Table Of Content

Name Ulmus Validation of the kunmingensis (Ulmaceae) Deng Yunfei Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization, South China Botanical Academy Garden, the Chinese of Sciences, Guangzhou, 510650, People’s Republic of China. [email protected] Chen Xin College of Forest Resources and Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, People’s Republic of China, [email protected] Abstract. Ulmus kunmingensis W. C. Cheng (Ul- mixed buds, and its leaf blades being either glabrous maceae), originally described in 1963, was an or pubescent along the veins. Given this morpholog- we invalidly published name, because two collections, ical distinction, therefore prefer to treat kunmingensis as a distinct taxon at the rank of The name types. validated here with the is name designation of the fmiting collection W. C. Cheng However, until now, the invalidity of Cheng’s 11002 (NF) as the holotype. was not recognized in recent floristic works. The Key words: China, Ulmaceae, Ulmus. present paper validates the name Ulmus kunmingen- under Article 33.1 (McNeill 2012) by sis et al., Ulmus kunmingensis W. C. Cheng (Cheng et designating T. C. Chao 1516 as type. The selected al., 1963) was described based on material from Kun- holotype is a specimen with fruits in the herbarium NF and was The ming, Yunnan, China. Unfortunately, invalidly cited in the original publication. is it published under Articles 8.1, 40.1, and 40.2 of the fruiting collection is preferred over the flowering one Melbourne Code (McNeil 2012) because two (Cheng 11002), both mentioned by Cheng (Cheng et et al., W collections, both kept at NF, one flowering C. al., 1963: 12), because fruit is one of the significant . ( Cheng 11002 and Chao diagnostic characters identify species in Ulmus. the other fruiting (T. C. to ) 1516), were cited concurrently as types in the Validation is also supported by direct reference to Cheng Cheng’s Latin description (Cheng 1963: protologue. In the original description, et al., 12). et al. compared the species with glaucescens The flowering collection, W. C. Cheng 11002, is (1963) U. We Franch. However, kunmingensis designated as the paratype. ascribe the name, U. U. easily distin- is guished from the by seed apex not reaching latter its the notch, and these two species were placed by Fu Cheng, which is supported by Article 46.2 (McNeill Ulmus Glabrae Moss, et 2012). (1980) in different series, ser. al., and Ulmus Fu ser. Nitentes Moss., respectively. et al. Cheng, Ulmus nov. sp. name (1979) reduced the to the rank of variety as U. W. kunmingensis Cheng, C. Sci. Silvae Sin. W. Cheng 8(1): changii C. var. kunmingensis (W. C. nom. TYPE: Yunnan: & 12. 1963, inval. China. Cheng) W. C. Cheng L. K. Fu, but no validation of Kunming, Xishan, 20 Mar. 1934 T. C. (fr.), the basionym was undertaken at that time. Since Chao 1516 NF; (holotype, isotype, PE). then, some authors have treated U. kunmingensis as an independent taxon the rank of species (Fu, at & Ma 1980; Fu et al., 1982; Liu, 1985; Bao, 1990; Distribution and habitat. Ulmus kunmingensis is Zhou, 1997; Mao, 2005; Li, 2006), while others have endemic China, occurring in Guangxi, Guizhou, to Wu, considered a variety of U. changii (Li, 1982; Sichuan, and Yunnan provinces. known from it It is & Fu Fu 1984; Xin, 2000; 1998, 2003). In from 600 1800 m. et al., fact, forests at altitudes to U. kunmingensis easily distinguished from is \ '|X' changii by flowers from mixed buds, scattered in its basal or sub-basal bract axils on young branches and We leaf blades that abaxially bear tufted hairs in axils Acknowledgments. are grateful to the curators its of veins. In contrast, U. changii is distinguished by of the herbaria at Nanjing Forestry University (NF) its flowers in fascicled cymes from floral buds, not and the Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of 10.3417/2010098 Novon 22: 409-410. Published on 18 October 2013. doi: