identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
6F03025BFF8C9B54FF5AF72561E07BC9.text	6F03025BFF8C9B54FF5AF72561E07BC9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Fordia microphylla Dunn ex Z. Wei 1989	<div><p>Nomenclature of Fordia microphylla</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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 9439B (“9439”, Fig. 1A). 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. 2A) 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 9439B as the new species in the herbarium and it is the reason why Wei used the term “ Neotypus ”.</p> <p>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. 1C) 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. 1D), implying both taxa have very similar appearance as well.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6F03025BFF8C9B54FF5AF72561E07BC9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Song, Zhuqiu;Ouyang, Xuejun;Zuo, Lei;Huang, Zhongliang	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.text	6F03025BFF8E9B55FF5AF3FB61167DD5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Fordia microphylla Dunn 2017	<div><p>Identity of Fordia microphylla</p> <p>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 &amp; Pedley (2010), they are also quite different in many other characters (including the stipules, leaflet number, leaflet shape, inflorescence length, flowers, and legumes).</p> <p>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. 3B) and similar number of seeds with M. pulchra (Figs. 2C, 2F, 3C). 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.</p> <p>...continued on the next page</p> <p>Table 1. (Continued)</p> <p>Millettia pulchra is more widely distributed than any other Millettia, with the geographic distribution extending from Northeast India to Southern China (Dunn 1912, Wei &amp; Pedley 2010). Seven varieties were recognized by Wei (1985, 1994) and Wei &amp; Pedley (2010) under the species, mainly based on minute differences in the size, shape and hairiness of leaflets. A further comparison of holotype and isotypes suggests that Fordia microphylla is quite similar with Millettia pulchra var. pulchra (Fig. 2 &amp; 3), although some paratypes of F. microphylla probably belong to M. pulchra var. microphylla or M. pulchra var. parvifolia (see Fig. 1).</p> <p>Based on analyses above, we conclude that Fordia microphylla is conspecific with the widely distributed species Millettia pulchra.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6F03025BFF8E9B55FF5AF3FB61167DD5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Song, Zhuqiu;Ouyang, Xuejun;Zuo, Lei;Huang, Zhongliang	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.text	6F03025BFF8F9B50FF5AF587612C7A29.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Millettia pulchra	<div><p>Lectotypification of Millettia pulchra</p> <p>Millettia pulchra Kurz (1873:69) was originally published as Mundulea pulchra Bentham (1852: 248). In the protologue, Bentham provided no specimens, but cited three nomen nudum as its synonyms, i.e. “ Tephrosia pulchra Grah. in Wall. Cat. n. 5630”, “ Pongamia cassioides Wall. Cat. n. 5918”, and “ Dalbergia tephrosioides W. et Arn. Prodr. v. 1. p. 210 in adnot.”, and pointed out that the species occurs “in Sillet, Assam et in montibus Avae”. This information suggests that the original material of Mundulea pulchra include more than one gathering (e.g. Wallich Cat. 5630 and 5918), and therefore they should be regarded as the syntypes. And obviously, the description was mainly based on Wallich Cat. 5630, as suggested by the epithet. In the Flore du Cambodge, du Laos et du Vietnam, Loc &amp; Vidal (2001) indicated that Wallich 5630 (K) is the “ holotype ” of Millettia pulchra. But, this indication is not achieved for lectotypification according to the Art. 9.23 because it was made after 1 January 2001.</p> <p>Under the species Millettia pulchra, Dunn (1912) recognized six infraspecific taxa, including the new variety M. pulchra var. typica Dunn (1912: 151) and the new form M. pulchra var. typica f. laxior Dunn (1912: 151). However var. typica was not validly published according to Art. 24.3 of the ICN (Zhu et al. 2007), because the final epithet purported to indicate var. typica contains the type of the species, and this intent of Dunn was accepted by most subsequent taxonomists (e.g. Wei 1985, 1994, Sanjappa 1992, Loc &amp; Vidal 2001, Wu et al. 2003, Sun 2006, Wei &amp; Pedley 2010). As a result, any indication of the type for the name var. typica by Dunn (1912) did not effectively lectotypify the name Millettia pulchra.</p> <p>After a critical examination, we found that Wallich Cat.5630 consists of four collections (5630A-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. 5630A and were collected by W. Gomez from “Mont Sillet”. One specimen (K000848693, Fig. 2D) 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 (K000848694, Fig. 3E) 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 &amp; Pedley 2010).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6F03025BFF8F9B50FF5AF587612C7A29	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Song, Zhuqiu;Ouyang, Xuejun;Zuo, Lei;Huang, Zhongliang	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.text	6F03025BFF8A9B50FF5AF35764567BFD.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Millettia pulchra (Bentham 1852) Kurz 1873	<div><p>Millettia pulchra (Benth.) Kurz (1873: 69)</p> <p>Basionym:— Mundulea pulchra Bentham (1852: 248) ≡ Millettia pulchra var. typica Dunn (1912: 151), nom. inval.</p> <p>Type:— BANGLADESH. Sylhet: without date, Wallich Cat. 5630 (lectotype, designated here, K-000848694!).</p> <p>= Fordia microphylla Dunn ex Z. Wei (1989: 75), syn. nov. Type:— CHINA. Guizhou: Zhenfeng County, Wangmu, 19 September 1936, S. W. Deng 90963 (holotype: IBSC-0180023!, isotypes: IBK-00072407!, IBK-00072408!).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6F03025BFF8A9B50FF5AF35764567BFD	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Song, Zhuqiu;Ouyang, Xuejun;Zuo, Lei;Huang, Zhongliang	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
