Tong Yi-Hua, Niu Zheng-Yang, Cai Zhuo-Yu, Ni Jing-Bo, Xia Nian-He
Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization & Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Applied Botany, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, CN-510650, Guangzhou, China South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences Guangzhou China.
South China National Botanical Garden, CN-510650, Guangzhou, China South China National Botanical Garden Guangzhou China.
PhytoKeys. 2023 Mar 13;221:131-145. doi: 10.3897/phytokeys.221.98920. eCollection 2023.
was confirmed as polyphyletic by recent phylogenetic analyses, with Chinese species of distantly related to those from Japan. Among the Chinese species of , is a morphologically unique as well as taxonomically problematic species endemic to South China, of which the generic designation is still uncertain. Molecular analyses based on both plastid and nuclear genomic data demonstrated that this species is closest to the recently published genus . Morphologically, the two are somewhat similar to each other in flowering branches developing at the nodes of every order of branches, raceme-like units of inflorescence with 3-5 short spikelets, each spikelet with few florets including a rudimentary one at the apex, and each floret with 3 stamens and 2 stigmas. However, is very different from species in many reproductive and vegetative characters, such as the morphology of paracladia (lateral spikelet "pedicels"), the absence or existence of pulvinus at the base of paracladia, the relative length of the upper glume and the lowest lemma, the shape of lodicules and primary culm buds, the branch complement, the morphology of nodes, culm leaves and dried foliage leaf blades, and the number of foliage leaves per ultimate branchlet. The morphological and molecular evidence warrants recognition of a new genus to accommodate this unique species, which is here named . After consulting related literature and examination of herbarium specimens or specimen photos, a taxonomic revision of and its synonyms was made, and it was confirmed that four names, viz. , , and , should be merged with , while and are distinct species.
最近的系统发育分析证实其为多系起源，中国的物种与日本的物种亲缘关系较远。在中国的该属物种中，[物种名称]是中国南方特有的形态独特且分类存在问题的物种，其属的归属仍不确定。基于质体和核基因组数据的分子分析表明，该物种与最近发表的[属名]最为接近。在形态上，两者在各级分枝节点上发育的花枝、具3 - 5个短小穗的总状花序状的花序单元、每个小穗具少数小花（包括顶端的一个发育不全的小花）以及每个小花具3枚雄蕊和2枚柱头方面有些相似。然而，[物种名称]在许多生殖和营养特征上与[属名]的物种有很大不同，例如副枝（侧生小穗“花梗”）的形态、副枝基部有无叶枕、上位颖片和最低外稃的相对长度、浆片和主茎芽的形状、分枝组成、节、秆叶和干枯叶片的形态以及每个末级小枝上的叶片数量。形态和分子证据支持承认一个新属来容纳这个独特的物种，这里将其命名为[新属名]。在查阅相关文献并检查标本馆标本或标本照片后，对[属名]及其异名进行了分类修订，确认四个名称，即[名称1]、[名称2]、[名称3]和[名称4]应与[属名]合并，而[名称5]和[名称6]是不同的物种。
