Photinia davidiana var. davidiana

Guo, Wei, Fan, Qiang, Zhang, Xian-Zhi, Liao, Wen-Bo, Wang, Long-Yuan, Wu, Wei & Potter, Daniel, 2020, Molecular reappraisal of relationships between Photinia, Stranvaesia and Heteromeles (Rosaceae, Maleae), Phytotaxa 447 (2), pp. 103-115 : 111-112

3.1a Photinia davidiana var. davidiana

3.1b Photinia davidiana var. undulata (Decne.) Long Y. Wang, W. Guo & W.B. Liao in Wang et al. (2018: 91). ≡ Stranvaesia undulata Decaisne (1874: 179) . ≡ Eriobotrya undulata (Decne.) Franchet (1890: 226) . ≡ Stranvaesia davidiana var. undulata (Decne.) Rehder & Wilson (1912a: 192) . ≡ Photinia undulata (Decne.) Cardot (1919: 399) . Type:— CHINA. Kouy-Tcheou (= Guizhou), Perny s.n. (holotype: P-02143104!, isotype: P-02143105!).

3.2 Photinia arbutifolia Lindl. in Gawler (1820a: pl. 491), replacement name. ≡ Crataegus arbutifolia Aiton (1811: 202) , later homonym, illegitimate. ≡ Heteromeles arbutifolia (Lindl.) Roemer (1847: 105) . Type:— USA. California, introduced 1796, Archibald Menzies s.n. (holotype: BM?). (see note 7)

Nomenclature notes

Note 1: In the protologue, Don (1825) indicated the name Pyrus nussia came from “ Hamilton MSS ”, and cited two specimens, Hamilton s.n. and Wallich s.n. collected from “Nilkautha” of “Nepaliae”. Vidal (1965) selected Hamilton s.n. as the lectotype, but the institute where the lectotype deposited was not been indicated. Only one sheet of specimen (BM-000522002) collected by Hamilton matched Don’s (1825) description have been observed, with a handwriting note “ Pyrus nussia ” and Vidal’s identity label “ Stranvaesia nussia ” on the sheet. So we supposed this sheet of specimen was the lectotype or isolectotype Vidal selected, and made a second step designation here.

Note 2: In the protologue, Léveillé (1907) cited only one collection of specimen, E. Bodinier 2256, but the institute where this collection of specimen deposited was not indicated. Five duplicates of E. Bodinier 2256 has been observed, and all of these specimens are syntypes according to “Art. 9.6” and “Art. 40 Note 1” of the Shenzhen Code ( Turland et al. 2018). One sheet of these specimens (P-02143207) with entire inflorescence and lots of blooming flowers was selected as the lectotype here.

Note 3: In the protologue, Rehder & Wilson (1912a) cited five collections of specimens, A. Henry 11615, 11615a, 11615b, 11615e, 11615f, and all of these specimens were syntypes. Vidal (1965) selected A. Henry 11615 as the lectotype, but the institute where this specimen deposited was not indicated. Two duplicates of A. Henry 11615 (US-00097547 and A-00038562) have been observed, and each of them have two branches adhered on the sheets. The bottom branch of US-00097547 with entire inflorescences and blooming flowers was selected as the lectotype here.

Note 4: In the protologue, Schneider (1906) cited only one collection of specimen named Henry 5565 collected from Sichuan of China, and indicated that the type specimens deposited in “Herb. Barbey et Herb. Berlin”, which means there are more than one sheet of specimen existed. The “Herb. Barbey” had already disbanded and where the specimens have been transferred cannot be followed. And no related specimens have been observed in “Herb. Berlin”. Two sheets of Henry 5565 (US-00097546 and GH-00033523) have been observed, both of them saved well and with lots of blooming flowers, the one deposited in US was designated as lectotype here.

Note 5: In the protologue, Handel-Mazzetti (1933) cited three collections of specimens, e.g. H. Handel-Mazzetti 2507, 220006 with fruits and T.H. Wang s.n. with blooming flowers, collected at different date but shared the same number “11.205”. Six duplicates numbered “ H. Handel-Mazzetti 11.205 ” have been observed in public herbariums, and all of these specimens are syntypes, and lectotypification is needed according to “Art. 9.6” and “Art. 40 Note 1” of the Shenzhen Code ( Turland et al. 2018). Since flowers have more distinction characters than fruits in this species, the sheet of T.H. Wang s.n. deposited in WU (WU-0059454) with blooming flowers was designated as lectotype here.

Note 6: In the protologue, Yu & Ku in Yu et al. (1975) selected K.C. Kuan et al. 1319 deposited in PE as the type specimen. Two duplicates of K.C. Kuan et al. 1319 matched the description of Stranvaesia tomentosa have been found in PE (PE-00026319 and PE-00026320), so they are syntypes. The sheet (PE-00026319) with Yu & Ku’s handwriting identity label “ Holotype, Stranvaesia tomentosa Yu & Ku ” was designated as lectotype here.

Note 7: In the protologue, Aiton (1811) described this species based on individuals introduced from Califolia in 1796 by Archibald Menzies, but no specimens were cited. Phipps (1992) stated that the type specimen was deposited in BM, but was not seen by himself, neither ourselves.