identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03EB8743FFFBBC21FCA56357FDE1F9DE.text	03EB8743FFFBBC21FCA56357FDE1F9DE.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Artabotrys costatus King	<div><p>Artabotrys costatus King — Fig. 1</p><p>Artabotrys costatus King (1892) 37. — Lectotype (designated by Turner 2009): King’s Collector (Kunstler) 4291 (lecto K000381022;isolecto BM001014844, BO 1337669,CAL0000004275,CAL0000004307,L0185488,SING0096249, SING0108007,SING0108008),[Peninsular Malaysia,] Perak,Kinta [District], Gopeng, June 1883.</p><p>Note — Although King cited two collections in the protologue (King’s Collector 4291 and King’s Collector 10184), he mentioned only a single locality ‘ Perak; on Ulu Bubong’. Turner (2009) carried out an effective lectotypification and cited the lectotype locality as ‘Ulu Bubong’. However, it is clearly written on the labels that the lectotype selected by Turner, King’s Collector 4291 (Fig. 1a), was collected in ‘Gopeng, Kinta’ whereas the remaining syntype, King’s Collector 10184 (Fig. 1b), was collected in Ulu Bubong. The lectotype locality stated as ‘Ulu Bubong’ in Turner (2009, 2011, 2012, 2018) is erroneous and here corrected to ‘Kinta [District], Gopeng’.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB8743FFFBBC21FCA56357FDE1F9DE	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Chen, J.;Baldini, R. M.	Chen, J., Baldini, R. M. (2020): Flora of Singapore precursors, 19: Nomenclatural notes on Artabotrys (Annonaceae) and Magnolia (Magnoliaceae). Blumea 65 (3): 179-187, DOI: 10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01
03EB8743FFFABC23FFEB620AFEEEFB85.text	03EB8743FFFABC23FFEB620AFEEEFB85.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Artabotrys maingayi Hook. f. & Thomson	<div><p>Artabotrys maingayi Hook.f. &amp; Thomson — Fig. 2</p><p>Artabotrys maingayi Hook.f. &amp; Thomson (1872) 55. — Lectotype (first step designation by Sinclair 1955, second step designation by Turner 2018): Maingay 2617 (Kew distribution no. 34) (lecto K000381024, K000381029, a single specimen over two sheets; probable isolecto L0185527, explicitly including only the right twig and monocarp in packet),[Peninsular Malaysia,] Malacca, 1867–1868. See notes 1–3.</p><p>Artabotrys havilandii Ridl. (1912) 382. — Lectotype (designated by Turner 2009): Haviland 1629 (lecto K000691275; isolecto SAR n.v.), [Malaysia,] Sarawak, near Kuching, 9 Sept. 1892. See note 4.</p><p>Notes — 1. Hooker &amp; Thomson (1872) merely cited ‘ Malacca, Maingay ’ in the protologue of A. maingayi . Sinclair (1955) cited ‘ Maingay 34 (C., Kew)’ as type material, but the number ‘34’actually refers to the Kew distribution number rather than Maingay’s collection number. Regardless, Sinclair’s type statement constitutes a first-step lectotypification of the name. Turner (2009) cited ‘ Maingay 2617 [Kew distrib. no. 34]’ as the holotype of A. maingayi, but it is impossible to ascertain that this specimen is the only specimen used by the authors. Turner (2011, 2012) likewise regarded ‘ Maingay 2617 ’ as the holotype of A. maingayi . Eventually, Turner (2018) designated Maingay 2617 (Kew distribution no. 34) as the second-step lectotype (Fig. 2a, b), explicitly stating that it is a single specimen over two sheets (K000381024, K000381029). Both sheets bear the same collection label and one of the sheets (K000381029) bears the annotation ‘2617 continued’ (Fig. 2b). This is thus consistent with Art. 8.3 of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018), which states that “a specimen may be mounted as more than one preparation, as long as the parts are clearly labelled as being part of that same specimen, or bear a single, original label in common”.</p><p>2. There is some confusion between the type specimens of A. maingayi and A. pleurocarpus Maingay ex Hook.f. &amp; Thomson, the latter differing from A. maingayi by its cuneate (vs decurrent) leaf base, larger number of flowers per inflores- cence, sparsely (vs densely) hairy petals and long-stipitate (vs short-stipitate) monocarps. Artabotrys pleurocarpus occurs in Peninsular Malaysia and Peninsular Thailand but not in Singapore (Chen &amp; Eiadthong 2020). Both sheets of the lectotype of A. maingayi were originally identified as ‘ Artabotrys pleurocarpus ’ but subsequently re-labelled as ‘ A. maingayi Hf &amp; T’. Turner (2018) cited BM001014846 as the isolectotype of A. maingayi . This is erroneous, because BM001014846 represents a sepa- rate gathering (Maingay 3261) and is actually the isolectotype of A. pleurocarpus . This confusion probably arose as the original material of A. maingayi and A. pleurocarpus were annotated with the same Kew distribution number (Kew distribution no. 34). Furthermore, BM001014846 bears pencil markings of both names ( A. maingayi and A. pleurocarpus), with a type label wrongly indicating it as the isotype of A. maingayi . However, the morphology of the specimen and the annotation ‘3261’ clearly indicate that it is actually the isolectotype of A. pleurocarpus .</p><p>3. A mixed gathering from L (Fig. 2c) may contain an isolectotype of A. maingayi . This specimen bears a label that indicates Maingay’s name, the Kew distribution no. 34 and the names of both species ( A. maingayi and A. pleurocarpus). It also has an annotation slip (not glued to the sheet) that states ‘2617’, ‘Malacca’ and ‘1867’, corresponding to the collection number, type locality and year of collection, respectively. The specimen comprises three twigs, two detached leaves and a monocarp enclosed in a packet: the twig bearing a single flower on the right and the monocarp in the packet (outlined in red boxes in Fig. 2c) constitute a probable isolectotype of A. maingayi, the twig bearing many flowers on the left and the two detached leaves (with cuneate leaf base) are clearly A. pleurocarpus, and the twig at the bottom cannot be identified as it lacks leaves and flowers.</p><p>4. Multiple gatherings of Haviland and Beccari were cited in the protologue of A. havilandii . Some of them (e.g., Beccari 381, Beccari 713, Haviland 1629) correspond to Ridley’s description but two of them ( Beccari 554 and Haviland 3340) represent another species, Artabotrys roseus Boerl. Turner (2009) selected Haviland 1629 from K (Fig. 2d) as the lectotype of A. havilandii and reduced A. havilandii to a synonym of A. maingayi as the types of the two names are conspecific and A. maingayi represents the earliest legitimate name. It should be noted that Haviland &amp; Hose 1629A from K (K000691273) and Haviland &amp; Hose 1629E from L (L0180468) are not types of A. havilandii . The former was collected on 13 November 1894 and the latter was collected on 26 October 1894, both of which are later than the date of collection of Haviland 1629 (9 September 1892).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB8743FFFABC23FFEB620AFEEEFB85	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Chen, J.;Baldini, R. M.	Chen, J., Baldini, R. M. (2020): Flora of Singapore precursors, 19: Nomenclatural notes on Artabotrys (Annonaceae) and Magnolia (Magnoliaceae). Blumea 65 (3): 179-187, DOI: 10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01
03EB8743FFF8BC23FFEB6034FE5CF92A.text	03EB8743FFF8BC23FFEB6034FE5CF92A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Artabotrys suaveolens (Blume) Blume	<div><p>Artabotrys suaveolens (Blume) Blume — Fig. 3</p><p>Artabotrys suaveolens (Blume) Blume (1830) 62, t. 30, 31D. — Unona suaveolens Blume (1825) 17. — Lectotype (designated here): Blume 885 (lecto L0180644), [Indonesia,] Java, Gunung Seribu.</p><p>Note — The protologue of Unona suaveolens does not mention types but states “ in sylvis montium Salak, Seribu etc. ” (i.e., in the forest of Mount Salak, Mount Seribu, etc.). Turner (2009, 2011, 2012, 2018) merely repeated the localities in the type statement without citing any specimen. Turner (2009, 2018) also added that the type specimen has not been seen or traced. At L, where Blume’s types are largely kept, there is a specimen bearing Blume’s annotations: ‘ Unona suaveolens Bl. ’, ‘G. Seribu’ and ‘885’. This specimen, Blume 885 (Fig. 3), has several intact flowers and matches Blume’s description; therefore, it is here selected as lectotype. It cannot be regarded as a holotype, because Blume could have used additional specimens collected from Mount Salak and Gunung Seribu as well as duplicates of Blume 885 for his description, although our attempts to trace these specimens were in vain. For a full list of synonyms applicable outside of Singapore and Peninsular Malaysia, see Turner (2018).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB8743FFF8BC23FFEB6034FE5CF92A	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Chen, J.;Baldini, R. M.	Chen, J., Baldini, R. M. (2020): Flora of Singapore precursors, 19: Nomenclatural notes on Artabotrys (Annonaceae) and Magnolia (Magnoliaceae). Blumea 65 (3): 179-187, DOI: 10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01
03EB8743FFF8BC26FFEB6317FF62FD73.text	03EB8743FFF8BC26FFEB6317FF62FD73.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Magnolia elegans (Blume) H. Keng	<div><p>Magnolia elegans (Blume) H.Keng — Fig. 4</p><p>Magnolia elegans (Blume) H. Keng (1978) 129, pl. 1. — Aromadendron elegans Blume (1825) 10. — Talauma elegans (Blume) Miq. (1868) 70. — Lectotype (first step designation by Nooteboom 1987,second step designated here): Blume 215 (lecto L0038349; isolecto BO n.v., L0038348), [Indonesia,] Java. See note 1.</p><p>Aromadendron glaucum Korth. (1850) 98. — Talauma glauca (Korth.) Miq. (1868) 70. — Magnolia glauca (Korth.) Pierre (1880) sub t. 2, nom. illeg., non (L.) L. (1759). — Talauma elegans (Blume) Miq. var. glauca (Korth.) P.Parm. (1896) 277. — Aromadendron elegans Blume var. glauca (Korth.) Dandy (1928) 183. — Lectotype (first step designation by Dandy 1928, second step by Nooteboom 1987): Korthals s.n. (lecto L0038347; isolecto BM000574750), [Indonesia,] Sumatra, Kassan. See note 2.</p><p>Manglietia oortii Korth. (1850) 97. — Lectotype (designated by Nooteboom 1987): Korthals s.n. (lecto L0038346), [Indonesia,] Sumatra. See note 3.</p><p>Notes — 1. The protologue of Aromadendron elegans does not mention any specimen, but states “ in sylvis circa viam Lebak Provinciae Bantam, necnon in montosis Salak et Gede ” (i.e., in the forest near Lebak Road, Bantam Province, and in the moun- tain regions of Salak and Gede). All the localities mentioned in the protologue are in West Java, Indonesia. Nooteboom (1987) made a first step lectotypification by citing ‘Type: Blume 215 (L; iso BO), Java’. There are, however, two sheets of Blume 215 in L that are not cross-labelled and hence represent duplicates. According to Art. 9.17 of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018), a designation of a lectotype that is later found to refer to more than one specimen of a single gathering must be accepted, but may be further narrowed to a single one of these specimens by a subsequent lectotypification. Therefore, we here designated L0038349 (Fig. 4a) as the second-step lectotype. Nooteboom (2012) regarded L0038349 as a holotype; however, the mention of multiple localities in the protologue indicates that multiple specimens were seen by Blume. In addition, Nooteboom (2012) cannot be considered to have selected a second-step lectotype as his type statement lacks the phrase ‘designated here’.</p><p>2. Korthals (1850) merely cited a locality (Kassan, Sumatra) without mentioning any specimen in the protologue of Aromadendron glaucum . The first effective typification of Aromaden­ M. glauca var. sumatrana (Miq.) Dandy, he did not formally typify the former name as he has not seen its type.According to Nooteboom, Korthals also wrote the name M. oortii on another sheet that was later re-identified as Manglietia macklottii Korth. by Korthals himself. This specimen also bears a label with the locality ‘Singalang’, corresponding to Korthals’ protologue of M. oortii . However, Nooteboom considers this specimen to be the type of Manglietia macklottii, which was also collected from Singalang, Sumatra (see discussion below under Magnolia macklottii). Nooteboom lectotypified M. oortii using the specimen L0038346 (Fig. 4c) that Dandy had rejected as being mislabelled, although Nooteboom noted “a slight difference between the flowers [of this specimen] and their description by Korthals, which is very obscure anyhow”. Since there is no major morphological conflict between Nooteboom’s lectotype and Korthals’ protologue, Nooteboom’s choice of lectotype has to be followed, according to Art. 9.19 of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB8743FFF8BC26FFEB6317FF62FD73	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Chen, J.;Baldini, R. M.	Chen, J., Baldini, R. M. (2020): Flora of Singapore precursors, 19: Nomenclatural notes on Artabotrys (Annonaceae) and Magnolia (Magnoliaceae). Blumea 65 (3): 179-187, DOI: 10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01
03EB8743FFFDBC27FFEB66A6FD06FC4E.text	03EB8743FFFDBC27FFEB66A6FD06FC4E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Magnolia macklottii (Korth.) Dandy	<div><p>Magnolia macklottii (Korth.) Dandy</p><p>Magnolia macklottii (Korth.) Dandy (1927) 263. — Manglietia macklottii Korth. (1850) 97. — Aromadendron macklottii (Korth.) Sima &amp; S.G.Lu (2012) 67. — Lectotype (designated by Nooteboom 1987): Korthals s.n. (lecto L0038360;isolecto BO 1291543,U0043856), [Indonesia,] Sumatra, Singalang. See note 1.</p><p>var. beccariana (A.Agostini) Noot. — Fig. 5</p><p>Magnolia macklottii (Korth.) Dandy var. beccariana (A.Agostini) Noot. (1987) 348. — Michelia beccariana A. Agostini (1926) 184. — Aromadendron macklottii (Korth.) Sima &amp; S.G.Lu var. beccarianum (A.Agostini) Sima &amp; S.G.Lu (2012) 67. — Type: Beccari PS 116 (holo FI007537; iso BM000574751, K000681574,L0038359,MEL2115999,MEL2116000),[Indonesia,] Sumatra, Mount Singalang, June–July 1878. See note 2.</p><p>Magnolia aequinoctialis Dandy (1928) 185. — Type: Houtvester Sumatra’s Oostkust 25 (holo BO 1291529;iso L0038358),[Indonesia,] Sumatra, Karolanden .</p><p>Magnolia maingayi King (1889) 369. — Aromadendron maingayi (King) Sima &amp; S.G.Lu (2009) 37. — Lectotype (designated here): Maingay s.n. (Kew distribution no. 17) (lecto K000681527, K000681528, a single specimen over two sheets; isolecto CAL0000004114, CAL0000004115, L0038362), [Malaysia,] Penang. See note 3.</p><p>Notes — 1. In the protologue of Manglietia macklottii, Korthals merely cited a locality (Mount Singalang) without mentioning any specimen. Nooteboom (1987) lectotypified this name with L0038360 (Fig. 5a) by providing the type statement “Type: Korthals (L, sheet nr. 908.126-1018; iso BO), Sumatra, Mt Singalan)”. Nooteboom (2012) erroneously regarded L0038360 as a holotype. Korthals initially labelled L0038360 as Manglietia oortii but later changed it to Manglietia macklottii . Although Manglietia oortii was also collected from Singalang and also described by Korthals in the same publication (see under Magnolia elegans note 3), the floral and leaf morphology of L0038360 correspond more closely to Korthals’ description of Manglietia macklottii . In particular, the description ‘ foliis concoloribus ’ and ‘ petalis exterioribus calycinis ’ in the protologue of Manglietia macklottii is consistent with L0038360; the description ‘ foliis subtus glaucis ’ in the protologue of Manglietia oortii is inconsistent with L0038360.</p><p>2. When discussing Magnolia macklottii var. beccariana, Nooteboom (1987) cited the basionym as ‘ Michelia beccariana Agostini’ immediately following the proposed combination on page 348. Nooteboom (1987) provided a full reference of the basionym ‘Agostini, Atti Com. Accad. Fisiocrit. Siena IX, 7 (1926) sep. 23’ on page 347, where Michelia beccariana is cited as a synonym of Magnolia macklottii . Although Nooteboom’s citation is erroneous (the series and volume number are erroneous, and the day and month of publication are provided in place of the page number), these errors do not prevent valid publication of the new combination according to Art. 41.6 of the ICN (Turland et al. 2018). Agostini (1926) cited a single gathering ‘Becc. P.S. n.° 116’from ‘monte Singalan’ in the protologue of Michelia beccariana . In the brief introduction to her paper, it was mentioned that she consulted the Webb’s Herbarium in FI, which is in the same room as Beccari’s Herbarium (FI-B). We located only a single specimen of Beccari PS 116 in FI-B (Fig. 5b), which represents the holotype of Michelia beccariana . Nooteboom (2012) correctly stated that the holotype is deposited in FI.</p><p>3. Although King cited a single gathering ‘ Maingay No. 17’ in the protologue of Magnolia maingayi, several duplicates in various herbaria exist. These are considered as syntypes and it is unclear what material was used by King when preparing his description. It should also be noted that the no. 17 refers to the Kew distribution number rather than Maingay’s collection number. By indicating ‘Type: Maingay 17 (?; iso L)’, Nooteboom (1987) is quite explicitly excluding the L specimen from the possibility of it being the holotype. This seems to make sense as Maingay’s types are largely kept in K . Moreover, the L specimen consists of only a few detached leaves, a few seeds and fragments of petals, whereas the K specimen (mounted over two sheets) has intact twigs with leaves, flowers and fruits, consistent with King’s description. Therefore, the K specimen (Fig. 5c, d) is here selected as lectotype. Nooteboom (2012) incorrectly indicated that the holotype is deposited in CAL .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB8743FFFDBC27FFEB66A6FD06FC4E	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Chen, J.;Baldini, R. M.	Chen, J., Baldini, R. M. (2020): Flora of Singapore precursors, 19: Nomenclatural notes on Artabotrys (Annonaceae) and Magnolia (Magnoliaceae). Blumea 65 (3): 179-187, DOI: 10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01
03EB8743FFFCBC28FFEB67FDFF29FEA7.text	03EB8743FFFCBC28FFEB67FDFF29FEA7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Magnolia singapurensis (Ridl.) H. Keng	<div><p>Magnolia singapurensis (Ridl.) H.Keng — Fig. 6</p><p>Magnolia singapurensis (Ridl.) H. Keng (1978) 129. — Talauma singapurensis Ridl.(1914) 323. — Magnolia candollei (Blume) H.Keng var. singapurensis (Ridl.) Noot. (1987) 376, nom. illeg. (see note 2) — Magnolia liliifera (L.) Baill. var. singapurensis (Ridl.) Govaerts in Frodin &amp; Govaerts (1996) 71. — Lirianthe liliifera (L.) Sima &amp; S.G.Lu var. singapurensis (Ridl.) Sima &amp; S.G.Lu (2012) 61. — Lectotype (designated by Dandy 1928): Ridley 5091 (lecto BM000551337;isolecto MEL2085479,MEL2121641,SING0067862, UC267519), Singapore, Chan Chu Kang, 1891. See note 1.</p><p>Talauma kutcinensis A. Agostini (1926) 191. — Type: Beccari PB 2102 (holo FI007529),[Malaysia,] Sarawak,‘ Kutcin’ [Kuching], July 1866. See note 3.</p><p>Notes — 1. Ridley cited two syntypes (Ridley 3656 and 5091) in his protologue of Talauma singapurensis . Subsequently, Dandy (1928) provided a type statement ‘Ridley 5091 (type in Herb. Brit. Mus.; Herb. Berlin)’ that constitutes the first effective lectotypification of this name. Therefore, the BM specimen of Ridley 5091 (Fig. 6a) is the lectotype of Talauma singapurensis . A superfluous lectotypification was performed by Nooteboom (1987), who designated the SING duplicate of Ridley 5091 as lectotype instead. Nooteboom (2012) erroneously regarded the BM specimen as a holotype .</p><p>2. When Keng (1978) transferred Talauma candollei Blume (Blume 1823) to Magnolia, he made a new combination ‘ Magnolia decandolli ’ that was intended to be a replacement name in order to avoid generating a later homonym of Magnolia candollei Link (Link 1831) . However, Magnolia candollei and ‘ Magnolia decandolli ’ are to be considered orthographic vari- ants (commemorating Augustin Pyramus de Candolle) and thus homonyms. An even earlier homonym exists, i.e., Magnolia decandollei Savi (Savi 1819), which makes Keng’s name il- legitimate and also Nooteboom’s combination which is based on Keng’s name.</p><p>3. Agostini (1926) cited a single gathering ( Beccari PB 2102) collected in 1866 in her protologue of Talauma kutcinensis . Agostini spelt the specific epithet as ‘ kutcinensis ’ whereas Nooteboom (1987, 1988) spelt the specific epithet as ‘ kuteinensis ’. ‘Kutcin’ is probably an orthographical variant of Kuching, an administrative division in Sarawak, whereas ‘Kutei’ is probably an orthographic variant of Kutai, a historical region in East Kalimantan. Because Beccari travelled largely within Kuching in 1866 (Van Steenis-Kruseman 1950), the original spelling of the specific epithet ‘ kutcinensis ’ should be used. Agostini (1926) mentioned that she consulted the Webb’s Herbarium in FI, where we located a sole specimen of Beccari PB 2102 . Thus, the FI-B specimen (Fig. 6b) is the holotype of Talauma kutcinensis .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB8743FFFCBC28FFEB67FDFF29FEA7	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Chen, J.;Baldini, R. M.	Chen, J., Baldini, R. M. (2020): Flora of Singapore precursors, 19: Nomenclatural notes on Artabotrys (Annonaceae) and Magnolia (Magnoliaceae). Blumea 65 (3): 179-187, DOI: 10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01
03EB8743FFF3BC28FFEB65D4FDD0FAF6.text	03EB8743FFF3BC28FFEB65D4FDD0FAF6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Magnolia villosa (Miq.) H. Keng	<div><p>Magnolia villosa (Miq.) H.Keng — Fig. 7</p><p>Magnolia villosa (Miq.) H. Keng (1978) 129. — Talauma villosa Miq.(1861) 366. — Talauma rabaniana Hook.f.&amp; Thomson var. villosa (Miq.) P.Parm.(1896) 271. — Lirianthe villosa (Miq.) Sima &amp; S.G.Lu (2012) 61. — Lectotype (designated by Nooteboom 1987): Teijsmann HB 3690 (lecto L0038374;isolecto BO 1291531,U0003783), [Indonesia,] Sumatra,Moeara Enim. See note 1.</p><p>Talauma lanigera Hook.f. &amp; Thomson (1872) 40. — Magnolia lanigera (Hook.f.&amp; Thomson) H.J.Chowdhery &amp; P.Daniel (1981) 64. — Type: Griffith s.n. (Kew distribution no. 65) (holo K001292330), [Malaysia,] Malacca. See note 2.</p><p>Notes — 1. Miquel mentioned “ Sumatra orient. in prov. Palembang, prope Muara-enim (T.)” in his protologue of Talauma villosa . It is clearly indicated in the footnotes that ‘ T.’ refers to Teijsmann. However, there is neither indication of a particular herbarium in which Teijsmann’s specimen was deposited nor evidence that only a single specimen is used for Miquel’s description. The type statement “ Type: Teijsmann HB3690 (L; iso BO)” provided in Nooteboom (1987) constitutes an effective lectotypification; thus, the L specimen (Fig. 7a) is the lectotype of Talauma villosa . Nooteboom (2012) erroneously stated that the holotype is deposited in L .</p><p>2. Hooker &amp; Thomson (1872) merely cited “Eastern Peninsula, Griffith ” in the protologue of Talauma lanigera . We located only a single specimen in K (K001292330) that was collected by Griffith, labelled as Talauma lanigera, and which has morphological features corresponding to the protologue (e.g., presence of immature, densely woolly carpels and absence of ripe fruits). Thus, K001292330 (Fig. 7b) is the holotype of Talauma lanigera . Although Nooteboom (1987, 2012) indicated “Type: Griffith 65 ”, the ‘65’ actually refers to the Kew distribution number rather than Griffith’s collection number. Nooteboom (2012) correctly stated that the holotype is deposited in K.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EB8743FFF3BC28FFEB65D4FDD0FAF6	Public Domain	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.		Plazi	Chen, J.;Baldini, R. M.	Chen, J., Baldini, R. M. (2020): Flora of Singapore precursors, 19: Nomenclatural notes on Artabotrys (Annonaceae) and Magnolia (Magnoliaceae). Blumea 65 (3): 179-187, DOI: 10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01, URL: https://doi.org/10.3767/blumea.2020.65.03.01
