Synotis saluenensis (Diels) Jeffrey & Chen (1984: 330)

Xu, Ying, Singh, Harsh & Tang, Ming, 2023, The identity of Synotis borii (Asteraceae-Senecioneae), Phytotaxa 606 (2), pp. 155-163 : 155-162

Synotis saluenensis (Diels) Jeffrey & Chen (1984: 330) .

Senecio saluenensis Diels (1912: 193) . Figs. 1–6 .

Type:—[ CHINA. Yunnan, Baoshan County], shady, moist valleys of Salwin, Salwin-Irrawadi divide, north of Lu-chang , 26-27°N, alt. 4000-5000 ft., Nov. 1903, G. Forrest 855 (typ. cons. prop. by Li & Ren (2018: 816)): P00743119 !). Fig. 2 .

= Synotis borii (Raiz.) Mathur (1986: 482) , syn. nov. Senecio borii Raizada (1948: 206) .

Type:— INDIA. Assam, Naga Hills , Vismema, N. L. Bor 20920 (lectotype designated here: DD!, isolectotype: DD!). Fig. 1 .

Subshrubs or shrubby herbs. Stems scrambling, up to 3 m tall, branching in synflorescence, upper always densely glandular fulvous pubescent, glabrescent. Leaves shortly petiolate; petiole 6–10 mm long, pubescent, basally not auriculate; leaf blade elliptic or elliptic-lanceolate, 10–22 cm long, 4.5–6.5 cm wide, papery, abaxially sparsely to densely glandular fulvous pubescent especially on veins, glabrescent, adaxially glabrous, pinnately veined, lateral veins 10–14, arcuate-ascending, prominent abaxially, base broadly cuneate to subrounded, margin finely to rather coarsely and irregularly mucronate-serrate, apex acuminate; leaves of synflorescence branches smaller. Capitula discoid, very numerous, arranged in lax to rather dense axillary and terminal rounded compound corymb; peduncle up to 5 mm long, glandular fulvous pubescent, bracteolate; bracteoles linear or linear-subulate, 2–3 mm long. Involucres narrowly campanulate, 3–4 mm long, 2–2.5 mm wide, calyculate; bracts of calyculus 4 or 5, minute; phyllaries 8, sometimes 9-14, linear-lanceolate, 1–1.2 mm wide, herbaceous, sparsely glandular puberulent or subglabrous, apically acute or subacute and puberulent. Outer florets 5, female; corolla filiform, yellow, 2.5–3 mm long, shorter than style, apically minutely 2–4 lobed. Disk florets 5 or 6; corolla yellow, with 1.8–2 mm long tube. Anthers 1.8–2 mm long. Style branches 0.8 mm long. Achenes cylindrical, 2–2.5 mm long, glabrous. Pappus white, 3.5–4 mm long.

Distribution and habitat:— Synotis saluenensis is distributed in Assam in northeastern India, northern Myanmar and Vietnam, and southwestern China (Guangxi, Guizhou, Xizang, Yunnan). It grows in forests and thicket margins at elevations of 1000–3000 m.

Phenology:—Flowering from October to February; fruiting from December to April.

Additional specimens examined:— CHINA. Guangxi: Lingyun (‘Lingle’), Lingyun Exped. 451027121021004 (GXMG), Lingyun Exped. 451027130816086 (GXMI), Lingyun Exped. 451027140307020 (GXMG, GXMI), Z. Huang 43178 (IBSC); Longlin, B. Y. Huang et al. 451026141015073LY (GXMG), C. C. Chang 10802 (IBSC); Napo (‘Mubian’), C. C. Chang 13503, C. C. Chang 13974 (IBSC), C. T. Lee 602183 (LBG, PE), D. Fang et al. 657 (GXMI), D. Fang et al. 734 (GXMI), D. Fang et al. 78347 (GXMI), D. H. Tan & W. Y. Rao 79910 (GXMI), D. X. Nong et al. 451026121227047LY (GXMG), D. X. Nong et al. 451026121226055LY (GXMG), H. N. Qin et al. 2013 (PE), H. Wang 6619 (PE); Tian′e, Beijing Exped. 893241, Beijing Exped. 893321 (PE); Tianlin, C. C. Chang 10971 (IBSC), Y. F. Huang & L. Y. Yu 20894 (GXMG). Guizhou: Guanling (‘KwanLin’), S. W. Feng 1652 (IBSC). Xizang: Bomê, FLPH Tibet Exped. 12-1947 (PE); Without precise locality, F. Kingdon-Ward 10986 (BM), F. Ludlow et al. 12089 (BM). Yunnan: Dehong Dai and Jingpo Autonomous Prefecture, C. Chen 815 (KUN); Fugong (‘Shangpa’), H. T. Tsai 54422 (E, IBSC, LBG), H. T. Tsai 54848 (E, IBSC), H. T. Tsai 58664 (IBSC, LBG), H. T. Tsai 59139 (IBSC), H. T. Tsai 59169 (IBSC, LBG); Funing, Q. A. Wu et al. 9602 (KUN); Gongshan, G. Forrest 9220 (E), Gaoligong Shan Exped. 7477 (E), H. Li et al. 15582 (E), H. Li et al.16639 (E), H. Li et al.15753 (E), H. Li et al. 17061 (E), H. Li et al. 21193 (E), H. Li et al. 21368 (E, PE), H. Li et al. 21777 (E, PE), T. T. Yü 23091 (E, KUN, PE), T. T. Yü 20551 (E, KUN PE); Jingdong, G. P. Yang 339 (PE), H. Peng 1390 (KUN), M. K. Li 1130 (KUN,), P. Y. Chiu 53221 (KUN, LBG); Longling (‘Lungling’), J. Chen 630 (KUN); Longyang, M. Tang & J. P. Luo 16 (IBSC); Lushui, H. T. Tsai 56930 (IBSC); Malipo, Y. Z. Wang et al. 4705 (PE); Mengzi, A. Henry 9086 (BM, E, LE); Nanjian, E. D. Liu et al. 3553 (KUN); Pingbian, C. W. Wang 82136 (KUN), C. W. Wang 82437 (KUN); Shipping, X. F. Wu 533951 (IBSC); Tengchong, Q. Lin 770665 (KUN); Wenshan, Y. M. Shui 00295 (KUN); Xichou, S. Z. Tian 544 (KUN), Q. A. Wu 230 (KUN), S. C. He 80140 (IBSC); Xinping, Xinping Exped. 5304270824 (IMDY); Yanshan, C. W. Wang 84493 (KUN); Yuanjiang, Y. H. Li 5839 (HITBC, KUN).

INDIA. Assam: Kigewema, Naga Hills, C. B. Clarke 42637 (BM, K); Walung, F. Kingdon-Ward 20235 (BM).

MYANMAR. Shan State, without precise locality, R. W. Macgtegor 1224 (E); Without precise locality, R. Unwin 3071 (E).

VIETNAM. Hanoi (‘Tonkin’): Sapa (‘Chapa’), anonymous 29313 (P), H. Lecomte & A. Finet 522 (P), H. Pételot 1737 (P).

Notes:— Synotis borii is indeed different from S. rhabdos as Raizada (1948) described, however, they neglected to compare it with S. saluenensis ( Figs. 2–6 ), a species that occurs in northeastern India, Myanmar, Vietnam and is widely distributed in southwestern China. We checked ample specimens of S. saluenensis in all Chinese herbaria such as CDBI, IBSC, KUN, PE, WUK etc., and in the most famous herbaria abroad such as BM, DD, E, GH, K, LE, NY, P, etc., founding that most populations of S. saluenensis are similar to S. borii , which only differs by its leaves glandular fulvous-pubescence abaxially as Tang (2014) stated in his master’s thesis. However, the indumentum on the pedicle of the type of S. borii has no essential difference from that of S. saluenensis ( Fig. 3 ), and we also noticed that some populations of S. saluenensis are only with pubescence on leaves abaxially, such as those in northwestern Yunnan and western Guangxi, i.e., G. Forrest 9220 (E), A. Henry 9086 (BM, E, LE), D. X. Nong et al. 451026121227047LY (GXMG), T. T. Yü 23091 (E, KUN, PE)( Fig. 5 ), etc. Thus, S. borii is essentially the same as S. saluenensis and is suggested to be synonymized herein.

Additionally, we report that the indumentum varies greatly in Synotis , namely in S. ser. Synotis ( Clarke 1876: 177) Jeffrey & Chen (1984: 310) and S. ser. Erectae ( Clarke 1876: 177) Jeffrey & Chen (1984: 310) ( Fan et al. 2022), and the taxonomic value of this pubescence in Synotis which Jeffrey and Chen (1984) highly valued requires re-evaluation based on ample specimen examinations and field observations, especially at population level. As Raizada (1948) didn’t designate the holotype when he described his new species, and so far only two well preserved type sheets are tracked in DD ( Fig. 1 ) but the sheet ( Fig. 1 A ) bears more detailed collection information, we hereby designate this sheet ( Fig. 1 A ) as the lectotype, while the other ( Fig. 1 B ) automatically becomes an isolectotype.

Synotis saluenensis usually has 8 phyllaries, whereas the number of phyllaries is variable in some populations, such as in the specimens of Gaoligong Shan Biodiversity Survey 21368 (E, PE), T. T. Yü 20551 (E, KUN PE) ( Fig. 6 A, B ) from Gongshan in Yunnan, and the specimens of D. X. Nong et al. 451026121227047LY (GXMG), D. X. Nong et al. 451026121226055LY (GXMG) ( Fig. 6 C, D ) from Napo in Guangxi, ranging from 8 to 12 (14), which were neglected by all the former researchers such as Jeffrey & Chen (1984), Chen (1999), Chen et al. (2011), and Li & Ren (2018). This information shows that this species may be more variable than previously known.

It should be noted that minor differences exist among Synotis saluenensis and its allies such as S. pentantha (Merrill) Tang et al. (2017: 256) , which has been stated by Tang et al. (2017) and Li and Ren (2018). As clarified by Li & Ren (2018), S. saluenensis is nomenclaturally problematic because two taxa are mixed in its type gatherings, and they proposed conserving S. saluenensis with a conserved type P00743119 ( Figure 2 ). Many misidentifications between the two species were revealed when we checked all the specimens of S. saluenensis and its affinities. However, these species could be easily distinguished from each other by the different number of phyllaries (8–14 for S. saluenensis vs. 5 for S. pentantha ). The key to distinguish S. saluenensis and S. pentantha , as well as their similar species was given by Tang et al. (2017).

Figures

FIGURE 1 Lectotype (A) and isolectotype (B) of Senecio borii.

FIGURE 2 Conserved type (P) of Synotis saluenensis proposed by Li & Ren (2018).

FIGURE 3 Close-up images of the lectotype of Synotis borii (A, B) and the conserved type of S. saluenensis (C, D).

FIGURE 4 Synotis saluenensis. A. Habitat. B. Habit. C. Stem portion. D. Leaf (adaxial view). E. Leaf (abaxial view). F. Pedicel portion. G. Synflorescence (top view). H. Capitulum (side view). I. Marginal floret. J. Disk floret.

FIGURE 5 Synotis saluenensis. A. Gongshan, Yunnan, China, G. Forrest 9220 (E). B. Mengzi, Yunnan, China, A. Henry 9086 (E). C. Napo, Guangxi, China, D. X. Nong et al. 451026121227047LY (GXMG). D. Gongshan, Yunnan, China, T. T. Yü 23091 (E).

FIGURE 6 Synotis saluenensis. A. Gongshan, Yunnan, China, Gaoligong Shan Biodiversity Survey 21368 (E). B. Gongshan, Yunnan, China, T. T. Yü 20551 (E). C. Napo, Guangxi, China, D. X. Nong et al. 451026121227047LY (GXMG). D. Napo, Guangxi, China, D. X. Nong et al. 451026121226055LY (GXMG).