Eutrema potaninii Komarov (1911: 393)

German, Dmitry A. & Al-Shehbaz, Ihsan A., 2015, Typification of miscellaneous Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) from Central and Middle Asia, Phytotaxa 221 (1), pp. 57-65 : 63-64

22. Eutrema potaninii Komarov (1911: 393) [ Eutrema yunnanense Franchet (1889: 61) ].

Type locality indication: “Chinae provincia Se-czuan: in monte Omi-shan IV, et in trajecto Tai-sian-guan-lin, 10. IV 1893, G. N. Potanin legit”.

Lectotype (designated here):— CHINA. [Sichuan], Mts. Omi Shan , 1 April 1893, [fl.], G. N. Potanin s.n. [originally in Russian] ( LE!) . Isolectotypes in LE!, MO !; other syntype in LE !

Komarov (1911) listed two gatherings of Eutrema potaninii , both collected by G.N. Potanin on April 1893 from Sichuan Province on the pass Tai-Sian-Guan-lin and in Omi Shan Mts. The second collection is much more complete and represented by at least six duplicates (five at LE and one at MO) one of which is designated herein as the lectotype. Furthermore, there is one uncited specimen at LE collected by Potanin on 13 th April 1890 on the pass Fe-ling.

23. Pseudobraya kizyl-arti Korshinsky (1896: 88) ≡ Draba kizyl-arti (Korsh.) Busch (1918: 1638) [ Draba oreades Schrenk ].

Type locality indication: “Hab. in valle fl. Kok-saj Pamiriae prope trajectum Kizyl-art, solo lapidoso; 21 Julii 1895 fl. ult. et fr. fere mat. observavi”.

Lectotype (designated here) or perhaps holotype:— TAJIKISTAN. [Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region, Transalai range], Turkestania. In the valley of Kok-sai , near Kyzyl-art. 9 July 1895, [fr.], S. Korshinsky 436 [originally in Russian] ( LE!). Possible original material in LE!

It is difficult to say with certainty whether the original material includes one or two elements and thus whether lectotypidication is needed. The above specimen was annotated by Korshinsky as “ Pseudobraya Kizylarti m. n. gen. et sp. [crossed out] Draba physocarpa Komar. ” and the locality and date were added later by Lipsky. There is another specimen from the same locality and with very similar label, but it is dated “ 8 VII 1895 ”, without collection number, and with Korshinshy’s annotation “ Draba physocarpa Komar. ” only. The discrepancy between the dates in the publication and on the labels reflects the difference between Julian and Gregorian calendars; as long as before 1900 it was 12 days, only the specimen with the label date “9 VII” was cited and definitely belongs to the original material. However, the second specimen was definitely in the author’s disposition when preparing the description and could have been used without citing it, and therefore it very likely represents uncited original material. It consists of plants absolutely the same in every aspect of morphology as those from the cited specimen, and it can hardily be imagined that it was treated by the author in other way as the plants collected on 8 th July. Keeping these considerations in mind, we feel it safer to designate the cited specimen as lectotype.

The same lectotype is designated here for Draba tianschanica Pohle , a superfluous illegitimate, but not automatically typified synonym of D. oreades .

24. Sisymbrium mollissimum f. pamiricum Korshinsky (1898: 411) , “ pamirica ” [ Crucihimalaya mollissima ( Meyer 1831: 140) Al-Shehbaz, O’Kane & Price (1999: 299) ].

Type locality indication: “Pamir: ad lacum Sassyk-kul, 20 Jul. (1 Aug.) 1897 fl. fr. Alaj: prope lacum Katyn-art, 8 (20) Jul. fl. fr. imm.; secus fl. Tarascha, alt. 9–10000’, 25 Jun. (6 Jul.) 1895 fl. fr. imm.”.

Lectotype (designated here):— TAJIKISTAN. [Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region, valley of Alichur], Turkestania. Pamir: near the lake Sassyk-kul, gravelly streamside. 20 July [18]97, [fl., fr. submat.], S. Korshinsky 317 [originally in Russian] ( LE 01009719 !) . Isolectotype and other four syntypes in LE!

Among the two specimens bearing the taxon name handwritten by Korshinsky, the one from Pamir is arbitrarily selected as the lectotype to avoid a discrepancy between the locality and the epithet, and to reflect the main distribution area of the taxon.

25. Winklera patrinoides Regel (1886: 618) ≡ Lepidium patrinoides (Regel) Al-Shehbaz & Mummenhoff (2011: 169) .

Type locality indication: “In Turkestaniae orientalis regione bucharica orientali apud fluvium Tschorabdärrä fluvium Kysylsu baladschuanicum constituens Majo 1884 codemque mense prope oppidum Mumynawad provinciae Kulab et in montibus Kuh-i-Fur e vicinis ad alt. 5,000’ et prope pagum Harset Sultan ad declivia occidentali montium darvasicorum situm Majo et Junio 1884 (A. Regel)”.

Lectotype (designated here):— TAJIKISTAN. [Khatlon Prov., Shurabdaria], Tschorabdärrä ad fl. Kysylsu May 1884, [fl.], A. Regel s.n. ( LE!) . Isolectotype in LE !; other syntypes in B!, JE, K!, LE !

As might be concluded from the protologue, E. Regel (1886) listed four gatherings collected by his son, A. Regel, in May and June 1884. In fact, the material from Mumynabad is supplied with two kinds of labels, “Inter Langar et Aksu prope oppidum Mumynawad V, VI 1884 ” and “Prope Mumynawad terrae Kulab, 5000’, V 1884 ” and syntype from Kuh-i-Fur was collected, according the the label, in June 1883. Hence, original material of W. patrinoides includes at least five gatherings represented by 12 specimens at LE, four at JE, three at K, one at B, and probably some more elsewhere. One of five syntypes at LE annotated by the species author is chosen as the lectotype.

Previous type indication “ Type: Turkestan , Eastern Bukhara, Regel ( LE)” by Jafri (1973: 66) cannot be accepted as lectotypification because he provided no details that unambiguously refer to any of the actual collections or specimens ( ICN Art. 40.3, Note 2; McNeill et al., 2012) .