taxonID	type	description	language	source
6F03025BFF8C9B54FF5AF72561E07BC9.taxon	description	Fordia microphylla was published by Wei (1989) on the basis of almost twenty collections from Guangxi, Guizhou, and Yunnan, China, and designated S. W. Deng 90962 at SCB (now IBSC) as its “ Neotypus ”. However, some nomenclatural questions on F. microphylla need be clarified. Firstly, the name of this taxon was ascribed to “ Dunn ”, probably because the name itself was initially proposed by Dunn on one specimen sheet, i. e. A. Henry 9439 B (“ 9439 ”, Fig. 1 A). Wei maybe just examined its image, which was photographed by Renchang Ching from Kew herbarium in 1931. In the protologue, the specimen was cited and indicated by “ fide in sched. Dunn ”. Secondly, in the protologue, S. W. Deng 90962 was indicated as “ neotype ” of F. microphylla. However, it is found that S. W. Deng 90962 at IBSC (barcode 0211660) is Ilex chinensis Sims (1819: 2043) (Aquifoliaceae), while another specimen S. W. Deng 90963 at IBSC (barcode 0180023, Fig. 2 A) was annotated with “ Fordia microphylla Dunn, sp. nov. ” by Wei and matches all other details of the protologue. Therefore, the collection number “ 90962 ” could be corrected to 90963 (see Art. 9.1, Ex. 2 of the ICN, McNeill et. al. 2012). Thirdly, the term “ Neotypus ” used for S. W. Deng 90963 from IBSC should be treated as a correctable error of holotype according to the Art. 9.9 of the ICN. In the FRPS, he indicated that the type specimen was collected from Mengzi, Yunnan (Wei 1994). It is probable that Dunn annotated a specimen A. Henry 9439 B as the new species in the herbarium and it is the reason why Wei used the term “ Neotypus ”. However, Dunn annotated the specimen as “ Fordia microphylla ”, but he has never published it. Instead, the epithet “ microphylla ” was applied by Dunn to a variety as Millettia pulchra var. microphylla Dunn (1912: 152), a taxon described on basis of A. Henry 994 (Fig. 1 C) from Taiwan (Dunn 1912). Also, the variety has very similar appearance with the two specimens from Mengzi of Fordia microphylla (Fig. 1). As the same epithet and similar morphology, it is speculated that specimens of “ Fordia microphylla ” identified by Dunn may be later recognized by himself as Millettia pulchra var. microphylla. Additionally, Wei (1985) described another variety under the same species, i. e. Millettia pulchra var. parvifolia Wei (1985: 281), adopting an infraspecific epithet of same meaning. And an isotype of var. parvifolia was identified as “ Fordia microphylla Dunn, ined. ” by C. Chen (Fig. 1 D), implying both taxa have very similar appearance as well.	en	Song, Zhuqiu, Ouyang, Xuejun, Zuo, Lei, Huang, Zhongliang (2017): The identity of Fordia microphylla and lectotypification of Millettia pulchra (Fabaceae: Millettieae). Phytotaxa 332 (1): 51-58, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.332.1.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.332.1.5
6F03025BFF8E9B55FF5AF3FB61167DD5.taxon	description	In the protologue, Wei (1989) stated Fordia microphylla is closely related to F. cauliflora, but differs by having usually only 2.5 cm long (rare 6 cm long) leaflets, undeveloped cataphylls, and axillary (“ super-axillaris ”) inflorescences. As keyed out to Chinese species of Fordia by Wei & Pedley (2010), they are also quite different in many other characters (including the stipules, leaflet number, leaflet shape, inflorescence length, flowers, and legumes). Our examination of both literature and specimens showed that Fordia microphylla is perfectly consistent with Millettia pulchra in various characters (Table 1, Figs. 1 – 3). Geesink (1984) concluded that Fordia can be distinguished from M. pulchra relatives in having caulinascent inflorescences and a lower number of ovules. But F. microphylla also has axillary inflorescences (Fig. 3 B) and similar number of seeds with M. pulchra (Figs. 2 C, 2 F, 3 C). Schot (1991) pointed out that Fordia and M. pulchra are different in the number, shape and hairiness of leaflets. However, in these characters F. microphylla clearly overlap with M. pulchra (see Table 1). In the genus Millettia, Dunn (1912) placed M. pulchra in the sect. “ Typicae ” that is not validly published according to Art. 22.2 (Adema 2000). And F. microphylla also matches all characteristics of the section, including some important features, e. g. the stipellate leaves, axillary pseudoracemes, monadelphous stamens, and the Asian distribution. ... continued on the next page Table 1. (Continued)	en	Song, Zhuqiu, Ouyang, Xuejun, Zuo, Lei, Huang, Zhongliang (2017): The identity of Fordia microphylla and lectotypification of Millettia pulchra (Fabaceae: Millettieae). Phytotaxa 332 (1): 51-58, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.332.1.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.332.1.5
6F03025BFF8F9B50FF5AF587612C7A29.taxon	description	After a critical examination, we found that Wallich Cat. 5630 consists of four collections (5630 A-D) and traced many duplicates at K, two of which were annotated with “ Tephrosia pulchra, Sillet, H. I. 5630 ” and stamped “ HERBARIUM BENTHAMIANUM 1854 ”. Thus the two specimens may be the original material used by Bentham, which might be Wallich Cat. 5630 A and were collected by W. Gomez from “ Mont Sillet ”. One specimen (K 000848693, Fig. 2 D) consists of several complete leaves, two inflorescences, and a young pod, corresponding well with the protologue. But this specimen was labeled “ Millettia pulchra Kurz var. typica f. laxior ” by Dunn, who conducted an influential revision on the genus Millettia (Dunn 1912, Song et al. 2017). It may be regarded as one of original material of M. pulchra f. laxior and might be accepted by later authors. Considering the established custom of the use of names and avoiding some possible confusion in the future, we therefore designate the other specimen (K 000848694, Fig. 3 E) as the lectotype of Mundulea pulchra Bentham. The lectotype is also labeled “ typum ” by Dunn and comprises three flowering branches and many relative small leaflets, matching the Bentham’s protologue and being consistent with the identified characteristics of Millettia pulchra var. pulchra by Dunn and most subsequent authors (e. g. Wei 1985, 1994, Wei & Pedley 2010).	en	Song, Zhuqiu, Ouyang, Xuejun, Zuo, Lei, Huang, Zhongliang (2017): The identity of Fordia microphylla and lectotypification of Millettia pulchra (Fabaceae: Millettieae). Phytotaxa 332 (1): 51-58, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.332.1.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.332.1.5
6F03025BFF8A9B50FF5AF35764567BFD.taxon	materials_examined	Type: — BANGLADESH. Sylhet: without date, Wallich Cat. 5630 (lectotype, designated here, K- 000848694!).	en	Song, Zhuqiu, Ouyang, Xuejun, Zuo, Lei, Huang, Zhongliang (2017): The identity of Fordia microphylla and lectotypification of Millettia pulchra (Fabaceae: Millettieae). Phytotaxa 332 (1): 51-58, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.332.1.5, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.332.1.5
