During preparation of the account of Zingiberaceae for the Flora of China, volume 24, it was noticed that one species, koshunense reported from Taiwan in 1930, was invalidly named because no description was provided. species was later described in 1978 as Z. koshunense ex C. T. but the name remained invalid because, although two specimens were cited, there was no indication of a type. name is here validated, with one of these specimens designated as the holotype. koshunense will be accepted as a species endemic to Taiwan by Wu and Larsen in their forthcoming account of Zingiberaceae in the Flora of China, volume 24 (in press). It is similar to Z. kawagoi (1921: 35), which is also endemic to Taiwan, but differs in usually having 2 or 3 (vs. 1) inflorescences, an orange-red, oblong (vs. dark brown, triangular) capsule, and brown (vs. black) seeds with a saclike (vs. cushion-like) aril. koshunense was not treated by Wu and Chen (1981) in their account of Chinese Zingiber, but instead was mentioned in a short note (p. 140) stating that no specimens had been seen. A nomenclatural problem exists for this species. Sasaki (1930: 139), in his catalogue of the Government Herbarium in Taiwan (TAIF), listed Zingiber koshunensis [sic] Hayata, citing the specimen T. Kawakami & S. Sasaki, TAIF specimen no. 6461 from The Ahi-sen Central Mt. Range of Taiwan. He attributed the name to although no earlier publication of the name by that author could be traced. Sasaki (1930) provided no description, so his publication of the name was invalid (a nomen nudum) under Article 32.1(c) of the Tokyo Code (Greuter et al., 1994). same name was later accepted in the Flora of Taiwan by Moo (1978: 850), and explicitly described as a new species, with the name (but not the description) ascribed to (i.e., Hayata ex C. T. Moo, Art. 46.4). However, Z. koshunense still remained invalidly published because no single collection or illustration was indicated by Moo as the type (Arts. 8.1, 37.1). Moo cited in his treatment two specimens, neither of which was designated as the type. One of those specimens is the same one cited earlier by Sasaki, and it is here designated as the holotype of Z. koshunense. Moo remains the author of the name because he, rather than the present authors, provided the validating description (Art. 46.2). holotype, at TAIF, was collected in 1910 from Abei (Apei) in Taidong (Taitung) County in southern Taiwan, according to although the collection date given on the label is actually 2 January 1911 (WenLiang Chiou, pers. comm.). other specimen was collected by Moo himself on Lan Yu (Orchid Island), off the eastern coast of southern Taiwan, in September 1972, and is preserved at TAI (3 sheets; Chang-Fu Hsieh, pers. comm.). In addition, a third collection of Z. koshunense was made by Shu-Miaw Chaw in Pingdong (Pingtung) County in southern Taiwan in October 1988 (HAST, NMNS, MO, PE, TAIF, TNU). koshunense C. T. sp. nov. TYPE: China. Taiwan: Taidong [Taitung] County, Abei [Apei], 2 Jan. 1911 (fl), T Kawakami & S. Sasaki s.n. (holotype, TAIF). koshunense ex C. T. in H. L. Li et al., Fl. Taiwan 5: 850. 1978, nom. inval. (Arts. 8.1, 37.1). TYPE: not indicated. Acknowledgments. We thank Wen-Liang Chiou, NovoN 10: 88-89. 2000. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.53 on Thu, 01 Sep 2016 05:21:59 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Volume 10, Number 1 2000 Wu et al. Validation of koshunense 89 of the Division of Forest Biology at the Taiwan Forestry Research Institute, for supplying digital images and other details of specimens of koshunense at TAIF. We also thank Chang-Fu Hsieh, of the Department of Botany at the National Taiwan University, for providing information on Moo's collection of Z. koshunense at TAI.