Phalaenopsis deliciosa Rchb.
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/phytotaxa.481.1.1 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D887B7-81EF-FF43-FF04-FB6FFE7AF7FA |
treatment provided by |
Marcus |
scientific name |
Phalaenopsis deliciosa Rchb. |
status |
|
Phalaenopsis deliciosa Rchb. View in CoL f., Bonplandia 2: 93, 1854
Homotypic synonyms: Kingidium deliciosum (Rchb.f.) H.R.Sweet, Amer. Orchid Soc. Bull. 39: 1095, 1970. Doritis deliciosa (Rchb.f.) T.Yukawa & K.Kita, Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 56: 156, 2005.
Heterotypic synonyms: Phalaenopsis wightii Rchb. f., Bot. Zeitung (Berlin) 20: 214, 1862. Doritis wightii (Rchb.f.) Benth. & Hook.f., Gen . Pl. 3: 574, 1883. Kingidium wightii (Rchb.f.) O.Gruss & Roellke, Orchidee (Hamburg) 46: 23, 1995.
Kingidium hookerianum O.Gruss & Roellke, Orchidee (Hamburg) 45: 230, 1994. Kingidium hookerianum O.Gruss & Roellke, Orchidee (Hamburg) 46: 30, 1995, nom. illeg. et inval., nom. superfl. Phalaenopsis deliciosa Rchb. f. subsp. hookeriana (O.Gruss & Roellke) Christenson , Phalaenopsis : a monograph: 223, 2001. Doritis deliciosa (Rchb.f.) T.Yukawa & K.Kita subsp. hookeriana (O.Gruss & Roellke) T.Yukawa & K.Kita, Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 56: 156, 2005. Kingidium deliciosum (Rchb.f.) H.R.Sweet subsp. hookerianum (O.Gruss & Roellke) S.Misra, Orchids India: 259, 2007. Type:— MYANMAR. Mon State: Mawlamyine District, Parish 175 (holotype: K; icon. K).
Aerides decumbens auctt. plur. non Griff. ex Hook.f.
Specimens examined:— KACHIN. Myitkyina District : 155 m, 15 Mar 2009, Kurzweil & Saw Lwin KL 2512 , photo. MANDALAY. Mandalay District: 1926, Swinhoe 61 ( K) . MON. Mawlamyine District : type . TANINTHARYI. Dawei District : fide Aung et al. (2020: 96). WITHOUT LOCALITY. Griffith s.n., Kew Distr. 5236 ( K) .
Distribution:— Sri Lanka, India, the Himalayas, Myanmar, Thailand, Indochina, southwestern and southern China and throughout Malesia as far east as the Moluccas.
Notes:— The later homonym Kingidium hookerianum did not have a type designated when it was proposed (Gruss & Roellke 1995: 30). It is accordingly an invalid name. Christenson’s (2001: 223) transfer of the name to a subspecies of Phalaenopsis deliciosa is also invalid, even though he lists Parish 175 as type (the type of the basionym that should have been used). Yukawa et al. (2005: 156) also used the same wrong, invalid and superfluous basionym when transferring to Doritis .
K |
Royal Botanic Gardens |
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.