Carex fokienensis Dunn (1908: 371)

Jin, Shui-Hu, Lu, Yi-Fei, Chen, Wei-Jie & Jin, Xiao-Feng, 2022, Notes on Carex (Cyperaceae) from China (VII): new synonyms and imperfectly known species, Phytotaxa 531 (1), pp. 54-62 : 59

Carex fokienensis Dunn (1908: 371) . Type:— CHINA. Fokien [Fujian], central Fujian, Yenping mountains , Apr. to Jun. 1905, Hongkong Herb. 3658A (holotype: P-00283130!).

Carex fokienensis Dunn (1908: 371 , placed in sect. Hymonochlaenae in Roalson et al. 2021) is distributed in Fujian , south-western to southern Zhejiang , and south-eastern Guzhou provinces. It is characterized by staminate spike 1, terminal, lateral pistillate spikes 1–3 in each bract sheath, and utricles pale green, shiny, glabrous, obliquely to horizontally patent ( Dunn 1908, Jin et al. 2007). Dunn (1908) designated the collection ( Hongkong Herb. 3658A) as the type, but didn’t cite the preserved herbarium. Jin et al. (2007) cited that the holotype was in K, and isotypes respectively in IBSC and P.

We carefully checked three specimens marked ‘ Carex fokienensis ’ by Dunn , which deposited in IBSC (barcode IBSC0005453), K (barcode K000961013) and P (barcode P00283130) ( Figure 6 ). The specimen in K is ‘ Hongkong Herb. 3658 ’, but not ‘ Hongkong Herb. 3658A ’, and should be actually identified as C. glossostigma ( Figure 6 : B). The specimen in IBSC is ‘ Hongkong Herb. 3656 ’, although it was also marked ‘= 3658A ’ with pencil ( Figure 6 : C). Herein , we recognized the specimen marked ‘ Hongkong Herb. 3658A ’ in P (with barcode P00283130), which is the best fit to the description of Dunn in 1908. Accordingly, the type citation in Jin et al. (2007: 364) must be considered erroneous.

Figures

FIGURE 6. Holotype of Carex fokienensis and the other related collections. (A): holotype of C. fokienensis in P, (B): Hongkong Herb. 3658 in K, identified as C. fokienensis but was actually C. glossostigma, (C) Hongkong Herb. 3656 in IBSC, identified as C. fokienensis but not the type.