Premna menglaensis Li (2013: 58)

Li, Bo, 2018, Two illegitimate superfluous names in Premna (Lamiaceae, Premnoideae), Phytotaxa 347 (2), pp. 189-190 : 189

Premna menglaensis Li (2013: 58)

Replaced name:— Premna laevigata Wu ex Jin (1994: 686) , nom. illeg., non P. laevigata Miquel (1858: 895)

≡ Premna emarginata Zhang & Duan (2014: 281) , nom. illeg. superfl.

Type:— CHINA. Yunnan: Mengla County, 550 m, 29 October 1959, H. T. Tsai 59-11098 (holotype KUN barcode 1218177!, isotype KUN barcode 1218176!).

Notes: ––When Duan & Zhang (2014) proposing the replacement name P. emarginata , cited a full and direct reference to “ Premna laevigata C.Y. Wu (1977: 440) ”, however it was not the valid publication place of P. laevigata C.Y.Wu. In the protologue of P. laevigata C.Y.Wu , the name was invalidly published according to Arts. 40.1 and 40.2 of the ICN ( McNeill et al. 2012) because three gathering were simultaneously listed as types (i.e. H. T. Tsai 59-11098 as flowering type, and S. J. Pei 59-11239 and S. J. Pei 59-13345 as fruiting types), but it was later validated by Jin (1994), with the gathering H. T. Tsai 59-11098 designated as the type. When the legitimate replacement name P. menglaensis was proposed, Li et al. (2013) found that there were two sheets of the gathering H. T. Tsai 59-11098 deposited in KUN, so they listed one of the sheets ( KUN barcode 1218177) as holotype, thus another sheet ( KUN barcode 1218176) should be the isotype. However, Duan & Zhang (2014) selected the later sheet as the lectotype of the replacement name P. emarginata , but the lectotype should be superseded according to the Art. 9.19 of the ICN ( McNeill et al 2012).