Wolski Grzegorz J, Faltyn-Parzymska Anna, Proćków Jarosław
Department of Geobotany and Plant Ecology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz, ul. Banacha 12/16, 90-237 Lodz, Poland University of Lodz Lodz Poland.
Department of Plant Biology, Institute of Biology, Faculty of Biology and Animal Science, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, ul. Kożuchowska 7a, 51-631 Wrocław, Poland Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences Wrocław Poland.
PhytoKeys. 2020 Aug 7;155:141-153. doi: 10.3897/phytokeys.155.51469. eCollection 2020.
In 1859, William Mitten described (≡ ) based on the gathering of Sir J.D. Hooker from India. However, the protologue did not indicate any specific specimen or illustration. For the past 50 years, the original material (NY 913349) deposited at the NY Herbarium has been considered as the holotype. However, this assumption has since been found to be incorrect, because in the Herbarium of The Natural History Museum exists other original material of this species (BM 1030713), collected by Hooker. In addition, the specimen from NY Herbarium is in poor condition and its most important diagnostic characters are not visible. In contrast, the material from BM Herbarium is in very good condition, and therefore it is herein designated as the lectotype. Also, the paper describes the resolution of this type, a process complicated by changes that had occurred in the provisions of subsequent botanical .
1859年，威廉·米滕根据约瑟夫·道尔顿·胡克爵士从印度采集的标本描述了（≡ ）。然而，原始文献并未指明任何具体标本或插图。在过去的50年里，存放在纽约植物园标本馆的原始材料（NY 913349）一直被视为模式标本。然而，后来发现这个假设是错误的，因为在自然历史博物馆标本馆里存在该物种的其他原始材料（BM 1030713），也是由胡克采集的。此外，纽约植物园标本馆的标本状况不佳，其最重要的诊断特征已不可见。相比之下，自然历史博物馆标本馆的材料状况非常好，因此在此指定其为选定模式标本。此外，本文还描述了这种模式的确定过程，这一过程因后续植物学规定的变化而变得复杂。
