Coelogyne fuliginosa Paxton

Adit, Arjun & Kumar, Pankaj, 2024, Taxonomy of Coelogyne section Fuliginosae (Orchidaceae): new species, notes, resurrections and typifications, Phytotaxa 668 (1), pp. 81-98 : 85-90

Coelogyne fuliginosa Paxton , Paxton’s Mag. Bot. 5: 237 (1838)

NEOTYPE (designated here; Fig. 2 ). INDIA . 1838, Loddiges’s collector s.n. (K-LINDL! [ K000079261 !]).

Coelogyne fuliginosa Lodd. ex Hook., Bot. Mag. 75: t. 4440 (1849); Pleione fuliginosa (Lodd. ex Hook.) Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 680 (1891). TYPE. INDIA . 1838, Loddiges’s collector s.n. (K-LINDL! Isonym)

Coelogyne longeciliata Teijsm. & Binnend., Nat. Tijds. Ned. Ind. 27: 16 (1864). TYPE. INDIA . Assam, Lobb s.n. (not found).

DISTRIBUTION. India (Meghalaya, Sikkim), Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam.

SPECIMENS EXAMINED. INDIA , 1838, Loddiges’s collector s.n. (K-LINDL!); Arunachal Pradesh: Kameng , 21 Nov. 1970, A. S. Rao 50564 (ASSAM!) ; Kameng 06 Oct. 1971 A. S. Rao 50799 (ASSAM!) ; Meghalaya: Khasi Hills , 22 Nov. 1938, Sharma 20226 (ASSAM!) ; Mawsmai 05 Oct. 1976 S. Das 60239 (ASSAM!) ; S. Das 55454, 60148, 60175 (ASSAM!) ; MALAYSIA, Tenasserim, Parish 118 ( K!) ; MYANMAR, Kachin Hills, Dec. 1899 Mokim 52 ( CAL!) ; VIETNAM, Hoa Binh province, Sept. 2014, Chu Xuan Canh s.n. ( LE!) ; Lam Dong province, Lac Duong district, Lat municipality, Pang Tien village , 15 Feb. 2017, L. V. Averyanov & T. V. Masiak AL054 ( LE!) .

NOTES. This species had a widely debated existential crisis, falling in and out several times as an accepted species. Coelogyne fuliginosa Paxton (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/48280865) is validly published on account of the brief English description (“ This is a new and very interesting species, with flowers of a light brown colour; the labellum, which is beautifully fringed, being of a very dark brownish purple hue. The flowers are about an inch across, and appear to be produced rather sparingly, though, from the smallness of the plant in the collection of these gentlemen, this latter feature is probably not a permanent one.” Paxton 1838). It is significant that this description appears in the article “Notices of new and rare plants in flower in the principal nurseries in the vicinity of London” (see p. 235) and this particular plant was in the nursery of Conrad Loddiges and Sons. (see the heading “Messrs. Loddiges, Hackney.” on p. 236). In the protologue of Coelogyne fuliginosa Lodd. ex Hook. , there is a reference to “ Coelogyne fuliginosa Lodd. Cat. ”, which refers to one of the catalogues of the Loddiges nursery (see TL-2 no. 4913: https://www. sil.si.edu/DigitalCollections/tl-2/browse.cfm?vol=3#page/149). These catalogues do not include descriptions, so the name would not have been validly published there. The point is that Paxton was describing the same plant that was later described by Hooker, because both authors cited the Loddiges nursery and used the same name. In this case, Coelogyne fuliginosa Paxton and Coelogyne fuliginosa Lodd. ex Hook. would be isonyms (Art. 6 Note 2; Turland et al. 2018), in which case only the earlier isonym (Paxton 1838) has nomenclatural status, whereas the later isonym (Hooker 1849) may be disregarded.

As there is no specimen that Paxton evidently saw and annotated as Coelogyne fuliginosa (even later than writing his notes in Paxton’s magazine of botany), we conclude that there is no original material and the name needs to be neotypified. In this case it will be stabilizing to designate the specimen studied by Hooker [Loddiges’s collector s.n. (K-LINDL- K000079261)] as the neotype, noting that the same name subsequently published by Hooker in the Botanical Magazine (Hooker 1849) is homotypic and a later isonym.

Although, Gustav Mann’s drawing of a specimen from Darjeeling in 1867 mentions the name C. ovalis var. fuliginosa, Seidenfaden (1975) reluctantly presented this as an accepted species based on Summerhayes’s dissection and circumscription (Bot. Mag. 1931, sub t. 9255), but warned that it should be treated with “caution”. Das (1977) also mentions seeing several living collections, and that this species is very distinct from both C. fimbriata and C. ovalis . Pelser et al. (2000) believed it to be a synonym of C. fimbriata , supported by a phenetic analysis, however overlooking key features of the epichile, as also stated by Clayton (2002) and Pearce & Cribb (2002) who considered it as a distinct species. Chen et al. (2009) assumed it to be a synonym of C. fimbriata due to similar floral morphology; and subsequently, Schuiteman et al. (2022) placed it under the synonymy of C. ovalis , possibly due to the resemblance of pseudobulbs. Averyanov et al. (2023) have kept the species separate, although with uncertainty. Coelogyne fuliginosa differs from C. fimbriata and C. ovalis due to presence of distinctly interrupted straight keels and a noticeable short median keel. Hence, we resurrect it as a distinct species. Chromosome number, n=20 has been reported by Das (1977).

While Clayton (2002) considered C. longeciliata as a distinct species, based on J.J. Smith’s opinion, Seidenfaden (1975) hesitantly includes it as synonym with a ‘?’ question mark. We however treat C. longeciliata as a synonym of C. fuliginosa based on the original description of the plant that has oblong-lanceolate leaves, large flowers with oblong sepals and a labellum with a noticeable median keel. It is important to note that the specimen reported by Comber (1990), which was collected by Koorders from an unnamed location in Java is most probably a different species altogether, and may be looked on by future workers (if and when one encounters a live specimen). It is also interesting to note that Clayton (2002) might have mixed labellum illustrations of C. fuliginosa and C. ovalis (see Fig. 7 : 3 and 4); this has been rectified in our figure (see labellum comparison image later in the article).

Coelogyne leungiana S.Y. Hu, Quart. J. Taiwan Mus. 25(3-4): 223 (1972); Coelogyne fimbriata var. leungiana (S.Y. Hu) P.J. Cribb & S.W. Gale, Wild Orchids Hong Kong: 480 (2011).

TYPE. CHINA, Hong Kong, Pat Sin Leng, Shuen Wan, 06 Dec. 1969, S. Y. Hu 9089 ( AMES!- Holotype)

DISTRIBUTION. Hong Kong ( China)

SPECIMENS EXAMINED. CHINA, Hong Kong, Pat Sin Leng , Shuen Wan, 06 Dec. 1969, S. Y. Hu 9089 ( AMES!) ; 1969, L. Kwan 1 icon. (AMES!); Nov. 1970, T. Jung 2 icon. ( AMES!) ; 08 Nov. 1972, S. Y. Hu 12454 ( AMES!) ; CHINA, Hong Kong, New Territories , Pat Sin Leng, Pankaj Kumar 12008 ( KFBG!) ; CHINA, Hong Kong, New Territories , Pat Sin Leng, ex. cult., Pankaj Kumar KFBG 260 ( KFBG!) .

NOTES. This species was discovered by (and named after) James Leung, who found it from the Pat Sin Leng mountains overlooking Hong Kong’s New Territories. It was raised to flower in the garden of Mrs. Gloria Barretto, subsequently described by Prof. Shiu Ying Hu in 1972. For a long time, C. leungiana was placed under C. fimbriata as a synonym. Although Seidenfaden (1975) claimed that C. leungiana looked similar to C. fimbriata , our observation of the live specimens (ex situ) and the extant plants at the type locality (in situ) suggest that they differ completely in the shape of petals and lip. This is in addition to the fact that C. leungiana flowers at least one month later than C. fimbriata . Pelser et al. (2000) mentions that the specimens Seidenfaden (1975) studied had linear instead of ovateoblong petals; this is highly unlikely. It is possible that Seidenfaden (1975) was not comparing the correct specimen, as it is improbable that he had access to live or dry specimens of this entity from Hong Kong as per old records. Pelser et al. (2000) on the other hand did have the live specimens as they acknowledged Mrs. Gloria Barretto ( Hong Kong), observing abnormalities in few flowers and labelling it as a “monstrous form” of C. fimbriata ( Figs. 3 A-C). Although George & George (2011) considered it as a distinct species, Baretto et al. (2011) treated it as a variety, C. fimbriata var. leungiana Cribb & Gale. They presented a line drawing (fig 391(N and N1)) showing fimbriate and hairy margin on one side of labellum. However, this drawing doesn’t represent the true form of C. leungiana as illustrated by Hu (1972: fig. 9), as it is only the peloric form. The living specimens in KFBG are housed as two groups; while one group shows this variation, the other has not shown any peloric flowers during the last 11 years of diligent observation (PK, pers. obs.). This species is known only from a single location with two sub-populations in wild and one living collection at KFBG. Several “normal” flowering specimens of C. leungiana have been studied and the species is distinct from all others in the section by having elliptic-lanceolate petals (as opposed to linear), smooth labellum margin (as opposed to fimbriate or ciliate) and a labellum without lateral lobes ( Figs. 3B, C ). It is speculated that, C. leungiana had a single genotype obtained from a single locality in the collection from which multiple plants were propagated vegetatively. The species failed to set fruits during attempts to cross with C. fimbriata and C. ovalis (PK pers. obs.); and flowers have been observed to have no pollinator visitations at the site where C. fimbriata and C. ovalis grow under cultivation at KFBG. The latter two species set fruits naturally, and all three are self-incompatible. These evidences are enough to reinstate C. leungiana as a distinct species.

Coelogyne ovalis Lindl. , Edwards’s Bot. Reg. 24 (Misc.): 91 (1838); Pleione ovalis (Lindl.) Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 680 (1891).

LECTOTYPE (designated here; Fig. 4 ). NEPAL and INDIA . Kumaon , 1821, Wallich 1957 [K-LINDL! ( K000079253 !)].

Coelogyne decora Wall. ex Voigt., Hort. Suburb. Calcutt. 621 (1845). TYPE. INDIA . Icon (K!- Holotype).

Coelogyne pilosissima Planch., Hort. Donat. 144 (1855). TYPE. Provenance unknown. cult. Donat 144 (not found).

Broughtonia linearis Wall. ex Hook. f. , in Fl. Brit. India 5: 836 (1890). Type: not designated.

Coelogyne ovalis var. latifolia Hook. f., Fl. Brit. India 5: 836 (1890), TYPE. INDIA . Mizoram, Kohima, 1371 m, Clarke s.n. (not found).

Coelogyne arunachalensis H.J. Chowdhery & G.D. Pal, Nordic J. Bot. 17: 369 (1997). TYPE. INDIA . Arunachal Pradesh, Lower Subansiri District, G.D. Pal 1790 (CAL!- Holotype).

Coelogyne mishmensis K. Gogoi, Richardiana 16: 375 (2016). TYPE. INDIA . Arunachal Pradesh, Lower Dibang Valley District, Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary , 800 m, 24 July 2016, Gogoi 0765A (CAL!- Holotype; DUH!- Isotype).

DISTRIBUTION. Bhutan, China (South-Central), Myanmar, India (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Karnataka, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, West Bengal), Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam

SPECIMENS EXAMINED. INDIA , Arunachal Pradesh: Kameng, Hynniewta 51832 (ASSAM!); Tirap , 21 Oct. 1959, R. S. Rao 20381 (ASSAM!) ; Lower Dibang Valley District, Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary , 800 m, 24 July 2016, Gogoi 0765 A ( CAL!; DUH!) ; Lower Subansiri District , G. D. Pal 1790 ( CAL!) ; Assam: Upper Dihang Reserve Forest , Panigrahi 18853 (ASSAM!) ; Meghalaya: Mungpo, King s.n. ( CAL!) ; Pongtung , 31 Oct. 1952, G. K. Deka s.n. (ASSAM!) ; Soharium , Aug. 1975, S. Das 60245 (ASSAM!) ; Sikkim: King s.n. ( CAL!) ; Oct. 1892, Pantling 10 ( CAL!) ; Icon ( K!) ; NEPAL and INDIA, Kumaon, 1821 , Wallich 1957 (K-LINDL!); Kumaon, 1821, Wallich 1957.1 (K-WALL!); VIETNAM, Dak Nong Prov., Dak Glong Distr., Dak Som Municipality , 05 Nov. 2005, L. V. Averyanov, T. V. Thao, N. T. Vinh HLF5542, HLF5542 ( LE!) ; Dien Bien Province, Tua Chua District, Sin Chai Municipality , 14 Dec. 2010, L. V. Averyanov, P. K. Loc, P. V. The, N. T. Vinh CPC992 ( LE!) ; Dien Bien Province, Muong Cha District, Mua Ngai Municipality , 18 Dec. 2010, L. V. Averyanov, P. K. Loc, P. V. The, N. T. Vinh. CPC1054 ( LE!) ; Lam Dong Prov., Da Lat city, 14 Nov. 2005, L. V. Averyanov, P. K. Loc HAL8634 ( LE!) ; Quang Tri Province, Huong Hoa District, Huong Phung Municipality, vicinities of Sa Mui pass, 30 March 2006, N. T. Hiep, L. V. Averyanov, P. K. Loc, P. V. The, N. S. Khang, P. H. Duc, L. T. Son, S. Bounphanmy, T. K. Ratana, O. Sonliya, T. Q. Dang, N. V. Hien, H. T. N. Trang, L. T. Chau HLF5903 ( LE!) .

NOTES. Lindley was going through Wallich’s Indian herbarium collection and found a specimen without flowers (#1957.1) that resembled C. fimbriata , and catalogued it under the name.However, he received a living plant in flowering from Messrs. Loddiges which was collected by Wallich, and realized that although similar in general appearance, it was a distinct species. He described this plant as C. ovalis (#1957). However, while describing the species Lindley did not indicate a holotype, and both specimens were treated as syntypes. The specimen #1957 (K000079253) is chosen here as the lectotype, as it is complete with flowers and may have been the one on which the original description was based. Lower half of this specimen figures two other names as comments viz., C. fuscescens and C. fuliginosa . However, these comments are incorrect, as the specimens bear fringed labellum with undulate and un-interrupted keels, which are characteristic of C. ovalis . This species differs from C. fimbriata by having larger reddish-brown flowers and delicately striated, longer and oblong pseudobulbs, pectinate lateral lobes and undulate keels. Chromosome number, n=20 has been reported by Mehra and Vij (Löve 1970).

Clayton (2002) considered C. arunachalensis as a distinct species, basing circumscription entirely on color of keels and apex of side lobes. We have observed that these are very flexible characters in C. ovalis , and agree with Kumar et al. (2018) and Schuiteman et al. (2022) that C. arunachalensis is a synonym of C. ovalis . Although, Gogoi’s (2016) description of C. mishmensis creates an impression that there might be merit to treat it as a variety of C. ovalis , we agree with Kumar et al. (2018) and Schuiteman et al. (2022) to keep this under synonymy at this point of time. We are in agreement with Clayton (2002) and Seidenfaden (1975) to treat C. decora (referring the iconotype) and C. pilosissima (referring the protologue) as synonyms of C. ovalis which has large flowers with undulate labellum keels. In absence of a type or recorded description for Broughtonia linearis and C. ovalis var. latifolia , we have maintained treatment by Schuiteman et al. (2022) which follows Hooker (1890) for these names as synonym to C. ovalis . It is important to note that Clayton (2002) might have mixed labellum illustrations of C. fuliginosa and C. ovalis (see Fig. 7 : 3 and 4); this has been rectified in our figure (see labellum comparison image).

Figures

FIGURE 2. Loddiges’s specimen mounted by Hooker (K000079261), selected here as neotype of Coelogyne fuliginosa © copyright of the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

FIGURE 3. A. Abnormal (peloric) floral form of C. fimbriata, B. Flower of C. leungiana, and C. labellum of C. leungiana. Single scale has been used for size comparison between the species.

FIGURE 4. Wallich’s specimen mounted by Lindley (K000079253), selected here as lectotype of Coelogyne ovalis © copyright of the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

FIGURE 7. Comparative floral morphology (whole mounts of flower and labellum) of A. Coelogyne tripurensis, B. C. ovalis, and C. C. fimbriata. Note: Image of C. tripurensis labellum on this plate is taken from specimen stored in 70% alcohol to show clear pattern of veins and keels. Single scale has been used for size comparison between the species.