Rohdea wangiana (Asparagaceae), a new species from southwestern Sichuan, China Author Feng, Hui Zhe 0000-0001-5693-7992 College of Life Science, Zaozhuang University, Zaozhuang 277160, Shandong, China & fenghuizhe @ foxmail. com; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0001 - 5693 - 7992 fenghuizhe@foxmail.com Author Lu, Zhi Qiang 0000-0002-6169-4849 CAS Key Laboratory of Tropical Forest Ecology, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mengla 666303, Yunnan, China & luzhiqiang @ xtbg. ac. cn; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0002 - 6169 - 4849 luzhiqiang@xtbg.ac.cn Author Han, Qingxiang 0000-0002-4651-8230 College of Life Science, Zaozhuang University, Zaozhuang 277160, Shandong, China & qingxianghan @ 163. com; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0002 - 4651 - 8230 Author Shen, Henglun 0000-0003-3235-4041 College of Life Science, Zaozhuang University, Zaozhuang 277160, Shandong, China & shenhenglun @ 126. com; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0003 - 3235 - 4041 text Phytotaxa 2021 2021-10-22 523 3 247 253 journal article 3938 10.11646/phytotaxa.523.3.5 ed0b58c1-86de-4cbe-8651-dff74f4410f9 1179-3163 5591444 Rohdea wangiana H. Z. Feng & Z. Qiang Lu , sp. nov. ( Fig. 1 ) Diagnosis: The new species resembles R. pachynema , but differs based on absence of slender stolons, the leaf blade with serrate margin, one bract per flower, peduncle ebracteate, with protuberance between two filaments and the positions of filaments and stigma in the perianth tube. Type :— CHINA . Sichuan , Xichang , alt. 3250 m , 12 April 2021 , H . Z . Feng & Z . Q . Lu 1327 ( holotype , HITBC !) . Chamaephytic herb. Rhizome cylindrical, up to 3.5 cm ca. in diameter, without slender stolons. Roots fibrous, to 3 mm in diameter. Leaves up to 15, sword-shaped, acute at apex, coriaceous, margin sparsely serrulate, 25–40 cm long, 2–3 cm broad. Peduncle 2–5 cm long, ebracteate. Spike oblong, densely many-flowered, 3–5 cm long, 1.5– 2 cm in diameter, without marked terminal tuft of sterile bracts. One bract per flower, lanceolate, usually obtuse at apex, exceeding flower, up to 10–15 mm long. Perianth campanulate, succulence, 5–10 mm across; 5 (6)-lobes; lobes broadly ovate, some lobes with dorsal angular protuberance 3–5 mm long, subacute to obtuse at apex, inflexed above, sometimes 3-lobed, or denticulate, imbricate below, 3–5 mm long, 3–8 mm broad; tube 3–5 mm long. Anthers orbicular-elliptic, ovate or broadly ovate, 1–1.3 mm long; filaments are inserted to the base of the perianth segments, free part incurved, deltoid or broadly dilated toward base, often slightly connate basally with adjacent ones, fleshy, with one small protuberance between two filaments, 2 mm long. Pistil 2.5–3 mm long; stigma trisected, lower than anthers; style columnar, 1–1.5 mm long; ovary slightly depressed globose, 1–1.5 mm long. Etymology :—The specific epithet is in honor of Professor Fa Tsuan Wang (1899-1985, PE), a pioneer in study of Liliflorae in China . Distribution :—This new species is currently known only from Xichang, Liangshan, Sichuan , China . Taxonomic relationships :—Comparison with known species of Rohdea indicates that R. wangiana is similar to R. pachynema by lack of marked terminal tuft of sterile bracts and filaments (free part) deltoid or prominently dilated below. However, R. wangiana differs from R. pachynema by serrate (vs. entire) margin of leaf blade ( Fig. 3A, C ), ebracteate peduncle ( Fig. 3A ), one bract per flower ( Fig. 2 ), obvious angular protuberance at some perianth lobes ( Fig. 1E, F, H , Fig. 2G, H ), and small protuberance between filaments ( Fig. 1G ). According to Tanaka (2010) , R. pachynema has slender subterranean stolons, whereas stolons are absent in R. wangiana under both wild and cultivated conditions. In R. pachynema , filaments are inserted slightly below the base of perianth segments, but inserted to the base of the perianth segments in R. wangiana . According to Tanaka (2010) and Wang & Tang (1949) , the stigma and stamens are in the same plane in R. pachynema , but the stigma obviously lower than stamens in R. wangiana ( Fig. 1F ). Hence, this new species differs from R. pachynema based on multiple lines of evidence from phenological isolation and phenotypic divergence.