Lectotypification of Polygonatum franchetii and P. tsinlingense (Asparagaceae)&lt;iframe class="igtranslator-iframe" style="display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px;" src="about:blank" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;iframe class="igtranslator-iframe" style="display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px;" src="about:blank" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;

Aaron Jennings Floden

doi:10.11646/phytotaxa.218.3.9

Abstract

During systematic studies on Polygonatum Miller (1754: without pagination), the examination of type specimens and protologues revealed several nomenclature issues with regards to typification and priority of two species native to China. Polygonatum tsinlingense Tsui (1949: 135), lacking type designation, was discovered to be an earlier name for P. gracile Li (1966: 252). In addition P. franchetii Hua (1892: 392), also lacking type designation, was described on the basis of a series of three different Farges collections from eastern Sichuan. For both species lectotypes are here selected. Herbarium acronyms follow Thiers (2015).

Highlights

The name Polygonatum tsinlingense has not been treated at species level or even as a synonym in any recent floristic works (Jeffrey 1980, Chen & Tamura 2000)
Morphological comparisons of type specimens revealed that P. tsinlingense and P. gracile are heterotypic synonyms
In the protologue of P. tsinlingense two gatherings were cited by Tsui (1949) without designation of a type

Summary

Introduction

The name Polygonatum tsinlingense has not been treated at species level or even as a synonym in any recent floristic works (Jeffrey 1980, Chen & Tamura 2000). Morphological comparisons of type specimens revealed that P. tsinlingense and P. gracile are heterotypic synonyms. The earlier validly published name, P. tsinlingense, has priority (Art. 11.4 of ICN, McNeill et al 2012). In the protologue of P. tsinlingense two gatherings were cited by Tsui (1949) without designation of a type.

Results

Conclusion