorsal sepal erect; lateral sepals parallel under lip. Petals linear, +15 mm +long, +0.8 mm +wide, 1-veined. Lip rhombic, +15 mm +long, +8 mm +wide, middle veins deeply colored, apex mucronate, without calli on disc. Column +7 mm +long, strongly curved, base dilated with 2 thick nipple-like projections, winged at apex. + + + + +Etymology. +The epithet +“bomiensis +” refers to the +type +locality of the new species, Bomi County, +Xizang +Autonomous Region, +China +. The Chinese name is given as “波‡¥4ẅ”. + + + + +Distribution and habitat. + +Liparis bomiensis + +is currently known only from the +type +locality in Bomi, +Xizang +, +China +. It grows under evergreen broadleaf forest at elevations of +2000 m +. + + + + +Phenology. +Flowering in May. + + + +Note + + +Liparis bomiensis + +is similar to + +L. rostrata + +, + +L. pauliana + +, and + +L. glossula + +, but is readily distinguished from them based on the combination of morphological characters, including two leaves, purple and rhombic lip about +15 mm +long, column dilated at based with two thick nipple-like projections ( +Table 1 +). + + + + \ No newline at end of file