Fordia microphylla, Dunn ex Z. Wei, 1989

Song, Zhuqiu, Ouyang, Xuejun, Zuo, Lei & Huang, Zhongliang, 2017, The identity of Fordia microphylla and lectotypification of Millettia pulchra (Fabaceae: Millettieae), Phytotaxa 332 (1), pp. 51-58 : 51-53

Nomenclature of Fordia microphylla

Fordia microphylla was published by Wei (1989) on the basis of almost twenty collections from Guangxi, Guizhou, and Yunnan, China, and designated S. W. Deng 90962 at SCB (now IBSC) as its “ Neotypus ”. However, some nomenclatural questions on F. microphylla need be clarified.

Firstly, the name of this taxon was ascribed to “Dunn”, probably because the name itself was initially proposed by Dunn on one specimen sheet, i.e. A. Henry 9439B (“9439”, Fig. 1A ). Wei maybe just examined its image, which was photographed by Renchang Ching from Kew herbarium in 1931. In the protologue, the specimen was cited and indicated by “fide in sched. Dunn”. Secondly, in the protologue, S. W. Deng 90962 was indicated as “ neotype ” of F. microphylla . However, it is found that S. W. Deng 90962 at IBSC (barcode 0211660) is Ilex chinensis Sims (1819: 2043) ( Aquifoliaceae ), while another specimen S. W. Deng 90963 at IBSC (barcode 0180023, Fig. 2A ) was annotated with “ Fordia microphylla Dunn , sp. nov. ” by Wei and matches all other details of the protologue. Therefore, the collection number “90962” could be corrected to 90963 (see Art. 9.1, Ex. 2 of the ICN, McNeill et. al. 2012). Thirdly, the term “ Neotypus ” used for S. W. Deng 90963 from IBSC should be treated as a correctable error of holotype according to the Art. 9.9 of the ICN. In the FRPS, he indicated that the type specimen was collected from Mengzi, Yunnan ( Wei 1994). It is probable that Dunn annotated a specimen A. Henry 9439B as the new species in the herbarium and it is the reason why Wei used the term “ Neotypus ”.

However, Dunn annotated the specimen as “ Fordia microphylla ”, but he has never published it. Instead, the epithet “ microphylla ” was applied by Dunn to a variety as Millettia pulchra var. microphylla Dunn (1912: 152) , a taxon described on basis of A. Henry 994 ( Fig. 1C ) from Taiwan ( Dunn 1912). Also, the variety has very similar appearance with the two specimens from Mengzi of Fordia microphylla ( Fig. 1 ). As the same epithet and similar morphology, it is speculated that specimens of “ Fordia microphylla ” identified by Dunn may be later recognized by himself as Millettia pulchra var. microphylla . Additionally, Wei (1985) described another variety under the same species, i.e. Millettia pulchra var. parvifolia Wei (1985: 281) , adopting an infraspecific epithet of same meaning. And an isotype of var. parvifolia was identified as “ Fordia microphylla Dunn , ined.” by C. Chen ( Fig. 1D ), implying both taxa have very similar appearance as well.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Millettia pulchra. A. specimen from Mengzi of Fordia microphylla annotated by Dunn: A. Henry 9439B (K000898195); B. specimen from Mengzi of Fordia microphylla: W. Hancock 1 (K000898197); C. isotype of Millettia pulchra var. microphylla: A. Henry 994 (NY00016350); D. isotype of Millettia pulchra var. parvifolia: M. K. Li 3097 (KUN0612457). Image Copyright of NY00016350: the C. V. Starr Virtual Herbarium, New York Botanical Garden (http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/vh/). Image Copyright of K000898195 and K000898197: the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Image Copyright of KUN0612457: Herbarium of Kunming Institute of Botany, CAS (http://db.kun.ac.cn/). Used with permission.

FIGURE 2. Millettia pulchra. A–C. holotype of Fordia microphylla (S. W. Deng 90963, IBSC0180023), A. the whole, B. leaflets, C. young legumes; D–F.one of original material of Millettia pulchra var.pulchra (Wallich Cat. 5630, K000848693), D. the whole, E. leaflets, F. young legume. Scale bar = 1 cm. Image Copyright of K000848693: the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Used with permission.