Procris boninensis Tuyama (1935: 371)

Ohi-Toma, Tetsuo, Watanabe-Toma, Kana & Murata, Jin, 2015, Typification of Angiospermae described from the Bonin Islands 2: Archichlamydeae, Phytotaxa 227 (1), pp. 35-44 : 38

Procris boninensis Tuyama (1935: 371)

Type (lectotype, designated here):— JAPAN. Bonin: Hahajima, Sekimon-yama, 9 April 1934, T. Tuyama s.n. ( TI [00518]!, isolectotypes TI [00505]!, TI [00506]!, TI [00507]!, TI [00508]!, TI [00509]!).

Additional specimens examined:— JAPAN. Bonin : Hahajima, Sekimon-yama, July 1932, H. Hara s.n. (syntype, TI [00513]!) ; Bonin : Hahajima, Sekimon-yama, 9 August 1905, H. Hattori s.n. (paratypes, TI [00496]!, TI [00497]!, TI [00498]!, TI [00499]!, TI [00500]!) .

Distribution:— Japan (endemic to Hahajima in the Bonin Islands).

Notes:— Tuyama (1935) simultaneously designated two specimens in TI as types, “ T. Tuyama, Apr. 9. 1934 ” as “typus ♀ ” and “ H. Hara, Jul. 1932 ” as “typus ♂,” which are therefore syntypes (Art. 9.5 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012). He also cited two additional specimens without designating them as a type, and hence they are paratypes (see Art. 9.6 Note 5 Ex. 6 of the ICN, McNeill et al. 2012). Toyoda (1981) did not designate the lectotype since he cited both “ T. Tuyama, 1934, ♀ ” and “ H. Hara, 1932, ♂ ” as types. In TI, we found six duplicates of the former specimen and one sheet of the latter. In addition, one female specimen with an old “Typus” stamp (H. Hara T133, 28 June 1932; TI [00517]) was found.Although this specimen was collected by H. Hara in 1932, it is not a type because its collecting month is different from that of Hara’s syntype (TI [00513]). Herein, three sheets (TI [00505], [00506], and [00518]) of duplicates of Tuyama’s syntype were labeled as Procris boninensis Tuyama , but other sheets and Hara’s syntype were labeled as P. laevigata Blume. Of the former three, we designated the specimen with a Japanese name in Tuyama’s handwriting (TI [00518]), which had already been pressed with an old stamp of “Typus,” as the lectotype. In addition, for two paratypes cited in the protologue, we confirmed five duplicates of “ H. Hattori, Aug. 9. 1905,” of which one sheet is the same as the photo in the protologue. However, we could not find the other (“ T. Tuyama s.n., Aug. 5. 1933 ”) in TI or other herbaria.