Gynura mollis

Zhu, Li-Cui, Hariri, Muhammad Rifqi, Li, Cheng-Sheng & Ren, Chen, 2025, Clarification of the taxonomic and nomenclatural confusions with three Gynura names (Asteraceae: Senecioneae) based on Zollinger’s collections from Java, Indonesia, Phytotaxa 697 (3), pp. 219-233 : 220-223

publication ID	https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.697.3.1
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E98786-FFB8-2410-FF64-FE7FFE96326A
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Gynura mollis
status

Treatment

Gynura mollis View in CoL and G. densiflora

Gynura mollis View in CoL was described by Schultz (in Zollinger 1854) based on Zollinger H.2592. Two distant localities were cited for the name, i.e., Mt. Tankuban and Mt. Ardjuno, which are located in West and East Java, respectively. Miquel (1856) treated G. mollis View in CoL as a dubious species, stating that he had not seen the type. However, he meanwhile described a new species G. densiflora View in CoL , which was also based on Zollinger H.2592 but with Bandong (= Bandung; in West Java) cited as the type locality.

Without stating any reason, Koorders (1912) synonymized both G. mollis View in CoL and G. densiflora View in CoL with G. aurantiaca View in CoL , a species common in West and Central Java. Hochreutiner (1934), however, argued that the diversity of Gynura View in CoL in Java had been underestimated by Koorders (1912), and, based on the type material kept at G, G. densiflora View in CoL was impossible to be synonymized with G. aurantiaca View in CoL . As for G. mollis View in CoL , he, however, made confusing conclusions. On one hand, he considered G. mollis View in CoL to be synonymous with G. densiflora View in CoL , based on the evidence that they shared the same type gathering. On the other hand, he cited it as a synonym of G. aurantiaca View in CoL . Moreover, he described a new species G. ajakensis from Mt. Tengger (in East Java; Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 ), considering it different from G. densiflora View in CoL in having denser synflorescences and different types of leaves and indument.

Backer (1940) conducted a further investigation into Gynura in Java. At herbarium U, he located a specimen collected by Zollinger, without any number or precise locality (except for Java) but named by Miquel himself as G. densiflora . He deduced that it was most probably Zollinger H.2592 (as “ Z.M.2592 ”; see below for the meaning of “ Z.M. ”) and concluded that G. densiflora was conspecific with G. ajakensis . He thus synonymized G. ajakensis with G. densiflora . In addition, he suspected that the record of Bandung for the type locality of G. densiflora was probably an error, because the species was only known from East Java, and given that Bandung was a well explored region, it was hard to believe that a very conspicuous plant had been overlooked by all later collectors. Regarding G. mollis, Backer (1940) also agreed that it would be conspecific with G. densiflora , because they were both based on Zollinger H.2592. However, he adopted G. densiflora over G. mollis with a preference for certainty, despite the latter name having priority.

Backer’s (1940) treatment, however, was not accepted by two major worldwide revisions of Gynura ( Davies 1980; Vanijajiva & Kadereit 2011). Both Davies (1980) and Vanijajiva & Kadereit (2011) treated G. densiflora and G. mollis as synonyms of G. aurantiaca and further considered G. densiflora to be a superfluous name of G. aurantiaca . Davies (1980) indicated that the holotype of G. densiflora was kept at G, but stated that he had not seen the type of G. mollis . Vanijajiva & Kadereit (2011), however, treated G. densiflora and G. mollis as homotypic names, citing their holotype at G.

At G, we located three specimens of Zollinger H.2592 (G00604939, G00630048 (with two sheets), and G00630050; Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 ). One of these (G00604939; Fig. 2A View FIGURE 2 ) bears annotations from both Hochreutiner and Davies ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2 ). This specimen is likely the type indicated by Hochreutiner (1934) and Davies (1980) for G. densiflora , and it may also be the type suggested by Vanijajiva & Kadereit (2011) for G. mollis . However, neither Schultz nor Miquel appears to have seen these specimens, because no annotations have been made by them on these sheets.

At U, we saw the specimen (U0001285; Fig. 3A View FIGURE 3 ) that Backer (1940) suggested as the type material of Gynura densiflora . It indeed bears Miquel’s determination and is a potential original material for G. densiflora . However, it does not completely match the original description and type information of G. densiflora . First, G. densiflora is described as having shortly petiolate lower leaves, but U0001285 only contains three sessile leaves. Second, Miquel cited the type locality as Bandung, but no precise locality has been given on U0001285, except for Java ( Fig. 3B View FIGURE 3 ). Third, U0001285 does not bear any collection number. The annotation of “probably Z.M.2592 ” on the sheet ( Fig. 3B View FIGURE 3 ) was actually made by Backer, as indicated in his paper ( Backer 1940), with “ Z.M. ” standing for Zollinger and Moritzi. Moritzi was a close friend of Zollinger and, before his death, responsible for the summary determination and distribution of the specimens collected by Zollinger from Java ( Moritzi 1845 –1846; Briquet 1940). Therefore, there should be some other materials used by Miquel in describing G. densiflora .

We know that, during the preparation of Flora van Nederlandsch Indie, Miquel had access to Zollinger’s private herbarium via a loan from Comte de Franqueville ( Briquet 1940; Steenis 1950; Stafleu 1970), who bought Zollinger’s herbarium after his death. The herbarium then went to Emmanuel Drake del Castillo (the Drake herbarium) and ultimately incorporated into P ( Stafleu 1970). At P, we sorted out two specimens (P02562905 and P02562907; Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 ) of Zollinger H.2592 from the Drake herbarium (with the annotation of “HERBIER E. DRAKE”). The P02562907 sheet ( Fig. 4A View FIGURE 4 ) is indicated to be collected from Bandung and bears the annotations of “ Gynura aurantiaca (non DC.) Schultz” and “ Gynura densiflora Miq. ” in Miquel’s hand ( Fig. 4B View FIGURE 4 ), perfectly matching the information provided in the protologue of G. densiflora (“ Gynura aurantiaca (haud DC.) Schultz Bip. in Herb. Zoll. ad n. 2592”). The morphology also agrees with the original description of G. densiflora , especially in having shortly petiolate lower leaves. As for P02562905 ( Fig. 4C, D View FIGURE 4 ), it is in significant conflict with P02562907 ( Fig. 4A, B View FIGURE 4 ) and the protologue of G. densiflora in both morphology and collection locality. It has lower leaves three to five times larger than those of P02562907 and is indicated to be collected from Mt. Ardjuno, which is located in East Java and far from Bandung. There is also no annotation made by Miquel on P02562905 ( Fig. 4C View FIGURE 4 ). Therefore, Miquel probably did not see P02562905; otherwise, he would not have overlooked such obvious incongruences. Since Zollinger H.2592 is the only gathering cited in the protologue of G. densiflora , and P02562907 ( Fig. 4A View FIGURE 4 ) is the only specimen of this gathering seen by Miquel, even though the aforementioned U0001285 sheet ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 ) is a potential original material, P02562907 ( Fig. 4A View FIGURE 4 ) should be recognized as the holotype of G. densiflora , and it is confirmed to be conspecific with G. ajakensis .

Apart from Gynura densiflora , we also located the original material of G. mollis at P. We know that Schultz’s herbarium was sold to Ernest Saint-Charles Cosson after his death, and later presented to P by Cosson’s grandson ( Bonifacino et al. 2009). At P, we sorted out three sheets (P02562892, P02562893, and P02562909; Figs. 5 View FIGURE 5 , 6 View FIGURE 6 ) of Zollinger H.2592 from Schultz’s herbarium (annotated with “Herb. Schultz Bip.” and “HERB. E. COSSON”). However, as with G. densiflora , these three specimens belong to two species. P02562892 ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ) and P02562893 ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ) are similar in morphology and match the original description of G. mollis . In addition, P02562893 bears Schultz’s determination of “ Gynura mollis ” ( Fig. 5B View FIGURE 5 ) and P02562892 is annotated with the localities of Mt. Tankuban and Mt. Ardjuno ( Fig. 5D View FIGURE 5 ). Together, they perfectly align with the information provided in the protologue of G. mollis . In contrast, P02562909 ( Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 ) has sessile lower leaves semiamplexicaul at the base, conflicting with the petiolate leaves described for G. mollis ( Miquel 1856) and possessed by both P02562892 ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ) and P02562893 ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ). Although P02562909 also bears a determination of “ Gynura mollis Schultz ” ( Fig. 6B View FIGURE 6 ), it appears to have been written by Zollinger rather than Schultz. Instead, under this determination and on a separate slip ( Fig. 6B View FIGURE 6 ), there is the same determination of “ Gynura aurantiaca DC. ” clearly in Schultz’s hand. Therefore, Schultz should have only used P02562892 ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ) and P02562893 ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ) to describe G. mollis , while P02562909 ( Fig. 6A View FIGURE 6 ) was probably distributed independently, after Zollinger received the determination of G. mollis by Schultz, who was one of the experts helping identify Zollinger’s collections. Based on P02562892 ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ) and P02562893 ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ), G. mollis is actually conspecific with G. densiflora and G. ajakensis , and, with the priority, G. mollis turns out to be the correct name for this species.