Salix zangica var. tibetica C. Wang & C.F. Fang ex N. Chao (1985: 7)

He, Li, Liao, Shuai, Chen, Shi-Pin & Zhang, Zhi-Xiang, 2016, Nomenclatural notes of Salix wangiana and S. zangica var. tibetica (Salicaceae), Phytotaxa 245 (1), pp. 71-74 : 73

Salix zangica var. tibetica C. Wang & C.F. Fang ex N. Chao (1985: 7) .— S. wangiana K.S. Hao var. tibetica C. Wang

& C.F. Fang (1979: 103), nom. inval.

Type:— CHINA. Xizang: Zayü County, Demula Mountain, 4100 m, 23 August 1973, Qinghai-Xizang Expedition 73-1207 (lectotype, designated here: PE [barcode] 00934296!; isolectotypes, KUN [barcode] 0527123!, PE [barcode] 00766330!; [♀]).—For images of the lectotype and isolectotype, see Fig. 1C & D .

Salix wangiana K.S. Hao var. tibetica C. Wang & C.F. Fang is invalid because S. wangiana itself was not validly published until 1998 (see Art. 35.1, Melbourne Code, McNeill et al. 2012). Chao (1985) transferred “ S. wangiana var. tibetica ” to S. zangica N. Chao (1980: 26) , providing a Latin description and type material and also referring to Wang & Fang (1979). Therefore, he unintentionally validated the new variety, S. zangica var. tibetica , the authorship of which should be cited as “ C. Wang & C. F. Fang ex N. Chao”. Lin et al. (2007) omitted that S. wangiana var. tibetica is invalid, and selected a “ lectotype ” for it. However, Lin et al. ’s “ S. wangiana var. tibetica ” could not be a new combination based on S. zangica var. tibetica , because they did not cite S. zangica var. tibetica .

Chao (1985) cited “ Qinghai-Xizang Expedition 73-1207 (fr., typus S. wangianae var. tibeticae !)” as the type of S. zangica var. tibetica . However, in the intended combination of Wang & Fang (1979), “ Qinghai-Xizang Expedition 73-120 (Typus, BH)” was provided. The collection number “73-120” is a printing error, which should be corrected to “73-1207” ( Lin et al. 2007). BH was the code of Herbarium, Institutum Botanicum Academiae Sinicae at the time of Wang & Fang (1979), referring to the herbarium of the Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences ( PE). Three duplicates of Qinghai-Xizang Expedition 73-1207 were found, two in PE and one in KUN, all of which are in agreement with the protologue of S. zangica var. tibetica . The specimen PE [barcode] 00934296 is the intended lectotype of Lin et al. (2007), with a flower drawing, which is designated here as the lectotype.

The journal Bulletin of Forest Plant Research, in which Chao’s (1985) article was published, has not been widely circulated, even in China. Obviously, Fang et al. (1999) overlooked Chao’s new name, and treated S. wangiana var. tibetica as a synonym of S. wangiana . However, in our opinion, S. wangiana var. tibetica (= S. zangica var. tibetica ) clearly differs from S. wangiana (= S. rhododendroides ) by its adaxial and abaxial nectaries, short ovary stipe, and leaves with entire or irregularly obtuse-serrate margins. Furthermore, it is endemic to Xizang and should not be treated as a synonym of S. rhododendroides .

Figures

FIGURE 1. Type specimens of Salix rhododendroides, S. wangiana and S. zangica var. tibetica. A. Lectotype of S. rhododendroides (K.J. Fu 9509, WUK 171975); B. Holotype of S. wangiana (T.P. Wang 1769, PE [barcode] 00766307, available at http://www.cvh.ac.cn/spm/ PE/00766307); C–D. Lectotype and isolectotype of S. zangica var. tibetica (Qinghai-Xizang Expedition 73-1207, lectotype PE [barcode] 00934296!, available at http://www.cvh.ac.cn/spm/PE/00934296, isolectotype PE [barcode] 00766330!, available at http://www.cvh. ac.cn/spm/PE/00766330).