Vincetoxicum bungei (G. Don) Cai F. Zhang & G.W. Hu, 2024

Zhang, Cai-Fei & Hu, Guang-Wan, 2024, Vincetoxicum bungei (Apocynaceae), a new combination for a common medicinal species from East Asia, Phytotaxa 664 (3), pp. 224-228 : 225-226

Vincetoxicum bungei (G. Don) Cai F. Zhang & G.W. Hu , comb. nov.

≡ Asclepias paniculata Bunge (1833: 43) , non V. paniculatum ( Brown 1810: 460) Kuntze (1891: 425) ≡ Anantherix bungei Don (1837: 146) , non Anantherix paniculata Nuttall (1836: 202) [= Asclepias connivens Baldwin in Elliott (1817: 320)] ≡ Pycnostelma chinense Bunge ex Decaisne (1844: 512), nom. illeg., non V. chinense Moore (1875: 228) ≡ Pycnostelma paniculatum (Bunge) Schumann (1895: 243) , “ panniculatum ” ≡ Vincetoxicum pycnostelma Kitagawa (1940: 19) , nom. illeg. ≡ Cynanchum paniculatum (Bunge) Kitagawa [1940: 20] ex Hara (1948: 153) ≡ Vincetoxicum paniculatum (Bunge) C.Y. Wu & D.Z. Li in Qiu et al. (1989: 48), nom. illeg. & superfl. ≡ Vincetoxicum changqinianum Li (1991: 40) , nom. illeg. & superfl.

— Type: CHINA. Beijing: pr[ope] Lun-züan-ssy [Longquan Temple], [June 1831], Bunge s.n. (lectotype, P [ P00644814 ] ex herb. Decaisne, designated by Pobedimova [1952: 671]; isolectotype, LE [ LE01036671 ]).

= Pycnostelma paniculatum var. hirsutum Pampanini (1910: 697) , syn. nov.

— Type: CHINA. Hubei: Yunxi Co., “ Monte Triora ” [vincinity of Sangjin Town ], 1950 m, 3 July 1907, C. Silvestri 1883 (lectotype, FI [ FI016899 ], designated here); isolectotype, “ 1883a ”, FI [ FI016898 ]).

= Pycnostelma paniculatum var. latifolium Makino (1926: 18) , syn. nov. ≡ Vincetoxicum makinoi Honda (1941: 201) ≡ Cynanchum paniculatum var. latifolium (Makino) Hara (1948: 154) ≡ Vincetoxicum pycnostelma Kitag. f. latifolium (Makino) Kitagawa (1959: 365) .

— Types: JAPAN. Wakayama Pref. (“ Prov. Kii ”): Nishimuro District, Kamihaya-mura , May 1914, N. Ui s.n. (holotype, not traced); ibid., 12 June 1913, N. Ui s.n. (neotype, MAK herb. no. 54854 , designated here) .

= Pycnostelma leucanthum Kitagawa (1934: 105) ≡ Cynanchum dubium Kitagawa (1939: 353) , non C. leucanthum Jacq. ex Gmelin (1791: 442) [= Funastrum clausum ( Jacquin 1760: 13) Schlechter (1914: 283) ] nec C. leucanthum ( Schumann 1893: 138) Schumann (1895: 253) [≡ Cynanchum neoleucanthum Cai F. Zhang, G.W. Hu & Q.F. Wang in Zhang et al. (2023: 297)] ≡ Vincetoxicum mukdenense Kitagawa (1940: 20) , non V. leucanthum Schumann (1893: 138) [≡ Cynanchum neoleucanthum Cai F. Zhang, G.W. Hu & Q.F. Wang ] nec V. dubium ( Pittier 1910: 108) Standley (1927: 14) [= Gonolobus albomarginatus ( Pittier 1910: 108) Woodson (1941: 242) ].

— Type: CHINA. Liaoning: [ Shenyang City ], in herbidis circ. Pei-ling [ Zhaoling Tomb of the Qing Dynasty ], 14 Aug. 1928, M. Kitagawa s.n. (lectotype, TI [ TI00241335 ], designated here; isolectotype, TI [ TI00241336 ]). Synonym by Li et al. (1995).

Vernacular names:— "ĸ卿 (Xuchangqing; Chinese); スズサイコ (Suzu-saiko; Japanese); 산해박 (San-hae-bak; Korean); paniculate swallow-wort (English).

Distribution: — China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Mongolia, Russian Far East & Siberia.

Notes.

For a considerable period, the attribution of the valid publication of the combination Cynanchum paniculatum to Kitagawa (1940: 20) has been mistakenly upheld by most taxonomists (e.g., Tsiang & Li 1977; Li et al. 1995; Liede-Schumann & Meve 2018). Although it was initially proposed as an alternative name for Vincetoxicum pycnostelma Kitag. , and alternative names are considered valid if published before 1953 according to Art. 36.3 of ICN, it was listed as a synonym. As per Art. 36.3 of ICN, the valid publication of an alternative name must be accepted simultaneously by the author. Subsequently, Hara (1948) accepted this name, and therefore the authorship of C. paniculatum should be attributed as "(Bunge) Kitag. ex H. Hara" or simply "(Bunge) H. Hara".

Pobedimova (1952: 671) referenced the type of Asclepias paniculata located in Paris. Grubov (2000: 137) and Imkhanitzkaya (2010: 61) subsequently cited its holotype at P and an isotype at LE. Since only one type specimen was found from each herbarium (P and LE), Pobedimova’s original type citation should be acknowledged as a valid lectotypification (Art. 7.11 of ICN). The recent lectotypification by Liede-Schumann (2018: 159) is superfluous.

Pampanini (1910) mentioned two specimens at FI, Silvestri 1883 and 1883a, in the protologue of Pycnostelma paniculatum var. hirsutum . These specimens are syntypes (Art. 9.6) but are part of the same gathering (Art. 8.2) as they were collected from the same locations on the same day. Silvestri 1883 (FI016899), which displays a greater number of flowers, is selected as the lectotype of P. paniculatum var. hirsutum .

Makino (1926) cited a single gathering in the protologue of Pycnostelma paniculatum var. l atifolium Makino but did not provide herbarium details. The type could not be located in either TI or MAK, leading us to conclude it is either lost or never preserved. Consequently, we designated a neotype collected by the same individual from the same locality, one year prior to the original type.

In the protologue of Pycnostelma leucanthum , one gathering collected by Kitagawa was designated as the type. We found two duplicates of Kitagawas’s specimens at TI, both bearing his handwritten new name. We have selected the specimen with more flowers (TI00241335) as the lectotype.