Clematis uncinata Champion ex Bentham (1851: 255)

Yuan, Qiong & Yang, Qin-Er, 2018, The identity of Clematis zhejiangensis (Ranunculaceae) from China, Phytotaxa 351 (2), pp. 193-196 : 194-195

Clematis uncinata Champion ex Bentham (1851: 255) .

Type:— CHINA. Hong Kong: Mt. Parker, near Saywan, J. G. Champion 34 (holotype K-K000675061!).

= C. zhejiangensis R.J. Wang (1999: 28) , syn. nov.

Type:— CHINA. Zhejiang: Chun’an , scrub along streamside, 29 August 1958, Y. Y. Ho 30216 (holotype IBSC, not seen; isotypes HHBG-008437!, PE-00387131!). Fig. 1 .

Notes:— Clematis uncinata is variable in leaflet texture as well as in ovary and achene pubescence. Chang (1980) recognized two varieties under this species, C. uncinata var. uncinata and C. uncinata var. coriacea Pampanini (1915: 288) . Wang & Bartholomew (2001) and Wang (2003) recognized three varieties, namely C. uncinata var. uncinata , C. uncinata var. coriacea and C. uncinata var. okinawensis ( Ohwi 1937: 146) Ohwi (1953: 515) . Yang (2009), however, reduced C. uncinata var. coriacea , which is mainly characterized by the thickly coriaceous leaflets, to the synonymy of C. uncinata var. uncinata and thus recognized only C. uncinata var. uncinata and C. uncinata var. okinawensis . According to Wang & Bartholomew (2001), Wang (2003) and Yang (2009), C. uncinata var. okinawensis is different from C. uncinata var. uncinata mainly by the pubescent (vs. glabrous) ovaries and achenes. It is certain that C. zhejiangensis should be referred to C. uncinata var. uncinata by having subcoriaceous leaflets and glabrous achenes.

Chang (1980) and Wang & Bartholomew (2001) placed Clematis leiocarpa Oliver (1886 : pl. 1553) in synonymy with C. uncinata var. coriacea . Wang (2000, 2003), however, reduced it to the synonymy of both C. uncinata var. uncinata and C. uncinata var. coriacea , for he considered that the two syntypes of C. leiocarpa, A. Henry 714 A ( K; Fig. 2A ) and A. Henry 309 ( K; Fig. 2B ), both from Ichang (= Yichang) in western Hubei, China, represented these two varieties, with the former belonging to C. uncinata var. uncinata while the latter belonging to C. uncinata var. coriacea . Nomenclaturally this is not correct. If C. uncinata var. uncinata and C. uncinata var. coriacea are to be recognized as two independent taxa and the type material of C. leiocarpa indeed includes both of them, a lectotypification is required for the name C. leiocarpa for its correct citation as a synonym under the Art. 9.11 of ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012). It is wrong anyhow to cite the same name in the synonymy of two different taxa. Because we cannot settle in a decisive manner the dispute over the identity of C. uncinata var. coriacea at present, we consider it better to put the problem of lectypification of C. leiocarpa aside pending a further study. Yang (2009) overlooked the work of Wang (2000, 20003), citing the type information of C. leiocarpa as “ A. Henry 309 B (= 714 A) (holotype: K!; isotype: K!)”, probably due to the annotation “= 309 B ” in pencil (most likely in Oliver’s hand) on the sheet of A. Henry 714 A. In our opinion, however, this annotation should mean that Oliver, the author of C. leiocarpa , might have regarded the two specimens as belonging to the same taxonomic entity, not indicating they belonged to the same gathering. In fact, Oliver (1886) did not designate type for C. leiocarpa in the protologue, just stating that his species was described on the basis of Henry material from Ichang, China. We therefore agree with Wang (2000) that A. Henry 714 A and A. Henry 309 should constitute the syntypes of C. leiocarpa .

Prior to the description of Clematis zhejiangensis by Wang (1999), the name C. chekiangensis C. Pei in Chien et al. (1936: 105) had been previously published for a species also from Zhejiang and belonging to the same subsection, i.e. C. subsect. Rectae Prantl (1887: 260). The likelihood of confusion between C. zhejiangensis and C. chekiangensis caught our attention. Our request for a binding decision on whether the two names are sufficiently alike and thus should be treated as homonyms has been published in Taxon, the journal of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy ( Yuan & Yang 2017). Since we do not know at present if the decision will be ratified, here we have not treated C. zhejiangensis as a later homonym.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Isotype sheets (A, B) of Clematis zhejiangensis.

FIGURE 2. Syntype sheets (A, B) of Clematis leiocarpa.