Millettia pachyloba Drake (1891: 188)

Song, Zhu-Qiu, Li, Shi-Jin, Vu, Quang Nam & Khang, Nguyen Sinh, 2022, Taxonomic notes on the genus Millettia (Fabaceae: Millettieae) in Vietnam, Phytotaxa 571 (2), pp. 169-185 : 175

7. Millettia pachyloba Drake (1891: 188)

≡ Callerya pachyloba (Drake) H. Sun (2006: 409) .

Type: — VIETNAM. Tonkin, Tu-Phap , dans les bois, 12 May 1887, B. Balansa 2306 (first-step lectotype designated by Dunn 1912: 185, second-step lectotype designated here: P02141840 image!; isolectotypes: A!, K000848750!, L0019106 image!, P02141839 image!, P02141841 image!) .

= Millettia spireana Gagnepain (1913: 364) ≡ Millettia pachyloba var. spireana (Gagnep.) P.K. Lôc in Lôc & Vidal (2001: 150). Type: — THAILAND. foret des Peunongs, de Bang-muc a La-khon, Nonkay, 1866–1868, C. Thorel 2442 (lectotype designated here: K000848784!; isolectotype: P 02141844 image!).

= Millettia obovata Gagnepain (1913: 361) . Type : — CHINA. Hainan, Lav-tai-shee, 4 May 1893, Chinese Collector 371A (lectotype designated here: P02141842 image!; isolectotypes: IBSC0154409 !, P02141843 image!).

= Millettia lasiopetala (Hayata) Merrill (1924: 16) ≡ Millettia pachyloba var. lasiopetala (Hayata) P.K. Lôc in Lôc & Vidal (2001: 152) ≡ Derris lasiopetala Hayata (1913: 78) . Type: — CHINA. Hainan, June 1909, N. Konishi s.n. (lectotype designated here: K000848707!).

Millettia pachyloba was first described by Drake (1891) with citation of four gatherings collected by B. Balansa (2305– 2308) in Tonkin, Vietnam, of which Balansa 2306 was indicated by Dunn (1912) as its type [first-step lectotype] without specifying a herbarium. Lôc & Vidal (2001) designated the specimen in P as type, but this typification was not effective according to Art. 7.11 ( Turland et al. 2018). We designate the specimen (P 02141840) as the second-step lectotype of the name. Four collections were cited by Gagnepain (1913) in the protologue of M. spireana , namely, C. Thorel 2442, C. J. Spire 47 (actually 447), 349 and F. J. Harmand s.n., of which Thorel 2442 (lecto, cf. Craib 1928, P!) was indicated by Lôc & Vidal (2001) as its type. But we found that Craib (1928) did not clearly indicate the type of the name, and the lectotypification by Lôc & Vidal (2001) is not effective according to the Art. 7.11 ( Turland et al. 2018). We designate the specimen of Thorel 2442 (K000848784) with a much better conserved status as the lectotype of M. spireana . In the protologue of M. obovata , a single collection (Herb. Hong-kong 371A) was provided by Gagnepain (1913). S. Coll. 371A (holo-, HK) was indicated by Lôc & Vidal (2001) as type, but this typification was not effective according to Art. 7.11 (also see Art. 40.2 Ex. 3, Turland et al. 2018). We did not find the specimen in HK, but traced three specimens of this gathering in P. We designate the specimen (P 02141842) with two dissected flowers as the lectotype of M. obovata . For the name Derris lasiopetala , the protologue provided a detailed description and its vouchers (“Hab. Hainan, leg. N. Konishi, 1909, Juli”, Hayata 1913). Lôc & Vidal (2001) gave the type information of D. lasiopetala [“Type: Konishi s.n. (juill. 1909), Chine. Hainan (lecto-, cf. Hayata 1913, non vu)”]. According to Taxonomic Literature II (https://www.sil.si.edu/DigitalCollections/tl-2/), the types used by Hayata are mainly kept in the herbarium TI, and further material are kept in A, C, K, and P. We examined the Konishi specimen in K (K000848707), which match the protologue of D. lasiopetala , and thus it is designated here as the lectotype of the name.