identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03C0C97E06654A290EF36EB030A1F85F.text	03C0C97E06654A290EF36EB030A1F85F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ophiopogon bockianus Diels 1900	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Ophiopogon bockianus Diels (1900: 254) (Figs. 1 &amp; 2) </p>
            <p>Type:— China. Sichuan: Nanchuan (belonged to Chongqing after 1997) County, Chang ling kang, 28 August 1891, C. Bock &amp; A.v. Rosthorn</p>
            <p> 641 (syntype, VO-2014558 photo!);   Talu chih, IX. C. Bock &amp; A. v. Rosthorn 984 (syntype, n.v.). =  O. mairei Merrill (1913: 493) . (Fig. 3). Type:— China. Yunnan:  Zhaotong City , Qiaojia County, bord des torrents sous bois à Ku-Long-Tchang (fiợ场), 800 m, E. E. Maire s.n  . </p>
            <p> (holotype, P 00753592 photo!; isotype, E 00115769 photo!, E 00061625 photo! &amp; PE 00036182!)   [Note 1]. =  O. pseudotonkinensis D. Fang (1998: 100) ,  syn. nov. (Fig. 4). Type:— China. Guangxi:  Hechi city, Nandan County,  Chehe , on the limestone hillslopes, 19 september 1977, Nandan Exped. 4–5–333 </p>
            <p>(holotype: GXMI 051112!) [Note 2].</p>
            <p> Note 1:—  Ophiopogon bockianus was described based on two collections: C. Bock &amp; A.v. Rosthorn 641 and C. Bock &amp; A.v. Rosthorn 948. We have found only one sheet of the former in VO (Fig. 2). In the protologue, the authors stated that  O. bockianus was most closely related to  O. jaburan G. Loddiges (1832 : t. 1876), but differs by its shorter peduncle. Since it was described,  O. bockianus as a species has been recognized by Handel-Mazzetti (1936), Dai &amp; Chen (1978), Chen (1988), Li (1997), Chen and N. Tamura (2000). These authors all stated that the anthers of  O. bockianus are connate. Wang &amp; Tang (1978) also described  O. bockianus var. angustifoliatus F.T. Wang &amp; Tang (1978: 252) (Figs. 5 &amp; 6). However, this variant was later evaluated as an independent species,  O. angustifoliatus (F.T. Wang &amp; Tang) S.C. Chen (1988: 141) by Chen, because it has dense nodes and stolons, which easily distinguish itself from  O. bockianus . </p>
            <p> O. mairei H. Léville (1913: 493) (Fig. 3) was described on the basis of the single collection, E.E. Maire s.n., from Ku-Long-Tchang (fiợ场) in Qiaojia County, Zhaotong City, Yunnan Province, China.  O. mairei as a species has been recognized by Dai &amp; Chen (1978), Yang &amp; Li (1990), Dai &amp; Liang (1991), Li (in Wu 1997), and Chen &amp; N. Tamura (2000); all of these authors stated that the anthers of  O. mairei are separated. But, according to the surveys of several specimens of this plant group, Handel-Mazzetti (1936) and Averyanov et al. (2015) considered that this species is a synonym of  O. bockianus in which the anthers of  O. mairei is free, but very closely situated side by side, which is very close to  O. bockianus . In addition, the Vietnamese specimens are somewhat large, the blades are narrower and longer, and the anthers are free (Fig. 3 D). </p>
            <p> Note 2:—  Ophiopogon pseudotonkinensis D. Fang (1998: 100) (Fig. 4) was described based on one collection, Nandan Exped. 4–5–333 (GXMI051112!), from Nandan County, Hechi City, Guangxi, China. In the protologue, the author stated that this species is most closely related to  O. tonkinensis L. Rodriguez (1928: 998) and  O. marmoratus Pierre ex L. Rodriguez (in Rodriguez 1929: 997), but differs by its tepals usually recurved at the apex and anthers connate. However, it is worth noting that in  O. pseudotonkinensis the reflexed tepals and connate anthers are also characteristic of  O. bockianus and  O. angustifoliatus . We did not know why the author considered  O. tonkinensis and  O. marmoratus to be similar to  O. pseudotonkinensis and did not choose  O. bockianus for comparison in the protologue.  O. pseudotonkinensis is most similar to  O. bockianus in having strongly recurved tepals and connate anthers, which are very different from  O. tonkinensis and  O. marmoratus . Based on the holotype, only the blade of  O. pseudotonkinensis is broader than  O. bockianus . But some specimens in Sichuan also have broad blades (Anonymous 3634, SM722203918 photo!; Z.Y. Zhu et al. 441, PE00291658!). Therefore, all the characters used by Fang (1998) to distinguish  O. pseudotonkinensis from other species are not diagnostic. </p>
            <p> Additional specimens examined of  Ophiopogon bockianus (including  O. mairei ):— CHINA. Sichuan: Hongya, Honyya Exped. 305 (SM722203915 photo!); Emeishan, S.Y. Chen et al. 3630 (SM22203914 photo!), F.T. Wang 23161 (PE00036137!). Lushan, Lushan Exped. 78-0636 (SM722203891 photo!). Chongqing: Nanchuan, G.F. Li 62517 (KUN1222903!). Jiangjin, Z.Y. Liu et al. S-2825 (IMC0051422 photo!). Shizhu, Z.Y. Liu 0621 (IMC0016582 photo!). Dashanhe, Z.Y. Liu 2033341 (IMC0016572 photo!). Guizhou: Fanjingshan, Qianbei Exped. 2106 (PE00330547!). Yunnan: Shuifu, Z.Y. Liu 2020694 (IMC0016571 photo!). </p>
            <p> Ophiopogon mairei .   CHINA. Guizhou:  Suiyang , P. Wang 0643 (ZY0004358 photo!). Hubei. Xanen, H. J. Li 3393 (PE00291424!). Hunan:Sangzhi, Beijing Exped.2055 (PE01340118!).Fenghuang, Wuling Exped.1215 (ISBC0644244!). Yongshun, D. G. Zhang zdg9909 (JIU04406 photo!). Chongqing: Fengdu, Anonymous 0225 (SM722204223 photo!). Pengshui, Anonymous 1398 (SM722204231 photo!). Wulong, F. D. Pu &amp; Y. L. Cao 0531 (PE01340116!). Hubei: Hefeng, Y. M. Wang 5714 (PE01340115!). Sichuan: Pingshan, Anonymous 0778 (PE00291434!)  .   VIETNAM. Son La Prov.: Van Ho Distr., Xuan Nha Municipality,  Muong An village , territory of  Xuan Nha natural reserve, 16 November 2013, L. V. Averyanov, T. H. Nguyen, K. S. Nguyen, N. D. Thang &amp; L. D. Qui CPC7217 (LE01049269 photo!; LE01049360 photo!)  ;   Muong An village , 15 August 2016, L. V. Averyanov CPC7070 a/13273 (LE 01049410 photo!)  ;   Moc Chau Distr., Chieng Son comm., about 1 km to NE from  Chieng Son Village , 27 September 2016, L. V. Averyanov, T. H. Nguyen, K. S. Nguyen, et al. CPC8076 (LE01077636 photo!)  .   LAOS. Xiangkhouang Prov.: Peak Distr.,  Oran village , 2 April 2015, T. H. Nguyen, L. V. Averyanov, K. S. Nguyen et al. LA-VN875 (LE01077624 photo!)  ;   Khoang village, Pa Khao mt., 3 March 2015, T. H.  Nguyen , L. V. Averyanov, K. S. Nguyen et al. LA-VN932 (LE01077614 photo! &amp; LE01077613 photo!)  . </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C0C97E06654A290EF36EB030A1F85F	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	Gan, Xin-Jun;Feng, Hui-Zhe;Chen, Huan-Jin;Zhong, Ping-Sheng;Fan, Qiang	Gan, Xin-Jun, Feng, Hui-Zhe, Chen, Huan-Jin, Zhong, Ping-Sheng, Fan, Qiang (2024): Taxonomic studies on the genus Ophiopogon (Asparagaceae) I: - identity of O. albimarginatus and O. pseudotonkinensis, and a new species O. guangzhouensis from Guangdong, China. Phytotaxa 662 (2): 121-136, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.662.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.662.2.1
03C0C97E06634A250EF36A3F33E4FF26.text	03C0C97E06634A250EF36A3F33E4FF26.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ophiopogon stenophyllus (Merrill 1918) L. Rodriguze 1934	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Ophiopogon stenophyllus (Merrill) Rodriguze (1934: 95) (Figs. 7 &amp; 8) </p>
            <p> ≡  Peliosanthes stenophylla Merrill (1918: 134) . </p>
            <p>  Type:— CHINA. Kuangtung (= Guangdong province), Loh Fau Mountain (=  Lofaushan , ḄĀƜ), 9 August 1917 – 27 August 2017,  Merrill 10757 (isotypes: NY00319815 photo!; US00091985 photo!; CAS0007083 photo! &amp; GH00030013 photo!).  Kwangtung province , Canton (=Guangzhou) and vicinity, 15 September 1917, Levine 1613 (paratype: MO77689 photo!)  . </p>
            <p> =  Ophiopogon albimarginatus D. Fang (1998: 97) ,  syn. nov. (Fig. 9). </p>
            <p>Type:— CHINA. Guangxi: Hezhou City, Babu District, Daguishan Tree Farm, valley, in forest, alt. 300 m, 16 October, D. Fang, C. Z. Gao &amp; K. J. Yan 80952 (holytype: GXMI 051107!). Hezhou, Nanxiang, medicinal, 29 September 1977, Hexian Exped. 7–642 (paratype: GXMI 051108!).</p>
            <p> Note:—  Ophiopogon stenophyllus (Figs. 7 &amp; 8) was described based on the basis of two collections, Merrill 10757 and Levine 1613, with the first collection designated as holotype from Luofushan, Boluo County, Huizhou City, Guangdong Province. This species had been put in the genus  Peliosanthes by Merrill with the subsessile anthers. But Rodriguze stated that in this species the six stamens with free and very short and not wilded into a crown, so it should be a species of  Ophiopogon , after examination of the shape of the flowers. And  O. stenophyllus has been recognized by Dai &amp; Chen (1978), Li (1997), Li et al. (2016), Chen &amp; Tamura (2000). Based on Dai &amp; Chen (1978) in this species the filaments ca. 1 mm long, anthers ca. 3 mm long, sometimes connate and free later. And Dai &amp; Chen's views (1978) were also accepted by Li (1997), Li et al. (2016), Chen &amp; Tamura (2000). </p>
            <p> We also found that  Ophiopogon albimarginatus D. Fang (1998: 97) (Fig. 9) and  O. stenophyllus are very similar.  O. albimarginatus was described based on two collections, D. Fang, C. Z. Gao &amp; K. J. Yan 80952 (GXMI 051107!) and Hexian Exped. 7–642 (GXMI 051108!), with the first collection designated as holotype which from Daguishan (大IJƜ), Babu District, Hezhou city, Guangxi province. In the protologue, the authors stated that  O. albimarginatus was most closely related to  O. reptans Hooker. f. (1892: 268) , but immediately differed by the blades 6 – 11 mm broad, bracts longer than pedicel, persistent tepals margin white. In the protologue, the authors stated that the key characteristic of  O. albimarginatus is the petals margin white. Our critical observations on specimens have revealed both in  O. albimarginatus and  O. stenophyllus the petals margin white and not the petals but also the bracts margin white. In  O. albimarginatus the blades margin serrulate which the same as  O. stenophyllus . It is worth mentioning that in these two species the stem rhizomelike, stout, with dense nodes and somewhat woody, densely hairy roots. Leaves somewhat crowded and subterminal, subsessile, grasslike. Both of them are not essentially different from each other in any morphological characteristics and conspecific with each other. </p>
            <p>Additional specimens examined:— CHINA. Guangdong: Xinyi, X. P. Gao 51604 (IBK 00139053 photo!). Fengkai, Yueqisi 74–5259 (IBSC 0644402!). Zijin, G. L. Shi 11511 (IBSC 0644382!). Duanzhou, G. L. Shi 15373 (IBSC 0644393!). Zengcheng, G. C. Zhang 061 (IBSC 0644398!). Lianshan, P.X. Tan 58816 (PE 00291518!). Deqing, Y. G. Liu 01110 (PE 00291523!). Guangxi: Donglan, Z. Huang 43611 (IBK 00139047 photo!). Linguan, Z. Z. Chen 50989 (IBK 00139045 photo!). Mahan, S. Q. Zhong A 62253 (IBK 00139050 photo!). Rongshui, D. Z. Chen 779 (IBSC 0644413!). Lingui,</p>
            <p>J.X. Zhong 90989 (IBSC 0644409!). Longsheng, Guangfu Exped. 00582 (PE 00291512!). Wuming, Anonymous Q 3 (PE 02017730!). Chongqing: Anonymous 0588 (SM 722204259 photo!).</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C0C97E06634A250EF36A3F33E4FF26	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	Gan, Xin-Jun;Feng, Hui-Zhe;Chen, Huan-Jin;Zhong, Ping-Sheng;Fan, Qiang	Gan, Xin-Jun, Feng, Hui-Zhe, Chen, Huan-Jin, Zhong, Ping-Sheng, Fan, Qiang (2024): Taxonomic studies on the genus Ophiopogon (Asparagaceae) I: - identity of O. albimarginatus and O. pseudotonkinensis, and a new species O. guangzhouensis from Guangdong, China. Phytotaxa 662 (2): 121-136, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.662.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.662.2.1
03C0C97E066E4A260EF36F9A310DF7D6.text	03C0C97E066E4A260EF36F9A310DF7D6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Ophiopogon guangzhouensis H. Z. Feng, Xin Jun Gan & Q. Fan 2024	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Ophiopogon guangzhouensis H.Z. Feng, Xin Jun Gan &amp; Q. Fan ,  sp. nov. (Figs. 10 &amp; 11) </p>
            <p>Type:— CHINA. Guangdong Province: Guangzhou City, Conghua County, Lutian Town, Chenhedong Provincial Nature Reserve, 12 April 2024, Q. Fan, H. Z. Feng &amp; C. H. Zhang GZCH-1025 (holytype: SYS 00236958!).</p>
            <p> Diagnosis:—The new species is morphologically similar to  Ophiopogon bockianus , but differs markedly by its rhizome moniliform, leaf blade 45 – 60 cm long, 0.8 – 1 cm broad; pedicels 1.3 – 1.7 cm long, and longer than the stalky part of the floral base, adjacent anthers and filaments all completely connate, ad style exerted beyond the tepals. </p>
            <p>Description:—Herb terrestrial, glabrous, evergreen, perennial. Stem rhizome like, stout, with dense nodes, moniliform with remaining petioles and somewhat fleshy, densely hairy roots. Leaves basal and crowed, (25) 30–70 (75) cm long; petiole obvious, white, oblate columnar, (5)15–20 (23) cm long, base up to 2 cm thick; blade (25) 45–60 (65) cm long, (0.4) 0.8–1.2 (1) cm at the widest point, attenuate at apex, leathery, glabrous, adaxial surface glossy, uniformly light grass-green when young, becoming darker green with age; abaxial longitudinal veins ca. 10 (including marginal ones), light pale green, midrib (midvein) somewhat raised, intervein regions paler; leaf margin finely serrulate. Flowering stem (including peduncle and rachis), ascending, erect, fleshy, somewhat twisted, violet; peduncle (6.5) 8–15 (18) cm long, (2.2) 2.5–3 (3.4) mm in diameter, infertile bracts (4) 6–8 (10), narrowly triangular, connate at the base and form a sheath, ca. (1) 1.2–(2.3) 3 cm; inflorescence a lax raceme with 7–11 distant fascicles of 1 (2) flowers; rachis (8) 10–13 (16) cm long; pedicels arising from axils of bracts, acroscopic, terete, usually dirty bluish violet, (1.3) 1.5–2 (2.5) cm long, (0.4) 0.5–0.6 (0.7) mm in diameter, distally slightly narrowed, forming a distinct articulation to basal stalky part of perianth; floral bracts fasciculate, outermost bract acroscopic, glabrous, lanceolate to narrowly triangular, (2) 5–8 (12) mm long, (2.5) 3–3.5 (4) mm wide, acute, light pale green to dirty bluish violet on both surfaces, margin scarious, more or less irregularly undulate; inner bracts (bracteoles) similar to outermost bract in texture, shape and color, but much smaller, (3.5) 4–5 (5.5) mm long, (0.8) 1–1.5 (2) mm wide. Flowers cernuous, campanulate, (1.4) 1.6–1.8 (2) cm long, (0.8) 0.9–1 (1.3) cm in diam., odorless, enectariferous. Perianth fleshy, glabrous, proximally syntepalous, distally 6-cleft; syntepalous part (including basal stalky part ca. 0.8 cm long) funnel form, purplish violet, ca. 3 mm long, ca. 7 mm in diameter at summit; lobes 6, ovate to narrowly ovate, outer 3 slightly wider than inner 3, (5.5) 6–6.5 (7) mm long, (3.2) 3.6–4.4 (4.6) mm wide, purplish violet with white tinged, margins entire, somewhat undulate, strong revolute, apex subacute to obtuse, recurved. Stamens 6, connate, inserted at base of each perianth lobe; filaments, connate, trapezoidal, ca. 0.2 mm long, 0.8–1 mm wide, ca. 0.2 mm thick, white; anthers slightly connivent distally, dorsi-basifixed, subsessile, narrowly hastate-deltoid (lateral sides somewhat concave and dilated toward base), (2.9) 3–3.5 (4) mm long, (1.2) 1.3–1.4 (1.5) mm wide at base, 0.6–0.8 mm thick, introrse, apical portion of each theca dehiscing earlier, light pale yellowish green. Pistil 1, tricarpellate, white; ovary inferior, nearly obovoid, apex subtruncate, slightly convex above, but somewhat concave in center around base of style, 3-locular; each locule with 2 ovules on basal part of ovary central axis, obovoid to subglobose; style awl-shaped, erect, straight or slightly curved distally, (5) 5.2–5.5 (5.7) mm long, 0.5–0.7 mm in diameter, longitudinally slightly 3-sulcate, exposed outside the flower; stigma minute, subacute to obtuse. Seeds ellipsoid, ca. 1 cm long, ca. 8 mm in diameter, sarcotesta externally cobalt blue at maturity, glossy, albumen white.</p>
            <p>Etymology:—The specific epithet refers to the city of species origin. The Chinese name is given as " Ḟfflāẖ Ṝ "; Guǎng zhōu Yán Jiē Cǎo (Chinese Pin-Yin transliteration).</p>
            <p>Phenology:—Flowers in cultivation in April–May.</p>
            <p>Ecology, phenology and conservation status:—This new species grows on damp slopes of valleys, under primary evergreen broad-leaved forest at elevation ca. 800 m a.s.l., in shady places, forming a large population, common.</p>
            <p> Taxonomic relationships: —In the genus  Ophiopogon ,  O. bockianus (including  O. pseudotonkinensis ),  O. angustifoliatus and  O. stenophyllus , of which all the anthers are connate, are most closely similar to  O. guangzhouensis .  Ophiopogon guangzhouensis differs from  O. bockianus mainly in its rhizome moniliform, leaf blade 45 – 60× 0.8 – 1.2 cm (vs. 20 – 30× 1.4 – 2.2 cm), pedicels longer (1.5–2 vs. 0.3–0.5 cm long) than the stalky part of the floral base (ca. 0.8 cm vs. ca. 1.3 cm long), filaments connate (vs. free), style exerted beyond the tepals (vs. shorter than the tepals).  Ophiopogon guangzhouensis can distinguishable from  O. angustifoliatus by the stems are not stoloniferous, leaves are lanceolate, 30–70 × 0.6–1.5 cm (vs. linear, only 15–25 × 3–7 mm), pedicels are ca. 1.2–1.5 cm long (vs. 0.5 cm long), anthers are ca. ca. 3.5 mm long (vs. 2 mm long), and filaments are connate (vs. free).  Ophiopogon guangzhouensis is less similar to  O. stenophyllus than to  O. bockianus and  O. angustifoliatus . In  O. stenophyllus , the anthers are free when mature and the filaments are also free; the tepals are nearly straight and the styles are hidden within the tepals; the stem has a few rigid semi-woody prop roots. Detailed morphological differences among the compared species are shown in Table 1. </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C0C97E066E4A260EF36F9A310DF7D6	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	Gan, Xin-Jun;Feng, Hui-Zhe;Chen, Huan-Jin;Zhong, Ping-Sheng;Fan, Qiang	Gan, Xin-Jun, Feng, Hui-Zhe, Chen, Huan-Jin, Zhong, Ping-Sheng, Fan, Qiang (2024): Taxonomic studies on the genus Ophiopogon (Asparagaceae) I: - identity of O. albimarginatus and O. pseudotonkinensis, and a new species O. guangzhouensis from Guangdong, China. Phytotaxa 662 (2): 121-136, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.662.2.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.662.2.1
