Leucas chinensis ( Retzius 1791: 19 ) Smith (1812

Sunojkumar, Purayidathkandy, 2019, Leucas sahyadriensis (Lamiaceae: Lamioideae) an overlooked new endemic species from India and notes on Leucas chinensis, Phytotaxa 399 (3), pp. 187-194 : 192

Leucas chinensis ( Retzius 1791: 19) Smith (1812 : Leucas no. 8).

Phlomis chinensis Retzius (1791: 19) .

Lectotype (designated here): — CHINA, Bladh , s.n. ( LD!)

“ Leucas chinensis ” (Retz) Robert Brown (1810: 504) nom. inval.

Notes:—Retzius was a Professor of Natural History at LUND ( Sweden). In his “Observationes Botanicae” he described 36 species of Chinese plants, mostly transmitted to him by Peter Johan Bladh without giving any names; either of plant or collector ( Bretschneider 1898). In order to typify the name Leucas chinensis , efforts were made to trace original specimens from China collected by Bladh and named by Retzius as Phlomis chinensis . Usually Retzius annotated his new species with species name and the letter “N” (Nobis), but there are no specimens called Phlomis chinensis in the Retzius herbarium. The closest thing what is found is a specimen collected by Bladh in China (not annotated as such, but it is glued on rice paper which Bladh used and Retzius didn’t) with just the name “ Phlomis ” on it. The LD specimen is well preserved and having all the characters mentioned in the protologue. Considering the fact that only one species of Phlomis ( P. chinensis ) is mentioned by Retzius in the Observationes, the LD specimen having the name Phlomis on it can be considered as one of the original specimens of Bladh on which Retzius put the name Phlomis (probably he might have given the species name to another specimen of the same collection, but it is not available in any herbaria where Retzius specimens are housed). According to Art. 9.12 of ICN ( Turland et al., 2018), “In lectotype designation, an isotype must be chosen if such exists, or otherwise a syntype or isosyntype must be choses if such exists, or otherwise a syntype or isosyntype if such exists. If no isotype, syntype or isosyntype is extant, the lectotype must be chosen from among the paratypes if such exist. If none of the above specimens exists, the lectotype must be chosen from among the uncited specimens and cited and uncited illustrations that comprise the remaining original material, if such exist”. As there is only this one uncited specimen at LD extant, I select it as lectotype.

Distribution: — China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan

Additional specimens examined:— CHINA, 1834, Lindley s.n., 1845 ( K!, barcode K000929488 ), Fortune. R., 47 ( K!, barcode K000929490 ) ; HONG KONG, 1841, Hind s.n. ( K!, barcode K000929487 ) ; TAIWAN, Pingtung, Hsien, Lichiu Hsiang , 14 February 1987, Shu-Miaw Chaw 362, sheet no. 63290 ( HAST!) ; Pingtung, Hsien, Mutau Hsiang , 22°6’55”N, 120°44’13”E, alt. 80 m, 14 September 1999, Yui-Ching Kao 705, sheet no. 78739 ( HAST!) ; Taipei, Hsien , alt. up to 50 m, February 2001, Shu-Miao Kuo 181, sheet no. 92934 ( HAST!) ; Taipei Hsien, Shihting Hsiang , alt. 200–400 m, 16 July 2002, Chuan-Chieh Chen 133, sheet no. 103559 ( HAST!) ; Taoyuan Hsien, Kueishan Hsiang , 25°0’35”N, 121°19’49”E, alt. 100–200 m, 28 September 2002, Chuan-Chieh Chen 456, sheet no. 94002 ( HAST!) ; Hsien, Nanhsi Hsiang , 23°14’19”N, 120°30’0”E, alt. 180–230 m, 16 October 2002, Pei-Jung Lin 64, sheet no. 90676 ( HAST!) ; Pingtung Hsien, Liuchiu Hsiang , alt. up to 80 m, 17 March 2007, Pi-Fong Lu 13326, sheet no. 119288 ( HAST!) ; Kaohsiung City, 22°38’47”N, 120°14’40”E, alt. 5 m, 4 May 2007, Chien-I Huang 3185, sheet no. 116698 ( HAST!) ; Kaohsiung City, 22°38’47”N, 120°14’40”E, alt. 5 m, 18 May 2010, Chien-I Huang 4605, sheet no. 126958 ( HAST!) ; Pingtung Hsien, Liuchiu Hsiang , alt. 10 m, 22°19’54”N, 120°22’15”E, 27 February 2011, Chien-I Huang 5130, sheet no. 131130 ( HAST!) .