Millettia pulchra
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/phytotaxa.332.1.5 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6F03025B-FF8F-9B50-FF5A-F587612C7A29 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Millettia pulchra |
status |
|
Lectotypification of Millettia pulchra View in CoL
Millettia pulchra Kurz (1873:69) View in CoL was originally published as Mundulea pulchra Bentham (1852: 248) View in CoL . In the protologue, Bentham provided no specimens, but cited three nomen nudum as its synonyms, i.e. “ Tephrosia pulchra Grah. View in CoL in Wall. Cat. n. 5630”, “ Pongamia cassioides Wall. Cat. View in CoL n. 5918”, and “ Dalbergia tephrosioides View in CoL W. et Arn. Prodr. v. 1. p. 210 in adnot.”, and pointed out that the species occurs “in Sillet, Assam et in montibus Avae”. This information suggests that the original material of Mundulea pulchra View in CoL include more than one gathering (e.g. Wallich Cat. 5630 and 5918), and therefore they should be regarded as the syntypes. And obviously, the description was mainly based on Wallich Cat. 5630, as suggested by the epithet. In the Flore du Cambodge, du Laos et du Vietnam, Loc & Vidal (2001) indicated that Wallich 5630 (K) is the “ holotype ” of Millettia pulchra View in CoL . But, this indication is not achieved for lectotypification according to the Art. 9.23 because it was made after 1 January 2001.
Under the species Millettia pulchra, Dunn (1912) View in CoL recognized six infraspecific taxa, including the new variety M. pulchra var. typica Dunn (1912: 151) View in CoL and the new form M. pulchra var. typica f. laxior Dunn (1912: 151) View in CoL . However var. typica View in CoL was not validly published according to Art. 24.3 of the ICN ( Zhu et al. 2007), because the final epithet purported to indicate var. typica View in CoL contains the type of the species, and this intent of Dunn was accepted by most subsequent taxonomists (e.g. Wei 1985, 1994, Sanjappa 1992, Loc & Vidal 2001, Wu et al. 2003, Sun 2006, Wei & Pedley 2010). As a result, any indication of the type for the name var. typica View in CoL by Dunn (1912) did not effectively lectotypify the name Millettia pulchra View in CoL .
After a critical examination, we found that Wallich Cat.5630 consists of four collections (5630A-D) and traced many duplicates at K, two of which were annotated with “ Tephrosia pulchra, Sillet, H. I. 5630” and stamped “HERBARIUM BENTHAMIANUM 1854”. Thus the two specimens may be the original material used by Bentham, which might be Wallich Cat. 5630A and were collected by W. Gomez from “Mont Sillet”. One specimen (K000848693, Fig. 2D View FIGURE 2 ) consists of several complete leaves, two inflorescences, and a young pod, corresponding well with the protologue. But this specimen was labeled “ Millettia pulchra Kurz var. typica f. laxior ” by Dunn, who conducted an influential revision on the genus Millettia ( Dunn 1912, Song et al. 2017). It may be regarded as one of original material of M. pulchra f. laxior and might be accepted by later authors. Considering the established custom of the use of names and avoiding some possible confusion in the future, we therefore designate the other specimen (K000848694, Fig. 3E View FIGURE 3 ) as the lectotype of Mundulea pulchra Bentham. The lectotype is also labeled “typum” by Dunn and comprises three flowering branches and many relative small leaflets, matching the Bentham’s protologue and being consistent with the identified characteristics of Millettia pulchra var. pulchra by Dunn and most subsequent authors (e.g. Wei 1985, 1994, Wei & Pedley 2010).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Millettia pulchra
Song, Zhuqiu, Ouyang, Xuejun, Zuo, Lei & Huang, Zhongliang 2017 |
Millettia pulchra
Kurz, S. 1873: ) |
Bentham, G. 1852: ) |