Salix rhododendroides C. Wang & C.Y. Yu

He, Li, Liao, Shuai, Chen, Shi-Pin & Zhang, Zhi-Xiang, 2016, Nomenclatural notes of Salix wangiana and S. zangica var. tibetica (Salicaceae), Phytotaxa 245 (1), pp. 71-74 : 71-73

Salix rhododendroides C. Wang & C.Y. Yu in Anonymous (1974: 598)

Type:— CHINA. Shaanxi: Taibai Mountain , 2840 m, 9 July 1957, K. J. Fu 9509 (lectotype, designated here: WUK 171975 !; isolectotype WUK 90140 !, digital image examined; [♀]).—For image of lectotype, see Fig. 1A .

= S. wangiana K.S. Hao ex C.F. Fang & A.K. Skvortsov (1998: 469) , syn. nov. — S. wangiana K.S. Hao (1936: 81) , nom. inval. Type:— CHINA. Shaanxi: Taibai Mountain, 2700 m, 4 August 1933, T. P. Wang 1769 (holotype PE [barcode] 00766307!; isotypes IBSC [barcode] 0349187!, WUK 00438 ! [♀]).—For image of holotype, see Fig. 1B .

Salix wangiana K.S. Hao was not validly published, with an English description instead of the Latin description or diagnosis, which was obligatory between 1 January 1935 and 31 December 2011, according to Art. 39.1 of the ICN (Melbourne Code, McNeill et al. 2012). It was subsequently validated by Fang & Skvortsov (1998), who referenced Hao’s protologue and provided a Latin description.

Fang & Skvortsov (1998) stated that the holotype of Salix wangiana is located in Paris ( P). However, the type information in Hao’s (1936) protologue is “ T. P. Wang 1769 (type in Herb. Peiping)”. “Herb. Peiping” is the predecessor of PE, and a duplicate of T. P. Wang 1769 is found there ( PE [barcode] 00766307) with a written label in Hao’s hand, which reads “ Salix wangiana Hao n. sp. ”. In addition, T. P. Wang 1769 was not located at P (according to the digital herbarium database of P, https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/p/item/search/form [accessed 6 November 2015]). Therefore, we deduce that Fang & Skvortsov’s reference to “ P ” may be a printing error, which should be corrected to PE, and the sheet of T. P. Wang 1769 at PE should be Fang & Skvortsov’s holotype.

Salix rhododendroides was described by Wang & Yu in 1974, who cited K. J. Fu 9509 as the type but did not state where the type specimens were conserved. Two duplicates of K. J. Fu 9509 were found in WUK ( WUK 171975 & 90140) ; WUK 171975 with a written label in Yu’s hand on 10 February 1966 was annotated as “ Salix rhododendroides Wang et Yu sp. nov. ”, which is designated here as the lectotype under Art. 9.11 of the ICN .

Chou et al. (1984) accepted “ Salix wangiana K.S. Hao ”, and reduced S. rhododendroides to a synonym, neglecting that S. wangiana had not been validly published at that time. In addition, this treatment was followed by that of Fang et al. (1999), who cited S. rhododendroides as a synonym of S. wangiana K.S. Hao ex C.F. Fang & A.K. Skvortsov in Flora of China. However, the name S. rhododendroides is the earlier name compared to S. wangiana . After examining the type specimens of S. rhododendroides and S. wangiana , we could not find relevant differences between these, and we followed Chou et al. (1984) in considering both names as conspecific. Therefore, the correct name of this species is S. rhododendroides , and S. wangiana is its synonym.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Type specimens of Salix rhododendroides, S. wangiana and S. zangica var. tibetica. A. Lectotype of S. rhododendroides (K.J. Fu 9509, WUK 171975); B. Holotype of S. wangiana (T.P. Wang 1769, PE [barcode] 00766307, available at http://www.cvh.ac.cn/spm/ PE/00766307); C–D. Lectotype and isolectotype of S. zangica var. tibetica (Qinghai-Xizang Expedition 73-1207, lectotype PE [barcode] 00934296!, available at http://www.cvh.ac.cn/spm/PE/00934296, isolectotype PE [barcode] 00766330!, available at http://www.cvh. ac.cn/spm/PE/00766330).