identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
039287BEFFA5E705FCB9FE7FFAFEFA7F.text	039287BEFFA5E705FCB9FE7FFAFEFA7F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Habenaria viridiflora (Sw.) Spreng., Syst. Veg.	<div><p>Habenaria viridiflora (Rottler ex Sw.) R.Br. ex Spreng., Syst. Veg. 3: 691. 1826. Orchis viridifolia Rottler ex Sw., Kongl. Vetensk. Acad. Nya Handl., Ser. 2, t. 21: 206. 1800. Lectotype (designated here): India Orientalis, ex Herb. Rottler s.n. (S07-289.2!; iso S 07-288.1!). Fig. 2</p><p>The sheet at S (S07-289.2) is chosen here as the lectotype for Orchis viridiflora, as it is from O. Swartz’s Herbarium, who described the species, and it has an annotation by Rottler, who collected the species. Rottler’s collection of O. viridiflora at L (L1381.15) and C (C10016243), the former is from Tranquebar, collected in 1796 but without Swartz’s annotation. The latter has a small manuscript description by Rottler on the back of the specimen; however, it is also without Swartz’s writing. Averyanov (1994) cited a collection at C as a type, possibly he was not aware of Rottler’s collection of O. viridiflora at Swartz’s herbarium.</p><p>*The orchids names of Dalzell discussed in this article are arranged alphabetically, accepted names in boldface, synonyms in italics.</p><p>Habenaria viridiflora is a widespread orchid in continental Southeast Asia. It was rarely collected from Maharashtra and Concan (Jalal, 2018) from where Dalzell described it under Coeloglossum . It can be recognized in the field with its thin, deeply penetrating narrow tubers, elliptic-oblong often glaucous leaves in a rosette, with almost equal sepals and petals.</p><p>Hooker (1890) reduced Coeloglossum luteum to Habenaria viridiflora var. dalzellii . It was solely based on collections by Dalzell from Malwan. It is characterised by rosette-like linear leaves, a very slender, wire-like scape, smaller flowers, and a slender and incurved spur longer than the ovary. A comparison of the protologues and the original material of C. luteum and O. viridiflora show them to be conspecific. The type specimens for C. luteum are available at K and DD. There are three sheets at K: K001097955 (Orchideae no. 36) brought by Stocks, which is missing Dalzell’s annotation. K001097954 is a part of Dalzell’s personal collection presented in 1878 by Mrs. Dalzell, the same collection is also distributed at DD (Acc. no. 17259); although it is labelled by Dalzell, it is difficult to determine that it has been labelled prior to the publication of the species. The remaining two sheets at K are yet to be digitized, and one has Dalzell’s annotation, ‘ Coeloglossum luteum ’. It perhaps arrived at K before 1848 and is now pasted with Griffith’s collection. It is chosen here as lectotype giving preference over the remaining specimens at K. Another specimen at K has a similar label as on the lectotype, but the collection belongs to Peristylus densus (Lindl.) Santapau &amp; Kapadia. The other collection by Dalzell, with publication details on it has been excluded from the original material. It is not clear whether the GH00217952 from Vengurla (now part of Malwan) was used by Dalzell when he was preparing the MS.</p><p>2. Dendrobium crispum Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 4: 111. 1852 (excl. descr.). Dendrobium humile Wight, Icon. Pl. Ind. Orient. 5, 5: t. 1643. 1851, nom. illeg., non Smith (1808). Type:</p><p>INDIA, Tamil Nadu, Iyamally, s.d., R. Wight s.n. (K [K000943912!]) .</p><p>An epiphytic orchid that occurs in peninsular India, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, and Thailand. It was previously known as D. peguanum Lindl. Dendrobium crispum can be recognised in the field by ellipsoid pseudobulbs, a short (up to 7 mm long) pedunculate inflorescence, and c. 15 mm long flowering rachis with patent floral bracts, and a medial lip callus that ends with two prostrate horns (Ormerod &amp; Kumar, 2018).</p><p>Dalzell (1852) described Dendrobium crispum citing D. humile Wight (1851), which is a later homonym of D. humile Smith (1808) . However, D. crispum has been retained by replacing D. humile Wight with its type, excluding the description. Ormerod and Kumar (2018) described Dendrobium turbinatum based on the accompanying description of D. crispum (Fig. 3a).</p><p>Lindley’s (1858) perception of Dendrobium crispum auct. Dalzell (1852) and D. humile Wight (1851) were altogether different, he considered both conspecific with D. microbulbon A.Rich. (Richard, 1841), which has been followed for many years (Dalzell &amp; Gibson, 1861; Hooker, 1890; Nairne, 1894; Cooke, 1908; Almeida, 1990; Jalal, 2018; POWO, 2023). However, D. microbulbon differs from D. turbinatum by having a synanthous habit, a conical, obtuse, incurved mentum, and a suborbicular lip mid-lobe (Ormerod &amp; Kumar, 2018).</p><p>3. Dendrobium dalzellii Hook., Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 4: 292. 1852 ( Dendrobium fimbriatum Dalzell in MSS non Hooker, 1823, nec Lindley, 1830). Neotype (designated here): INDIA, Bombay, s.d., N. A. Dalzell s.n. (K [K000881643.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFA5E705FCB9FE7FFAFEFA7F	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFA2E706FCB2FA0BFEC9FEFD.text	039287BEFFA2E706FCB2FA0BFEC9FEFD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Porpax dalzellii (Hook.) Nandikar & Bramhad. 2023	<div><p>Porpax dalzellii (Hook.) Nandikar &amp; Bramhad., comb. nov. Fig. 3b</p><p>An Indian endemic and epiphytic orchid, Porpax dalzellii, can be recognized by its reticulately veined pseudobulbs, secund flowers, sepals, and petals with glandular margins (sparse at apex, dense at base) and an erose lip. The species appears to have a wider distribution (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu) compared to other Porpax species in peninsular India . Porpax dalzellii was based on Dendrobium dalzellii, which was described by Dalzell on the basis of an orchid he had collected in the woods at Ram Ghat [Maharashtra]. He had proposed the name “ Dendrobium fimbriatum ” for it but, presumably in editing Dalzell’s MS, Hooker drew his attention to the existing D. fimbriatum (Hooker, 1823) and proposed instead the name D. dalzellii . As only the name (not the description) was ascribed by Hooker, the name must be attributed to “Dalzell ex Hook.” or just to “Dalzell” according to Art. 46.5 of the ICN (Turland et al., 2018).</p><p>Lindley (1858) transferred Dendrobium dalzellii to Eria, citing Dendrobium filiforme Wight (Icon. Pl. Ind. Orient. 5(1): 5, t. 1642. 1851) in the synonymy. This makes the name E. dalzellii superfluous; however, it has been widely adopted for over a century (Hooker, 1890; Gammie, 1906; Cooke, 1908; Blatter &amp; McCann, 1931; Saldanha, 1976; Joseph &amp; Ansari, 1989; Lakshminarsimhan, 1996; Santapau &amp; Kapadia, 1966; Pradhan, 1979; Abraham &amp; Vatsala, 1981; Kumar &amp; Manilal, 1994; Noltie, 2005; Mulgaonkar &amp; Dabhade, 2005).</p><p>Dendrobium filiforme Wight (1851) was found to be based on collections of Wight (Nilgiris and Iyamally Hills) and Law (Bombay? Belgaum?), which included two different species, viz. Eria nana A.Rich. and Dendrobium microchilos Dalzell (Hooker, 1890; Noltie, 2005). In fact, Wight (l.c.) in the protologue of D. filiforme also noted variation within the species commenting that “the plate exhibits three forms, all more or less differing but still evidently the same species”. We found that the description of D. filiforme and the original material contain a mixture of three different taxa: 1. Eria nana (‘Icones.’ No. 1642: the right bottom figure is based on his own collection from ‘172 Nilgiris’, a left bottom specimen at K [K000883999]) with a solitary scape and sub-sessile few large flowers, and a distinctly clawed lip; 2. Dendrobium microchilos (‘Icones.’ No. 1642: top bottom figure appears to be identical with Law’s collection from Bombay? or Belgaum at K [K000827404]) and can be characterized by filiform scapes, alternate, whorled to semi-secund flowers, and a lip with hyaline margins; 3. Dendrobium dalzellii (‘Icones,’ No. 1642: middle figure apparently matches with his own collection from Pulney Hills? at K [K000357712]), and is unique by its much smaller habit, distinctly secund flowers, and a serrulate lip.</p><p>In the last few decades, Dendrobium filiforme has been presented as Eria filiformis (Wight) Rchb.f., Conchidium filiforme (Wight) Rauschert, Porpax filiformis (Wight) Schuit., Y.P.Ng &amp; H.A.Pedersen, and also appeared in regional literature (Agrawala, 2009; Nayar et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2015; Jalal, 2018). Nevertheless, the authors believe that Dendrobium filiforme long remained a nomenclatural problem as it was based on discordant elements – a reason for rejection (Stafleu et al., 1972), and this is a possible reason for the name being abandoned by several workers.</p><p>The epithet ‘ filiforme’, perhaps denoting ‘filiform flowering scape’ (Wight Icones no. 1642, top bottom figure) is again more referable to D. microchilos Dalzell, but applying D. filiforme to either D. microchilos, or E. nana will cause several nomenclatural changes. Hence to avoid future uncertainty, the popular use of D. dalzellii over D. filiforme (nom. confus.) is accepted here and following an updated circumscription of Porpax by Ng et al. (2018), the new combination Porpax dalzellii is proposed.</p><p>In our search for original material of Dendrobium dalzellii, the authors failed to locate Dalzell’s collection referred to in the protologue ‘from Ram Ghât’ as well as other material that Dalzell had utilized prior to describing the species; consequently, it was necessary to look for a suitable neotype. We could locate several Dalzell, Stocks &amp; Law specimens of D. dalzellii, perhaps examined by Dalzell, Hooker, and Lindley and housed at K, CAL, and GOET. The sheets at K (K000260025, K000883997, K000883993, K000883994, K000883995) appear to be mixed collections of D. dalzellii and D. microchilos from the different localities of Bombay and Concan, thus not suitable as a neotype. The sheet at CAL (CAL0000081379) has a ticket as ‘Herb. N. Dalzell, Bombay’ and has a total of 14 plants of D. dalzellii pasted on it, but it doesn’t seem to have been Dalzell’s own collection and is excluded. Similarly, two sheets at GOET (GOET013849, GOET013850), collected by Stocks &amp; Law from Malabar and Concan, lack Dalzell’s annotation and are not considered part of the original material. One more sheet at K (K000881643) presented by Mrs. Dalzell in 1878 has a label ‘ Eria’ in Dalzell’s handwriting, which perhaps appears to have been labelled after Lindley’s publication in 1858. This specimen comprising 22–23 plants mounted on a single sheet, is selected as the neotype.</p><p>4. Dendrobium microchilos Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 3: 345. 1851. Neotype (designated here): INDIA, Bombay, s.d., Dalzell 167 (K [K000883993!]).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFA2E706FCB2FA0BFEC9FEFD	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFA1E706FF30FE89FC61FD55.text	039287BEFFA1E706FF30FE89FC61FD55.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Porpax microchilos (Dalzell) Schuit., Y. P. Ng & H. A. Pedersen, Bot. J. Linn. Soc.	<div><p>Porpax microchilos (Dalzell) Schuit., Y.P.Ng &amp; H.A.Pedersen, Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 186: 200. 2018. Fig. 3c</p><p>An epiphytic orchid endemic to peninsular India . Remarkably similar to the preceding species by having a synanthous habit, but Porpax microchilos differs mainly in having filiform, few-flowered scapes, alternate, whorled to semi-secund flowers, eglandular sepals and petals, and lip with entire, hyaline margin. As discussed in Dendrobium dalzellii, this species has also gone through the circumscriptions of Eria and Conchidium and is often recognized as Eria microchilos in most of the Indian literature, we followed the recent circumscription of Porpax by Ng et al. (2018).</p><p>A specimen at K (K000260025) with Dalzell’s annotation as D. microchilos is mixed with Porpax dalzellii, hence, we have not chosen it as a lectotype. The specimens at GH (GH00090173) and CAL (CAL0000081376) are also missing Dalzell’s annotation and are a mixture of two different species. In the absence of any original material, another specimen at K (K0008839993) with four plants mounted on the top left corner, labelled by J.D. Hooker as ‘167. D. microchilos Bombay presidency, Dalzell’, is selected here as the neotype. It is one of the collections perhaps sorted and numbered by J.E. Stocks (see the discussion under J.E. Stocks labels on orchids in Western India).</p><p>5. Dendrobium nodosum Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 4: 292. 1852. Neotype (designated here): INDIA, s.loc., s.d., Dalzell (ex Herb. Stocks 30) (K [K001085563!]).</p><p>An epiphytic orchid, endemic to southern India and Sri Lanka (fide Seidenfaden 1980), often confused with Dendrobium macraei Lindl., but can be recognized by its oblong pseudobulbs and axillary, solitary flowers with linear sepals and petals. The original material precisely from ‘Ram Ghaut’ with Dalzell’s annotation as ‘ Dendrobium nodosum ’ is not traceable. Two sheets of Dalzell’s collection are housed at K, labelled by J.E. Stocks (Orchidae no. 30), and one of them has been annotated or labelled by Dalzell.The sheet K000960025 has a small packet wherein a dissected flower has been kept, the same has probably been illustrated by Lindley. The other sheet K001085563 has four specimens pasted on it and has different labels: ‘Herb. Stocks’ (possibly purchased by Sir William Hooker), an engraved label ‘Herb. Hook fil. &amp; Thomson’ (perhaps after 1855 when Joseph Hooker &amp; Thomson were writing Flora Indica), and Stocks pencil label as ‘Orchideae no. 30, specimen from Dalzell’. It also has a packet marked with the pencil pointing to the extreme right specimen and contains a fragmented flower, it has been designated here as the neotype.</p><p>6. Dendrochilum roseum Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 4: 291. 1852, non (Swartz, 1805). Neotype (designated here): INDIA, s. loc., s.d., Dalzell s.n. (K!)</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFA1E706FF30FE89FC61FD55	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFA1E709FCB9FCDEFEF4F9B2.text	039287BEFFA1E709FCB9FCDEFEF4F9B2.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dendrobium lawanum Lindl., J. Proc. Linn. Soc., Bot.	<div><p>Dendrobium lawanum Lindl., J. Proc. Linn. Soc., Bot. 3: 10. 1858. Fig. 4</p><p>An epiphytic orchid, endemic to peninsular India, can be identified by its unbranched stems, lilac or pink-tinged, white, paired flowers and lips with entire margins. Two sheets housed at K are yet to be digitized. The sheet with Dalzell’s label (top right corner) and ‘Herbarium Hookerianum’ stamp has two specimens pasted on it. Dalzell’s handwritten label has a note ‘A parasite called in Concan Bendoorly - a small white flower tinged with pink. Petals 6 (violaceous), fruit long shaped green figured (?) 24’. Another sheet at K, presented by Mrs. Dalzell in 1878, has two specimens and Dalzell’s annotation as ‘ Dendrobium lawanum ’. As none of the specimens have been annotated by Dalzell as ‘ Dendrochilum roseum’, the sheet with the description label in Dalzell’s handwriting is designated here as a neotype. The sheet (K001368946) is probably collected by Dalzell, however, it must have travelled to K with J.E. Stocks as it is without Dalzell’s annotation, and hence we are hesitant to call it part of the original material.</p><p>Schuiteman et al. (2022) and online databases such as POWO and Tropicos listed D. lawanum (incl. D. roseum) under the synonymy of D. crepidatum Lindl. &amp; Paxton. However, D. lawanum is quite distinct from D. crepidatum by its unidirectional curving stems, white flowers faintly tinged with pink or lilac, obscure mentum, and slightly clawed lip base, without a yellow patch (Jalal, 2018).</p><p>The epithet ‘ lawanum’ is often used (Santapau &amp; Kapadia, 1966; Jalal, 2018) as ‘ lawianum’ which is an error.</p><p>7. Eria uniflora Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 4: 111. 1852. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA,Bombay, s.d., Dalzell s.n. (K[K000260013!]); Residual syntypes: (K [K000827405!, K000827406!, K000827409!]).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFA1E709FCB9FCDEFEF4F9B2	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFAEE708FF09F9F7FD85FB2A.text	039287BEFFAEE708FF09F9F7FD85FB2A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Porpax reticosa (Wight) Schuit., Malesian Orchid J.	<div><p>Porpax reticosa (Wight) Schuit., Malesian Orchid J. 24: 107. 2020. Eria reticosa Wight, Icon. Pl. Ind. Orient. 5, 1: 4, t. 1637. 1851. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA, perhaps Pycarrah, s.d., Herb. Griffith, Wight s.n. (K [K000260012!]). Residual syntype: INDIA, peninsular India, Herb. Wight 2960 (K [K000881644!]).</p><p>Eria rupestris Blatt &amp; McCann, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 35(2): 270, t. 6. 1931. Type: INDIA, Panchgani Tableland, above Convent, May Langham 231 (holo BLAT n.v.).</p><p>An epiphytic orchid endemic to India can be easily distinguished from other species by pseudobulbs close to and completely masking the rhizome, presence of a loose net-like reticulate sheath on pseudobulbs, presence of leaves during flowering, a singular flower, acute to acuminate sepals and petals, and a distinctly 3-lobed lip (Agrawala, 2009).</p><p>Three sheets and a line drawing housed at K refer to Eria uniflora Dalzell. The sheet (K000827409) has four specimens and two flowers with Dalzell’s label as ‘ Dendrobium which I propose to be called uniflorum ’. In the absence of the name Eria uniflora, it is not selected as the lectotype. The sheet K000260013 has sixteen specimens and is labelled in Dalzell’s hand as ‘ Eria uniflora ’. As it bears William Hooker’s annotation as ‘ Bombay Dalzell’ it appears to have been communicated by Dalzell himself to Hooker, and hence selected here as the lectotype. Another sheet at K, has three stamps of ‘Herbarium Hookerianum’ which indicates that it must be the gathering of three different collections: two of them, K000827405 and K000827406 belong to Dalzell; the latter has two labels: one label is in Dalzell’s hand, ‘ Eria uniflora mihi in Hook. Jour.’, while the other labels are in Stocks’s hand, ‘Concan on trees in the rainy season on the Ghauts’. Orchidae no. 24’. Whereas collection K000827405 has a label in Dalzell’s hand that says ‘Orchideous parasite begins to sprout in May &amp; flowers in June/ Mahabaleshwar’. Both collections may have reached K through Stocks. The line drawing at K from ‘Icones Stocks’ has been annotated in pencil by J.E. Stocks’ as ‘ Eria reticosa Wight’ and ‘ Eria uniflora Dalz. ’</p><p>Lindley (1858), while transferring his Dendrobium braccatum into Eria, cited E. reticosa and E. uniflora as synonyms. The treatment was then often followed by some authors (Fischer, 1928; Nayar et al., 2014 as ‘ Conchidium braccatum’). However, E. braccata can be distinguished from E. reticosa by the absence of a net-like, reticulate sheath on pseudobulbs, obtuse to sub-acute sepals and petals, and an obscurely 3-lobed lip (Agrawala, 2009). Dalzell was unaware of Wight’s E. reticosa and published E. uniflora barely a year later. Afterwards, he realised the priority of E. reticosa over the latter and published a note in the same publication reducing E. uniflora to E. reticosa . Following Agrawala (2009) and the recent circumscription of Porpax by Ng et al. (2018) and Schuiteman (2020), E. reticosa has been maintained here as Porpax reticosa .</p><p>Porpax reticosa is often considered a synonym of Pinalia reticosa (Wight) Kuntze, which is an error. In Pinalia, the pseudobulbs are embedded in the leaf sheath, and the inflorescence rachis is dense to sparsely lanate (Ng et al., 2018). In our plants, the pesudobulbs are ovoid to truncate with distinct leaf scars and a glabrous pedicel. There are multiple specimens associated with Eria reticosa Wight available at K, one of the five flowering specimens (K000260012) pasted on the top right side unequivocally agrees with Wight Icon no. 1637, and is here selected as lectotype. Noltie (2005) referred to these collections as holotype and isotypes. We are hesitant to conclude that all these collections are part of a single gathering. Therefore, we prefer the remaining collections to be residual syntypes rather than isolectotypes. The holotype citation by Noltie (2005) cannot be corrected to lectotype following Art. 9.10 of the ICN (Turland et al., 2018) because of the requirement of Art. 7.11 to include, on or after 1 January 2001, the phrase “designated here” or an equivalent.</p><p>8. Eulophia bicolor Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 3: 343. 1851. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA, Bombay, s.d., Dalzell s.n. (K [K000078323!]); Residual syntype: (K, without barcode!; DD, Acc. No. 172598!).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFAEE708FF09F9F7FD85FB2A	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFAFE708FF30FB7EFB2BFED1.text	039287BEFFAFE708FF30FB7EFB2BFED1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eulophia nuda Lindl., Gen. Sp. Orchid. Pl.	<div><p>Eulophia nuda Lindl., Gen. Sp. Orchid. Pl. 180. 1833. Syntypes: India Orientali, in Morang hills (present day Nepal), Hamilton s.n. (K [K000960023!]; E [E00394250!]).</p><p>A terrestrial orchid, which widely occurs in India and Southeast Asia, can be recognized with the help of characters like spherical corms, hysteranthous habit, purple to maroon flowers, and the presence of a prominent column foot.</p><p>Three sheets are housed at K and DD. The sheet K000078323 has Dalzell’s label as ‘ Eulophia bicolor ’, the ‘Herbarium Hookerianum stamp’ and Hooker’s annotation as ‘Bombay Dalzell’. Although the name E. bicolor is crossed out by someone, the remarks by Robert Allen Rolfe (R. A. R) on the sheet clearly suggest the specimen is the type of Eulophia bicolor . We have therefore selected this sheet as the lectotype. Another collection at K presented by Mrs. Dalzell is yet to be digitized, it does not bear Dalzell’s annotations. The specimen at DD (172598) is perhaps a duplicate of the latter. 9. Habenaria candida Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 2: 262. 1850. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA, Bombay, s.d, Dalzell s.n. (K [K000247458!]); Residual syntypes: (K [K000061925!, K001097957!]).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFAFE708FF30FB7EFB2BFED1	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFAFE708FCB9FE54FC55FA01.text	039287BEFFAFE708FCB9FE54FC55FA01.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Habenaria heyneana Lindl., Gen. Sp. Orchid. Pl.	<div><p>Habenaria heyneana Lindl., Gen. Sp. Orchid. Pl. 320. 1835. Type: India Orientalis, Wall. Cat. 7044, Herb. Heyne (K [K000061927!]).</p><p>A terrestrial orchid, endemic to India, can be recognized in the field by scattered leaves throughout the stem, entire petals, narrowly oblong lip lobes, and lateral lobes shorter than the mid-lobe. Hitherto, the species is endemic to peninsular India, but there is a collection ‘ T. Lobb 10 ’ from Meghalaya at K (K000061924), which extends the occurrence of Habenaria heyneana in Northeast India, which is quite disjunct and therefore deserves more detailed study.</p><p>Three sheets and a line drawing are housed at K. The sheet K000061925 has multiple specimens pasted on it, with the top middle two specimens labelled by Stocks as ‘78’. Herb. J.E. Stocks S. Concan Dalzell’. Another sheet (not yet digitized) at K, also has three specimens, the right two specimens labelled by Dalzell, and a label in Stocks’ hand ‘Orchideae no.11’. The sheet with barcode K000247458 has seven specimens with the label ‘ Habenaria candida ’ in Dalzell’s hand and Hooker’s annotation as ‘ Bombay Dalzell’, which is chosen here as the lectotype .</p><p>10. Habenaria caranjensis Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 2: 262. 1850. Neotype (designated by Ormerod &amp; Kumar, 2018): INDIA, Maharashtra, Dronagheree, 07.1848, Dalzell s.n. (K [K000387524!]).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFAFE708FCB9FE54FC55FA01	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFAFE70BFCB9FA04FB2AFA18.text	039287BEFFAFE70BFCB9FA04FB2AFA18.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Peristylus caranjensis (Dalzell) Ormerod & C. S. Kumar, Harvard Pap. Bot.	<div><p>Peristylus caranjensis (Dalzell) Ormerod &amp; C.S.Kumar, Harvard Pap. Bot. 23(2): 283. 2018.</p><p>An endemic, terrestrial orchid occurs throughout India and can be identified in the field by its broadly obovate to elliptic leaves, broad, rounded lip lobes, and linear, sub-clavate spur.</p><p>The species was overlooked for more than a century until Hooker (1890) listed it as an imperfectly known species. It might be because of the unusual character like cuneate, truncate lateral lip lobes for the genus Habenaria . It became well known as Peristylus stocksii (Hook.f.) Kraenzl., nevertheless, recently it has been found to be conspecific with P. caranjensis and relegated to synonymy (Ormerod &amp; Kumar, 2018).</p><p>The sheet K000387524 has a label in Dalzell’s hand as ‘small yellow flowered Habenaria spp. undescribed, Dronagheree, July 1848, vide drawing’; the annotation ‘Concan Stocks’ seems to have been added afterwards, which was chosen as a neotype by Ormerod and Kumar (2018). However, we were not able to trace the drawing mentioned on the label.</p><p>11. Habenaria diphylla Dalzell in Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 2: 262. 1850. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA, Bombay, s.d., Dalzell s.n. (K!); Residual syntypes: (K, without barcode!; GH [GH00099782 digital image!]). Fig. 5</p><p>This terrestrial orchid is widespread in India and Southeast Asia and can be recognized in the field by its ground appressed two leaves, entire petals,</p><p>much longer lateral lobes, and a shorter mid-lobe.</p><p>Three sheets and a line drawing housed at K and GH can be referred to as Dalzell’s Habenaria diphylla; the collection at K is yet to be digitized. One sheet has Stocks label ‘authentic specimens from Dalzell himself, Orchidae no. 8’. The other sheet has Dalzell’s label ‘ Habenaria diphylla ’, which agrees with the protologue and is selected here as the lectotype. A sheet at GH (GH00099782), distributed from K, also has Dalzell’s label as ‘ Habenaria diphylla mihi in Hook. Jour.’ perhaps a collection made after 1850.</p><p>Liparis diphyllos Nimmo (1839) has often been cited as the basionym for Habenaria diphylla Dalzell (Hooker, 1890; Duthie, 1906; Cooke, 1908; Jalal, 2018; Prasad et al., 2019; POWO, 2023), even though the two are obviously heterotypic taxa. The protologue of Liparis diphyllos describes the lip as large and rounded (Graham, 1839), whereas in the protologue of Habenaria diphylla, the lip is described as trifid and filiform lobes (Dalzell, 1850). Liparis diphyllos is probably an earlier name for L. prazeri King &amp; Pantl., but the description is too short and insufficient to determine with certainty (Santapau &amp; Kapadia, 1966).</p><p>12. Habenaria laciniata Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 2: 261. 1850. Neotype (designated here): Drawings from Dalzell’s collection (BM!).</p><p>Habenaria gibsonii Hook.f., Fl. Brit. India 5: 135. 1890, syn. nov. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA, Pune, near Khora? Kyreshwar (perhaps Khireshwar), A. Gibson s.n. (K [K000247421!]); Residual syntype: INDIA, Pune, Khandala, A. Gibson s.n. (K [K000247473!]).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFAFE70BFCB9FA04FB2AFA18	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFACE70CFCB2FA6CFD2FF964.text	039287BEFFACE70CFCB2FA6CFD2FF964.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Habenaria foliosa subsp. auct	<div><p>Habenaria foliosa auct . Wight in Icon. Pl. Ind. Orient 5: 12, t. 1700. 1851, p.p. FigS. 6 &amp; 3g</p><p>Habernaria laciniata Dalzell (1850) which was overlooked and misinterpreted for long years, is resurrected here as the oldest available name for H. gibsonii Hook.f. (Hooker, 1890) . Dalzell and Gibson (1861) erroneously synonymised Habenaria laciniata under H. foliosa A.Rich. (Richard, 1841) following Wight (1852, t. 1700), providing the description of the former species. It is evident that, Dalzell was not aware of the protologue of H. foliosa . As H. foliosa of Wight (1852, t. 1700) is contrary to H. foliosa A.Rich. in having filiform lip-lobes, greenish petal margins, and agrees more with H. gibsonii . Hooker (1890) followed the circumscription of H. laciniata appearing in Dalzell and Gibson (1861), and relegated H. foliosa as a variety of H. digitata Lindl. (Lindley, 1835) . He also stated that he had never seen the Salsette (part of Bombay) plant of Dalzell with spirally twisted posterior petal lobes and a broader mid-lobe. After careful study of the protologues of H. laciniata and H. foliosa, we found both to be taxonomically distinct. Habenaria laciniata has lanceolate acute leaves, shorter bracts, larger flowers, green petal lobes, filiform lip-lobes, a longer, broader mediallip, and a clavate spur (Fig. 3g), whereas H. foliosa has elliptic acute leaves, longer bracts, smaller flowers, pale white to white petal lobes, narrow, linear, sub-equal lip-lobes, and an inflated spur (Fig. 3e).</p><p>Habenaria digitata Lindl. var. foliosa Hooker (1890) was placed under Habenaria gibsonii as a variety by Santapau and Kapadia (1966), which was an error, as Habenaria foliosa has priority over H. gibsonii . Habenaria gibsonii var. foliosa is circumscribed by deeply divided petal lobes and sub-equal recurved linear-subulate lip-lobes. Santapau and Kapadia (1966) have not commented upon H. laciniata, however, the species has been overlooked for a century, and erroneously placed either partly in H. foliosa (Dalzell &amp; Gibson, 1861; Hooker, 1890), or H. digitata (POWO, 2023) . It is evident here observing the protologues, original material, herbarium specimens (Appendix 1), and live collections of H. digitata (Fig. 3d), H. foliosa (Fig. 3e) and H. laciniata (Fig. 3g), these species share similarities in their floral characteristics like concave spreading dorsal sepals and bipartite petals. But H. foliosa differs from H. digitata and H. laciniata by its white to pale white sepals and petals, sub-equal linear-subulate lip-lobes, and inflated spur. H. digitata differentiated from H. laciniata by its trinerved leaves, pale green to yellowish green small flowers, comparatively shorter falcate included anterior petal lobes, linear-acute lip lobes with distinct mesochile, reflexed (right angle) lateral lobes, and a shorter faintly clavate spur (Fig. 3d).</p><p>Habenaria gibsonii is conspecific to H. laciniata, hence relegated to synonymy. The former species was described based on greenish-white flowers, ovate obtuse dorsal sepals, oblong lateral sepals, filiform lip-lobes, a broader mid-lobe, and a clavate spur. These characters unequivocally agree with the description of H. laciniata, except for the shorter bract, and spirally twisted posterior lobes. The bract length often varies from equal to longer than the ovary, whereas spirally twisted posterior lobes of petals seem to be an error. Habenaria laciniata was often misinterpreted with its conspecific taxa, perhaps due to the absence of the original material. Nevertheless, a collection housed at BM of N.A. Dalzell’s drawings with the anonymous pencil annotation Habenaria in the bottom left corner and N.A. Dalzell in the bottom right corner, depicts the character of H. laciniata, is chosen here as a neotype.</p><p>13. Habenaria modesta Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 2: 262. 1850. Neotype (designated here): Drawings from Dalzell’s collection (BM!).</p><p>Habenaria ovalifolia Wight, Icon. Pl. Ind. Orient. 5: 13, t. 1708. 1851, syn. nov. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA, Tamil Nadu, Annamalai (as Annamalay), July 1848, R. Wight s.n. (K [K000247463!]). Residual syntypes: INDIA, Kerala, Malabar, June 1836, R. Wight 3016 (K [K000247461!]); (GH [GH00099981 digital image!]); Ibid., 1836, R. Wight 1037? (K [K000247464]). FigS. 7 &amp; 3h</p><p>Habenaria modesta (Dalzell, 1850) is resurrected here which is the oldest available name for H. ovalifolia (Wight, 1851) . The former name was overlooked and erroneously considered as part of H. stenopetala Lindl. (Cooke, 1908), also confused with H. stenostachya Lindl. ex Benth. and presumed doubtful (Hooker, 1890; Blatter &amp; McCann, 1932). The POWO (2023) shows that H. modesta is conspecific with H. furcifera (Lindley, 1835) . Nevertheless, Santapau and Kapadia (1966) rightly identified H. modesta as being conspecific to H. ovalifolia and recognised its nomenclatural priority. In the absence of the original material of H. modesta and its past taxonomic flux, perhaps they hesitated to make the nomenclatural decision.</p><p>After comparing the protologues of H. ovalifolia Wight and H. modesta Dalzell and following the observations of Sanatapau and Kapadia (1966) with H. modesta, we found that both are morphologically similar. Both species have aggregated leaves near the base, bracts shorter than the ovary, dorsal sepals and petals together forming a galea and a filiform spur. Wight’s (1851: t. 1708) illustration of H. ovalifolia shows an ascending lip mid-lobe, which is contradictory, as the original material housed at K (K000247461, 63, 64) and GH (GH00099981) shows an incurved mid-lobe, coherent with galea, which is clearly seen in H. modesta (Dalzell, 1850) .</p><p>The illustration of H. ovalifolia (Wight 1851: t. 1708), portrayed equal sepals and petals, which appears to be an error by the artist. The bracts in H. modesta vary, either shorter or equal to the ovary, which was depicted contrastingly in the protologues of H. modesta (bracts half of the ovary) and H. ovalifolia (shorter than the ovary). In the drawing maintained at BM referring to Dalzell’s collection, the enlarged flower shows the bract is equal to the ovary, which is also shown in the original material of H. ovalifolia . The drawing housed at BM is from Dalzell’s collection and agrees with the description of H. modesta which is designated here as the neotype.</p><p>Hooker (1890) considered H. modesta similar to H. stenostachya (Lindl. ex Benth.) Benth. (= Platanthera stenostachya Lindl. ex Benth.) but placed it as an ‘imperfectly known species’. Habenaria modesta shares similarities with H. stenostachya in its trilobed lip and short broad obtuse mid-lobe. However, it differs by its aggregated leaves near the base, shorter or equal bracts, and a longer spur.</p><p>Cooke (1908) erroneously reduced H. modesta to the synonymy of H. stenopetala Lindl. (Fig. 3i), however, the former can be differentiated from the latter by its entire petals, together with dorsal sepal form galea (bipartite, free from galea), green to greenish white lip (greenish to brown, or ochreous), mid-lobe of the lip shorter than lateral lobes, and incurved (longer than lateral lobes).</p><p>Habenaria ovalifolia Wight has been reduced to the synonymy of H. furcifera Lindl. (Fig. 3f) (POWO 2023) which is corrected here and considered conspecific to H. modesta . Habenaria furcifera has longer filiform lateral lip lobes, broader mid-lobe free from galea, and hamate spur as opposed to sub-equal lip lobes, whereas H. modesta has linearlanceolate acute lateral lobes, an ovate-oblong mid-lobe coherent with galea and a filiform faintly bulged clavate spur, hence the latter is treated here as distinct.</p><p>14. Habenaria suaveolens Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 2: 263. 1850. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA, Bombay, s.d., Dalzell s.n. (K [K0002474341!]); Residual syntypes: K [K000247435!]); DD (Acc. no. 172597!).</p><p>Habenaria variabilis Blatt. &amp; McCann, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. 36: 19–20. 1932. nom. illeg., non Ridley, 1886.</p><p>Habenaria panchganiensis Santapau &amp; Kapadia, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 54: 478. 1957. Syntypes: INDIA, Maharashtra, Panchgani and Mahabaleshwar, Frenchman 21; Hallberg 26494; Blatter 55, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204; Sedgwick 7908; Mozelle Issacs &amp; Blatter 205, 206; McCann s.n., all perhaps at BLAT, n.v.)</p><p>A terrestrial orchid, endemic to peninsular India, can be identified by its bipartite, filiform petals, mid-lobe narrower than lateral lobes of lip and longer spur than ovary. Habenaria suaveolens was resurrected by Jalal and Jayanthi (2013), which had previously been known as H. panchganiensis Santapau &amp; Kapadia.</p><p>We could locate four sheets associated with H. suaveolens housed at K and DD. The sheet K000247434 has six specimens with a label by Dalzell in pencil as ‘ Habenaria suaveolens mihi’ and Hooker’s annotation as ‘ Bombay Dalzell’ which agrees with the protologue is designated here as the lectotype. The sheet K000247435, presented by Mrs Dalzell in 1878, has a pencil label by Dalzell. Similarly, there are other sheets (not yet digitized) at K with Hooker’s annotations as ‘ Habenaria suaveolens Dalzell, Bombay Dalzell’ but without Dalzell’s annotation. The sheet from DD (172597) is perhaps a duplicate of K000247435 and has Dalzell’s annotation ‘3 Habenaria suaveolens’.</p><p>15. Habenaria uniflora Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 3: 344. 1851. nom. illeg. non Don (1825). Type: INDIA, jugo Syhadrensi. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA, Bombay, s.d., Dalzell s.n. (K [K000247424!], perhaps holotype).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFACE70CFCB2FA6CFD2FF964	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFABE70CFF30F920FCD6FC64.text	039287BEFFABE70CFF30F920FCD6FC64.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Habenaria rariflora A. Rich., Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot.	<div><p>Habenaria rariflora A.Rich., Ann. Sci. Nat., Bot., sér. 2, 15: 70. 1841. Type: INDIA, Tamil Nadu, Nilgiris, Mont. Herb. Coonoor, 1840, Perrottet s.n. (P [P00439690 digital image!], perhaps holotype).</p><p>Habenaria rariflora is said to be epiphytic, rather it is commonly lithophytic (growing on rocks and walls), occasionally epiphytic, or rarely terrestrial, and is endemic to peninsular India . It can be recognized by rosette to basally gathered oblonglanceolate leaves, 1–4-flowered cymes, white fragrant flowers, long filiform lateral lobes, and a longer spur. It appears that Dalzell was uncertain in describing H. uniflora and doubted that it was more appropriate to be a variety than a distinct species. Although it was named ‘ uniflora ’ by Dalzell, it usually has 1–4-flowered cymes.</p><p>A single sheet at K (K000247424) is referrable to H. uniflora and labelled by Dalzell as ‘ Habenaria uniflora mihi. var. of H. rariflora ?’. It also has a Hooker’s annotation ‘ Bombay Dalzell’, which is chosen here as the lectotype.</p><p>16. Micropera maculata Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 3: 282. 1851. Lectotype (designated by Bokil et al., 2019): INDIA, s.loc., s.d., Dalzell s.n. (K!, K000891594) Residual syntypes: (K [K001097951!, K, without barcode!]; GH ([GH00101590 digital image!]).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFABE70CFF30F920FCD6FC64	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFABE70CFCB9FC20FAA5F8ED.text	039287BEFFABE70CFCB9FC20FAA5F8ED.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Smithsonia maculata (Dalzell) C. J. Saldanha, J.	<div><p>Smithsonia maculata (Dalzell) C.J.Saldanha, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 71: 74. 1974.</p><p>An epiphytic orchid, endemic to the Western Ghats of India, can be identified by longer racemes (usually exceeding the leaves) and,yellow and purple spotted flowers. Since its description, Dalzell’s Micropera maculata went through different generic circumscriptions until Saldanha (1974) resolved it in Smithsonia C.J.Saldanha. Dalzell (1851) himself was not sure about the placement of this species in Micropera . In the protologue, therefore he added, ‘in my opinion, this a typical form doubtfully belongs to this genus’. Pfitzer (1881) recognized it in Sarcochilus R.Br., followed by Hooker (1890), who transferred it to into Saccolabium Blume. Soon, it was transferred it to Gastrochilus D.Don by Kuntze (1891), and subsequently, Garay (1972) and Rauschert (1982) placed it in Loxoma Garay and Loxomorchis Rauschert, respectively.</p><p>17. Micropera viridiflora Dalzell in Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 3: 282. 1851. Lectotype (designated by Bokil et. al., 2019): INDIA, Bombay, s.d., Dalzell s.n. (K!, K000891593). Residual syntypes: (K [K001222284!]; CAL [CAL0000087303!]).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFABE70CFCB9FC20FAA5F8ED	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFABE70FFCB9F8B8FE1AFA64.text	039287BEFFABE70FFCB9F8B8FE1AFA64.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Smithsonia viridiflora (Dalzell) C. J. Saldanha, J.	<div><p>Smithsonia viridiflora (Dalzell) C.J.Saldanha, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 71: 75. 1974.</p><p>An epiphytic orchid endemic to the Western Ghats. It can be recognized by its corymboseumbellate inflorescence (not exceeding the leaves), greenish-white flowers, and conical rounded fleshy spur. Like the preceding species, many workers treated this species under different genera. Cooke (1908) assigned the species to genus Sarcochilus (as Sarcochilus viridiflorus) which became a later homonym (non Hooker, 1890) and hence illegitimate. Santapau (1948) provided a replacement name, Sarcochilus dalzellianus, which was later transferred to Aerides Lour. by Garay (1972). Moreover, Pradhan (1979) transferred it to Loxoma but failed to cite the basionym, which made the combination invalid. Santapau and Kapadia (1966) had a similar opinion as Kuntze (1891) for treating this species in Gastrochilus but they erroneously cited it as Gastrochilus dalzellianus (Santapau) Santapau &amp; Kapadia. However, Malaysian species of Gastrochilus are unique in having a wide sac, which is entirely replaced by a narrow spur in G. dalzellianus (Holttum, 1960) .</p><p>Bokil et al. (2019) lectotypified Micropera viridiflora, but while doing so, they erroneously cited the locality as ‘Koyana valley, Mahabaleshwar, Satara District’ which appears to be copied from Cooke’s collection, possibly made in May 1892 (K001222283). Similarly, the isolectotype choice presented by Bokil et al. (2019) is also excluded here. The remaining collection of M. viridiflora by Dalzell housed at K (K001222284: with Stocks label ‘Orchideae no. 26’) may not be a single gathering.</p><p>18. Peristylus elatus Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 3: 344. 1851. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA, Bombay, s.d., Dalzell s.n. (K!, K000387510); Residual syntypes: K!, (K000387509); K!, (without barcode!).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFABE70FFCB9F8B8FE1AFA64	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFA8E70EFCB2FD7BFEF5FD39.text	039287BEFFA8E70EFCB2FD7BFEF5FD39.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cleisostoma tenuifolium	<div><p>Cleisostoma tenuifolium (L.) Garay, Bot. Mus. Leafl. 23: 175. 1972. Epidendrum tenuifolium L., Sp. Pl. 952. 1753. Lectotype (designated by Majumdar &amp; Bakshi, 1979): [icon] “Tsjerou-mau-maravara” in Rheede, Hort. Malab. 12: 11, t. 5. 1693. Fig. 8</p><p>An epiphytic orchid distributed in India, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. I can be identified by its simple raceme, yellow sepals, and petals with red margins, yellowish or white lip, purplish lateral lobes and dilated conical spur.</p><p>We could locate three sheets and two drawings of Sarcanthus peninsularis housed at K and GH. The sheet K000942275 has been labelled by Dalzell as ‘ Sarcanthus peninsularis mihi…’ It also has pencil illustrations of flower parts. The remaining sheet at K is not digitized yet, and it has Stocks’ label ‘Orchideae no. 35’. A sheet from Harvard (GH00103899) has Dalzell’s label in the same ink as in sheet at K (K000942275), but the only difference in the GH sheet is that Dalzell has written ‘in Hook. Jour.’, which perhaps was collected later, after the publication of the species. As in the protologue, Dalzell mentioned ‘ Ic. ined. ’, which is referrable to colour drawing at K with an annotation as ‘ Sarcanthus peninsularis mihi’, the habit of drawing agreeing with the top right specimen on K000942275. After comparing drawings and, specimens of S. peninsularis, a sheet at K (K000942275) that is unequivocally in agreement with the description is designated here as the lectotype.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFA8E70EFCB2FD7BFEF5FD39	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
039287BEFFA8E70FFF09FA20FA88FD2F.text	039287BEFFA8E70FFF09FA20FA88FD2F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Peristylus plantagineus (Lindl.) Lindl., Gen. Sp. Orchid. Pl.	<div><p>Peristylus plantagineus (Lindl.) Lindl., Gen. Sp. Orchid. Pl. 300. 1835. Herminium plantagineum Lindl. Edwards’s Bot. Reg. 18: t. 1499. 1832. Type: SRI LANKA, s.d., Macrae s.n. (K, n.v.).</p><p>A terrestrial orchid, endemic to the Western Ghats of India and Sri Lanka. It can be identified in the field by its plantain-like leaves, which are whorled in the middle of the stem, 10–25 cm long densely white flowered spike, trilobed lip, saccate and globose spur, usually shorter than the sepals.</p><p>The original material of Peristylus elatus is traced at K. The sheets with barcodes K000387509 and K000387510 have Dalzell’s labels as ‘ Peristylus elata ’ and ‘ Peristylus elatus’ and Hooker’s annotation as ‘ Bombay Dalzell’. The latter, which is more precise and has pencil illustrations of flower parts, is selected here as the lectotype. Another sheet (yet to be digitized) has mixed collections from Dalzell and Law and has Stocks’ orchid label ‘Orchideae no. 43’.</p><p>19. Sarcanthus peninsularis Dalzell, Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 3: 343. 1851. Lectotype (designated here): INDIA, Moolus, July, N.A. Dalzell s.n. (K [K000942275!]); Residual syntypes: (K [without barcode!], GH [GH00103899 digital image!]).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039287BEFFA8E70FFF09FA20FA88FD2F	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	S. P., Bramhadande;Nandikar, M. D.;Scottish, The;Dalzell, N. A.	S. P., Bramhadande, Nandikar, M. D., Scottish, The, Dalzell, N. A. (2023): Nicholas Dalzell’s orchids in western India. Rheedea 33 (3): 174-192, DOI: 10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03, URL: https://doi.org/10.22244/rheedea.2023.33.03.03
