Eriobotrya kwangsiensis, Chun ex X. H. Yang & S. Q. Lin (Yang & Lin, 2007

Idrees, Muhammad, Li, Meng, Shaw, Julian M. H., Zhang, Zhiyong & Ahmad, Mushtaq, 2025, New species, combinations and synonyms in Eriobotrya (Rosaceae), Phytotaxa 712 (1), pp. 31-46 : 39

Identity of Eriobotrya kwangsiensis

Eriobotrya kwangsiensis Chun ex X.H.Yang & S.Q.Lin , Acta Hort. 750 (34): 221 (2007).

Homotypic Synonyms: — Rhaphiolepis yui B.B.Liu & J.Wen, PhytoKeys 154: 50 (2020a).

Type:— CHINA. Guangxi: Xiangzhou County, Shangguchen, Wuzhishan , 18 June 1936, C. Wang 39423 (holotype IBK00061038; isotypes PE00799311!, SZ00194327) (Note A) .

Heterotypic Synonyms: — Eriobotrya fulvicoma Chun ex W.B.Liao, F.F.Li & D.F.Cui, Ann. Bot. Fenn. 49: 264 (2012) syn. nov. Rhaphiolepis fulvicoma (Chun ex W.B.Liao, F.F.Li & D.F.Cui) B.B.Liu & J.Wen, Front. Plant Sci. 10-1731: 10 (2020b). Type:— CHINA. Guangdong: Xinyi County, Dawuling Natural Reserve, 45 m, 28 April 1932, C. Wang 32257 (holotype WUK0109531!;

isotypes IBK00060958!, IBK00060976!, IBSC0298975!, KUN 0116268!, PE00799336!, SZ00194329!).

Notes:— Eriobotrya kwangsiensis was first collected by Chun from Dayao Mountain (Guanxi province) in 2003. Yang & Lin (2007) later published the name and treated it as a distinct species based on molecular analysis (AFLP markers). His study demonstrated that E. kwangsiensis and E. fragrans belong to the same cluster and genetic relationship between these two species is quite distant. According to his observations, E. kwangsiensis shares morphological similarities with E. fragrans but differs from it by having leathery leaves with short stalks, less than 2.5 cm (vs. thick leathery leaves with long stalks, mostly 2–3 cm in E. fragrans ), and styles 3 (vs. styles 4 to 5 in E. fragrans ).

Liao, W.B., F.F. Li & D.F. Cui ( Li et al. 2012) described and illustrated E. fulvicoma , and considered it as a distinct species. In the original protologue, E. fulvicoma was characterized by its papery leaves, large white-petaled flowers, a densely brown tomentose calyx, pedicel and peduncle, as well as 3 styles that connate at the base. E. fulvicoma was morphologically compared to E. deflexa and E. cavaleriei .

We investigated the original protologue, type specimens and conducted morphological comparisons between the two species. E. kwangsiensis is morphologically similar to E. fulvicoma . The characteristics identified by Li et al. (2012) in the original publication are similar to those of E. kwangsiensis , while additional characteristics, including tree height, oblong-lanceolate leaves, acuminate to shortly accuminate leaf apex, cuneate leaf base, petioles and inflorescence sizes, and pair of lateral veins, are all closely related to E. kwangsiensis . The leaf margins of E. fulvicoma were originally described as remotely irregularly incurved-serrate; however, our analysis of numerous specimens indicated that they are predominantly serrate-crenate. Furthermore, the original protologue did not include fruit observations; nevertheless, we discovered a fruiting specimen of E. fulvicoma “ Gao Xipeng 53015 ” deposited in PE00799337, NAS00374038, IBSC0298971, SZ00194328, KUN 0116271, JXU0005296, and SN007752. Following careful analysis of these specimens and original E. kwangsiensis specimens, we are convinced that they are the same species. Following Art. 11 of the ICN ( Turland et al. 2018), E. kwangsiensis (2007) takes precedence over the later name E. fulvicoma (2012), hence, we proposed that E. fulvicoma be treated as synonym of E. kwangsigensis . The table and images depict the physical characteristics of both species ( Table 3; Figs. 5 & 6 ).

Note A:— In the original protologue of E. kwangsiensis, Yang and Lin (2007) cited “ C. Wang 35925 (Holotypus, TBK)”. Yang and Lin (2007) cited the collector name “C. Wang” as the English name, and the number “35925” as the herbarium accession number, that was placed to the IBK instead of the TBK. In the publication of E. fulvicoma Chun ex Liao, W.B., F.F. Li & D.F. Cui ( Li et al. 2012) the Chinese name “Z. Huang (Ħ) was used instead of English name (C. Wang). However, both E. kwangsiensis and E. fulvicoma species were collected by “Z. Huang (ĦṦ in Chinese), and C. Wang (in English) written in the holotype as well as in isotypes ” ( Fig. S1 ). Hereafter, we changed the collector name to “ C. Wang ” for both names.

Figures

FIGURE 1. The Maximum Likelihood tree depicts the phylogeny of the new species and other species in the genus based on nrDNA ITS sequences. The numbers on the branches indicate bootstrap percentages over 50%, and newly studied species are labelled in Red (green part).

FIGURE 5. Similarties between E. kwangsiensis and E. fulvicoma. A1) Holotype of E. kwangsiensis (C.Wang 39432, IBK!), A2) Isotype of E. kwangsiensis (C.Wang 39432, SZ!), A3) Isotype of E. kwangsiensis (C.Wang 39432, PE!), B1) Isotype of E. fulvicoma (C.Wang 32257, IBK!), B2) Isotype of E. fulvicoma (C.Wang 32257, SZ!), B3) Isotype of E. fulvicoma (C.Wang 32257, KUN!), C1) Fruiting specimen of E. fulvicoma (Gao Xipeng 53015, KUN!), C2) Fruiting specimen of E. fulvicoma (Gao Xipeng 53015, IBK!), C2) Fruiting specimen of E. fulvicoma (Gao Xipeng 53015, SN!).

FIGURE 6. SEM analysis of Eriobotrya species:A1) Leaf adaxial surface of E. kwangsiensis,A2) Leaf abaxial surface of E. kwangsiensis, B1) Leaf adaxial surface of E. fulvicoma, A2) Leaf abaxial surface of E. fulvicoma. Bar: 50–300 μm.