Camellia kissi Wallich (1820: 429)
Zhao, Dongwei, 2022, Three new synonyms of Camellia kissi (Theaceae), Phytotaxa 531 (1), pp. 83-84 : 83-84
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/phytotaxa.531.1.8 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5851220 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EA262D-FF9E-9607-CEB8-577BFD3B90CC |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Camellia kissi Wallich (1820: 429) |
status |
|
Camellia kissi Wallich (1820: 429) View in CoL
Type:— NEPAL. 1818, Gardner s.n. (BM000948697!) .
= Camellia thailandica Chang & Ren (1991: 67) View in CoL , syn. nov. Type GoogleMaps :— THAILAND. Khao Yai National Park, Khao Khieo, 14°21’N, 101°22’E, elev. 1200–1300 m, 29 October 1970, Charoenphol et al. 4205 (holotype MO; isotypes BKF!, C!, K!).
= Camellia ligustrina Orel, Curry & Luu View in CoL in Orel et al. (2014: 310), syn. nov. Type:— VIETNAM. Lam Dong: Mount Lang Biang , elev. 1850 m, 16 December 2011, Orel & Curry 0734 (holotype NSW900397 [image!]).
= Camellia cuongiana Orel & Curry (2015: 180) View in CoL , syn. nov. Type:— VIETNAM. Lam Dong: Bidoup-Nui Ba National Park , 5 November 2012, Orel et al. 0721 (holotype NSW901040 [image!]).
Nomenclatural notes:— Chang & Bartholomew (1984) and Ming & Bartholomew (2007) thought that the epithet of C. kissi should be “ kissii ” without any further comment. However, in the protologue of the species, Wallich (1820: 429) stated that “...I propose calling Camellia kissi , the Newar name being Kissi or Kissi-soak by enumerating the points on which their specific difference appears to me to rest”. It seems that the epithet is derived from the vernacular name and therefore, the original spelling of the epithet, kissi , should be retained (see Art. 60 Ex. 21 of the ICN).
Morphological notes:— Camellia thailandica was simply compared with C. brevistyla ( Hayata 1908: 63) Cohen-Stuart (1916: 67) on the size and shape of the leaves and flowers in the protologue ( Chang & Ren 1991), and it is actually C. kissi based on its protologue and the types examined.
Camellia ligustrina was not compared with a specific taxon of Camellia in the protologue ( Orel et al. 2014). It was described as bearing a “finely hairy” seed, but the seeds of the holotype are glabrous (NSW900397 [image]). Based on the type and the photos reported ( Orel & Curry 2015), C. ligustrina is treated as a heterotypic synonym of C. kissi . Orel et al. (2014: 310), however, established Camellia sect. Pierrea based on C. ligustrina , accordingly, this section is recognized as a heterotypic synonym of Camellia sect. Paracamellia .
Similarly, Orel & Curry (2015: 182) did not compare C. cuongiana with other taxa of Camellia probably because they thought that it “possesses a combination of morphological characters which do not occur in any other known Camellia L. species”, and thus they established Camellia sect. Lamdongia based on it. However, the type and the photos in the protologue could clearly suggest that it is merely another representative of C. kissi . Therefore, sect. Lamdongia is treated as another heterotypic synonym of sect. Paracamellia in Camellia .
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Camellia kissi Wallich (1820: 429)
Zhao, Dongwei 2022 |
Camellia cuongiana
Orel & Curry 2015: 180 |
Camellia ligustrina
Orel, Curry & Luu 2014 |
Camellia thailandica
Chang & Ren 1991: 67 |