Comments regarding the identity and typification of two species of Cynorkis Thouars (Orchidaceae, Orchidioideae, Habenariinae) from the Mascarene Islands

2025  47  20 adansonia Adansonia est une revue en flux continu publiée par les Publications scientifiques du Muséum, Paris Adansonia is a fast track journal published by the Museum Science Press, Paris Les Publications scientifiques du Muséum publient aussi / The Museum Science Press also publish: Geodiversitas, Zoosystema, Anthropozoologica, European Journal of Taxonomy, Naturae, Cryptogamie sous-sections Algologie, Bryologie, Mycologie, Comptes Rendus Palevol Diffusion – Publications scientifiques Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle CP 41 – 57 rue Cuvier F-75231 Paris cedex 05 (France) Tél. : 33 (0)1 40 79 48 05 / Fax : 33 (0)1 40 79 38 40 [email protected] / http://sciencepress.mnhn.fr © Publications scientifiques du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, 2025 ISSN (imprimé / print) : 1280-8571/ ISSN (électronique / electronic) : 1639-4798 Directeur De la publication / Publication director: Gilles Bloch Président du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle réDacteur en chef / editor-in-chief : Thierry Deroin réDacteurs / editors : Porter P. Lowry II ; Zachary S. Rogers ; Mathieu Gardère assistant De réDaction / assistant editor : Emmanuel Côtez ([email protected]) Mise en page / Page layout : Emmanuel Côtez coMité scientifique / scientific board : F. Blasco (CNRS, Toulouse) M. W. Callmander (Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève) J. A. Doyle (University of California, Davis) P. K. Endress (Institute of Systematic Botany, Zürich) P. Feldmann (Cirad, Montpellier) L. Gautier (Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de Genève) F. Ghahremaninejad (Kharazmi University, Téhéran) K. Iwatsuki (Museum of Nature and Human Activities, Hyogo) A. A. Khapugin (Tyumen State University, Russia) J.-Y. Lesouef (Conservatoire botanique de Brest) P. Morat (Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris) J. Munzinger (Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Montpellier) S. E. Rakotoarisoa (Millenium Seed Bank, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Madagascar Conservation Centre, Antananarivo) P. H. Raven (Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis) G. Tohmé (Conseil national de la Recherche scientifique Liban, Beyrouth) J. G. West (Australian National Herbarium, Canberra) J. R. Wood (Oxford) couverture / cover : Réalisée à partir des Figures de l’article/Made from the Figures of the article. Adansonia est indexé dans / Adansonia is indexed in: – Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch®) – ISI Alerting Services® – Current Contents® / Agriculture, Biology, and Environmental Sciences® – Scopus® Adansonia est distribué en version électronique par / Adansonia is distributed electronically by: – BioOne® (http://www.bioone.org) 333 ADANSONIA, sér. 3 • 2025 • 47 (20) © Publications scientifiques du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. www.adansonia.com MOTS CLÉS O rchidaceae, Cynorkis, Île Maurice, La Réunion, Flore des Mascareignes, correction de typification. KEY WORDS Orchidaceae, Cynorkis, La Réunion, Mauritius, Flore des Mascareignes, typification correction. Johan HERMANS Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AE (United Kingdom) and Core Facility, Botanical Garden, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, 1030, Vienna (Austria) [email protected] Phillip J. CRIBB Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AE (United Kingdom) [email protected] Submitted on 14 January 2025 | accepted on 3 April 2025 | published on 17 November 2025 Comments regarding the identity and typification of two species of Cynorkis Thouars (Orchidaceae, Orchidioideae, Habenariinae) from the Mascarene Islands Hermans J. & Cribb P. J. 2025. — Comments regarding the identity and typification of two species of Cynorkis Thouars (Orchidaceae, Orchidioideae, Habenariinae) from the Mascarene Islands. Adansonia, sér. 3, 47 (20): 333-339. https://doi.org/10.5252/adansonia2025v47a20. http://adansonia.com/47/20 ABSTRACT Comments and corrections on two recent papers regarding the nomenclature and typification of some Cynorkis Thouars from Mauritius and La Réunion are presented, namely the identity of Cynorkis inermis (Thouars) Hermans& P.J.Cribb and the typification of Cynorkis micrantha (Frapp. ex Cordem.) Schltr. The typification of C. arnottioides Rchb.f. is also mentioned. RÉSUMÉ Commentaires concernant l’identité et la typification de deux espèces de Cynorkis Thouars (Orchidaceae, Orchidioideae, Habenariinae) des Mascareignes. Des commentaires et des corrections sur deux articles récents concernant la nomenclature et la typification de quelques Cynorkis Thouars de l’île Maurice et de La Réunion sont fournis, à savoir l’identité de Cynorkis inermis (Thouars) Hermans& P.J.Cribb et la typification de Cynorkis micrantha (Frapp. ex Cordem.) Schltr. La typification de C. arnottioides Rchb.f. est aussi mentionnée. 334 ADANSONIA, sér. 3 • 2025 • 47 (20) Hermans J.& Cribb P. J. INTRODUCTION Two recent papers (Pailler& Baider 2024; Pailler etal. 2024) in Adansonia reassess the nomenclature of two species of orchids, as treated in the recently published orchid part of the Flore des Mascareignes (Hermans& Cribb 2021; Hermans& Cribb 2023). The publication of the orchid volumes of the Flore des Mascareignes not only saw the completion of the Flore itself but also established a benchmark of current knowledge of the orchids from the archipelago. The Orchidaceae accounts aimed to summarise current knowledge and to stimulate further debate and research on the family. We were fully aware that, considering the quantity of information and complexity, some of our taxonomic decisions would be controversial and lead to constructive discussion. In this context we would like to comment on some of the arguments recently put forward by Pailler and his coauthors in the papers mentioned above. Notes on an earlier re-interpretation of several Cynorkis from the Mascarenes (Pailler etal. 2022a, b) have been addressed previously (Hermans& Cribb 2023: addendum 339-340). THE IDENTITIES OF AMPHORKIS INERMIS THOUARS AND ARNOTTIA MAURITIANA A.RICH. (CF. Pailler& Baider 2024) Hermans& Cribb (2021: 108; 2023: 195) recognised a variable and relatively widespread Cynorkis inermis (Thouars) Hermans& P.J.Cribb and treated Arnottia mauritiana A.Rich. as conspecific with it. Pailler& Baider (2024) argue that there are two distinct entities: Cynorkis inermis almost exclusively endemic to Mauritius and C. mauritiana (A.Rich.) Pailler& Baider largely endemic to La Réunion. Although they refer to the Flore des Mascareignes account (Hermans& Cribb 2023), the synonymising of Arnottia mauritiana with Cynorkis inermis was first published in 2017 (Hermans etal.: 38). This decision was based on dissections, measurements and thorough research of available material and also followed the concept of several other authors and herbarium annotations (Richard 1828: 30, Kraenzlin on Boivin 1073 (G Herb. Barbey-Boissier), Commerson ? s.n. in Herb. Richard P[P00738183], etc.). This interpretation was followed by Pailler etal. (2018: 101) and Pailler& Henze (2020: 109). In more recent work Pailler& Baider (2024) recognised two separate species based upon their interpretation of the types, associated material, and an analysis of herbarium material. They considered Cynorkis inermis to differ from C. mauritiana in several characters, namely, by the lanceolate leaves (vs ovaloblong), shorter floral bracts, smaller non-resupinate, marbled (“marbrée” according to Du Petit-Thouars’ description) flowers (vs resupinate, purple), broadly oblong lateral sepals (vs spathulate-oval). Their comparative table shows all floral segments to be distinctly smaller by a third to a half (Pailler& Baider 2024: 163). Although Du Petit-Thouars (1822: table 1 b.2, t. 5) recorded his Cynorkis inermis (as Amphorchis inermis) from Mauritius and La Réunion, the authors postulated that the species has almost exclusively been found, but not recently, in Mauritius whilst Cynorkis mauritiana, despite its name, is almost exclusively endemic to La Réunion where it is relatively common (there are recent records from Madagascar too (Hermans 2024a: 389; 2024b: 59). It is clear that the Du Petit-Thouars plate (Du Petit-Thouars 1822: t.5) (Fig. 1) of Cynorkis inermis shows the flowers with the lip uppermost and at least some of the flowers of the type material P[P00693148] appear so as well. In this context it is important to understand the methods used by Du PetitThouars (1758-1832): he spent several years botanising in Madagascar, La Réunion and Mauritius, returning to France in 1802 (Hermans 2000) but his main work and illustrations of the orchids from the region did not appear until twenty years later (Du Petit-Thouars 1822). There is no doubt that the plates for this work were drawn by him from herbarium material; some of his plates are mirror images of the herbarium plants. All considered, his drawings are remarkably accurate but the natural position of the lip of his Cynorkis inermis, which is often recurved in living plants (Fig. 2), can become uppermost in dried and pressed material, the lip also withers soon after anthesis and virtually disappears, with the other tepals remaining and appearing non-resupinate when pressed. This characteristic is very obvious in microscopic examination of the different flowers of the type P[P00693148]. The lip of Cynorkis inermis is quite variable in shape and can range from simple to somewhat three-lobed towards the apex or base; this variability was also noted by Moore in Baker (1877: 339). Richard’s description and illustrations show the same variation (Richard 1828: 30, pl. 7), as explained in Hermans etal. (2017: 38). There are several examples of typical ‘Cynorkis mauritiana’ from La Réunion appearing non-resupinate on herbarium sheets (Ferard 2461 [CBNM]; Goudot s.n. [1833] [G]; Schlieben lo 851 [M]; Cordemoy s.n. [MARS087757]; Bosser 21279 [P00738207]; Bosser 21359 [P00738347]; Cadet 4803 [P00738198]; Commerson s.n. [P00693160]). The rachis is somewhat pyramidal but can be more elongated, especially in young plants. In addition, dissection of the Thouars type P(P00693148) showed at least the lower flowers to be resupinate and the shape of all flower parts, including the column, being clearly that of ‘Cynorkis mauritiana’, as described later by Richard as Arnottia mauritiana. There are also several examples of Thouars’ illustrations showing flowers resupinate when they are non-resupinate in living material and vice versa (e.g. Polystachya fusiformis t. 86, P. cultriformis t. 87 (Du Petit-Thouars 1822). InterpretatIon of herbarIum materIal and measurements Pailler& Baider (2024), to a great extent, have distinguished Cynorkis inermis and C. mauritiana on a comparison of leaf and flower-size, with C. inermis being considerably smaller in its floral and vegetative parts. Their measurements are based upon eight herbarium specimens (Pailler& Baider 2024: 163, table 2). Unfortunately, when other specimens are included the distinction between their taxa is less clearcut. During research on the orchid flora of Madagascar and 335 Typification of two species of Cynorkis Thouars (Orchidaceae, Orchidioideae, Habenariinae) from the Mascarene Islands ADANSONIA, sér. 3 • 2025 • 47 (20) fig. 1. — Du Petit-Thouars’ plate (1822: t.5) of Cynorkis inermis (Thouars) Hermans & P.J.Cribb. 336 ADANSONIA, sér. 3 • 2025 • 47 (20) Hermans J.& Cribb P. J. the Mascarenes we have dissected, drawn and recorded many plants of Cynorkis inermis/mauritiana. It is clear that a number of specimens we have examined have larger or smaller leaves and flowers than those shown in their table2 (Pailler& Baider 2024: 163). For example, the type of Cynorkis inermis (Thouars 4 (P00693148) has an ovary 8 mm long (vs max. 6.6mm according to Pailler& Baider), lateral sepals 3 mm wide (vs2.3mm max.), and petals that are 1.9 mm wide (vs max. 1.2 mm), Du Petit-Thouars’ illustration shows a relatively long broad leaf (Du Petit-Thouars 1822: t. 5). Other examples from Mauritius include: Gungadurdoss& Sevathian 26967 (MAU0019451), with leaves 19 mm wide (vsmax. 15 mm) and lateral sepals c.6 mm long (vsmax 5.3 mm); Bouton? Herb. Montpellier (MPU1417314) with a leaf 16mm wide (vsmax. 15 mm); other Bouton collections (BR0000641070), herb. HookerK, (MAU001535), which have a broad range of leaf and flower measurements; plants from d’Alleizette’s herbarium (CLF354014) all with broad leaves and relatively large flowers; a watercolour at K by James William Duncan (1835-1915) from Mauritius accompanying herbarium material, also from Mauritius (Fig. 3), clearly showing a typical ‘Cynorkis mauritiana’, coincidentally with some of the older flowers appearing to have the lip uppermost. In La Réunion some plants of Cynorkis mauritiana have smaller leaves and/or flowers than the parameters given for ‘Cynorkis inermis’, including Schlieben lo 851 (M) and Schlieben s.n. (MAU012310), Cordemoy s.n. (MARS087648, MARS087757) and de l’Isle s.n. (P00738200). ConClusIon We remain confident that Cynorkis inermis and C. mauritiana are part of the same morphologically variable species. We consider the cause of this variability to be that specimens are peloric or semi-peloric. A similar kind of variability has also been recognised for example in Cynorkis paradoxa (Frapp. ex Cordem.) Schltr., which incidentally has been confused on several occasions with C. inermis in herbaria. Another wellknown example is that of the Asian Habenaria dentata (Sw.) Schltr., where peloric (spurless), semi-peloric (short-spurred) and normal forms (long-spurred) are common, which have all been named as distinct species. The proposition that Cynorkis mauritiana is largely endemic to La Réunion and C. inermis to Mauritius (but not seen recently and possibly extinct) is not supported by the extensive herbarium material and other sources that have been examined. If living plants of a Cynorkis with the lip uppermost, marbled flower colour, narrow leaves and small flowers without a spur were to be found in Mauritius, we might change our opinion but as it has been established that Du Petit-Thouars’ type specimen of C. inermis is not significantly different from C. mauritiana it could then be that there is another, unnamed species involved, but we cannot see evidence showing that Du Petit-Thouars’ Cynorkis inermis is not the same as Richard’s C. mauritiana. TYPIFICATION OF HEMIPERIS MICRANTHA (FRAPP. EX CORDEM.) SCHLTR. (CF. Pailler etal. 2024) It is clear that the large genus Cynorkis is polyphyletic and contains a number of species that may belong elsewhere. Ongoing genetic work will undoubtedly unravel this compound group. The taxonomic position and nomenclature of Cynorkis micrantha (Frapp. ex Cordem.) Schltr. are complex, as outlined by Pailler etal. (2024). The treatment of this particular species by Hermans& Cribb (2021, 2023) contains errors, some of which have already been addressed (Hermans& Cribb 2023 addendum) and we are grateful to Pailler and his coworkers for their suggestions. Their neo-typification of Hemiperis micrantha with Pailler 167 (REU007364), however is questionable: Frappier in Cordemoy (1895: 239) was rarely specific on the material used in his descriptions, in this instance his protologue has simply: ‘Hab., etc... ? vu sec. spont. (herbier du Mus. de la Reun.’ In line with the interpretation of other Frappier and Cordemoy herbarium material, it can be assumed that Frappier described plants that became part of the Cordemoy herbarium, initially in La Réunion but later transferred to fig. 2 . — Inflorescence of Cynorkis inermis (Thouars) Hermans & P.J.Cribb in La Réunion, showing the elevated and withering lip (photo: J. Hermans). 337 Typification of two species of Cynorkis Thouars (Orchidaceae, Orchidioideae, Habenariinae) from the Mascarene Islands ADANSONIA, sér. 3 • 2025 • 47 (20) fig. 3. — Herbarium sheet K[K001552919], showing a watercolour by Duncan of Cynorkis inermis (Thouars) Hermans & P.J.Cribb and a Bouton specimen, both from Mauritius (courtesy Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew). 338 ADANSONIA, sér. 3 • 2025 • 47 (20) Hermans J.& Cribb P. J. the Aix-Marseille Université (MARS) herbarium. During our research, two specimens from the Cordemoy herbarium (MARS and K) were found to correspond with the protologue and, being associated with the author and his herbarium and matching more recent material, were therefore chosen as lectotypes (Hermans& Cribb 2021: 103, not 2023 as stated in Pailler etal. 2024: 150). The two specimens were annotated by Cordemoy as Hemiperis, (Habenaria), (Bescherellia) aphylla, an unpublished name which was probably initially intended for the plants, they are without much doubt part of original material used by Frappier. Pailler etal. (2024: 150) dismissed the lectotypification because it was: ‘collected in 1896, after the (1895) publication of the basionym’ [collecté en 1896, après la publication du basionyme en 1895]. This statement is incorrect: the specimen of ‘Cordemoy9’ at K [K001551482] is part of a small group of orchid material acquired in 1896 and 1897 by the Kew herbarium, together with Cordemoy’s handwritten labels. The label on ‘Cordemoy9’ is annotated by Robert Allen Rolfe (1855-1921), then curator of the orchid herbarium at Kew, as ‘Com. Dr. Cordemoy 1896’ and ‘Idof Reunion’, the same note being found on other specimens obtained at the same time. The ‘Com.’ is an abbreviation of ‘communicavit’ and clearly refers to the date the specimen arrived at Kew and not to its date of collection. Therefore, it is more than likely to have been collected before 1895. The MARS lectotype ‘Cordemoy9’ was examined by us in P, when the Cordemoy herbarium was on loan to Jean Bosser but before it was recently mounted and re-arranged at REU. This unmounted specimen comprised several plants, labels and notes, including one separate note with the date 22March1897 but this is not in Cordemoy’s handwriting and is likely to be a later addition. We have tried to verify this MARS specimen but notwithstanding several requests for information to REU we have received no indication of its whereabouts since it was mounted. The Cordemoy/ Frappier herbarium material is original and strongly associated with protologue, therefore, according to the nomenclature code (Turland etal. 2018), under article 9.3, 9.8, 9.11, 9.12, 9.19 the designated lectotypes ‘Cordemoy 9’ are valid and should be followed; the lectotype takes precedence over the neotype unless there is serious conflict with the protologue. Pailler etal. (2024: 150) also stated, without providing details, that the description of the species by Hermans& Cribb (2023: 118) appears erroneous compared with the protologue and type. In common with all descriptions in modern Floras, our text was based not only on the protologue and type but also on all of the additional herbarium material, dissections, drawings, descriptions, living material and photographs. As a result, the description gives the full range of measurements and characteristics of the species, which as to be expected goes in some respects beyond the protologue. LECTOTYPIFICATION OF CYNORKIS ARNOTTIOIDES RCHB F. Pailler& Baider (2024: 164) considered that the Reichenbach herbarium lectotype of Cynorkis arnottioides Rchb f. (1855: 213), which we now believe to be the same as Cynorkis paradoxa (Frapp. ex Cordem.) Schltr. (1915: 401), with the former having nomenclatural priority, is misidentified. According to our drawings and measurements, the identity of the designated lectotype (Reichenbach: W Herb. Orchid Nr 0046815) is correct but recently discovered herbarium material of Cynorkis arnottioides has come to light which makes our lectotypification incorrect. This will be addressed in a forthcoming paper. Acknowledgements We are most grateful to Bruno Vila, curator of the Marseille herbarium, Thierry Deroin (Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris) and two anonymous reviewers for their help and comments. REFERENCES du petIt-thouars a. a. 1822. — Histoire particulière des plantes orchidées recueillies sur les trois Îles Australes d’Afrique. L’auteur, Paris, 32 pp., 109 pls. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ page/516130 frappIer C. de m. 1895 — Fam. Orchideés, in de Cordemoy J. E. (ed.), Flore de l’Île de la Réunion. Klincksieck, Paris: 165-262. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6365751v/f271.item hermans J. 2000. — Aubert Aubert du Petit-Thouars. The Orchid Review 108: 146-155. h ermans J. 2024a. — Where have those long spurs gone? first record of Angraecum corrugatum and Cynorkis inermis from Madagascar. Orchids (AOS) 93: 388-389. hermans J. 2024b. — Où sont passés les longs éperons ? première observation d’Angraecum corrugatum et de Cynorkis inermis à Madagascar. L’Orchidophile 55: 57-60. hermans J. & CrIbb p. 2021. — New combinations and other taxonomic changes for the forthcoming “Flore des Mascareignes” Orchidaceae accounts. Lankesteriana 21 (2): 61-137. https://doi. org/10.15517/lank.v21i2.47156 hermans J. & CrIbb p. 2023. — Flore des Mascareignes. 170efamille. Orchidées, volume 1. Plantes surtout terrestres, Vanilloideae, Orchidoideae, Epidendroideae. IRD Editions, Marseille, 340 p. hermans J., andrIantIana J. l., sIeder a., KIehn m., CrIbb p., raJavelona l. & GardIner m. l. 2017. — New species and nomenclatural changes in Cynorkis (Orchidaceae: Orchidoideae) from Madagascar and the Mascarenes. Kew Bulletin 72: 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12225-017-9715-4 moore s. le marChant 1877. — Order XCIV. Orchideae, in baKer J. G. (ed.), Flora of Mauritius and the Seychelles. L. Reeve, London: 327-363 (Flora of Mauritius and the Seychelles). https:// doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.139960 paIller t. & baIder C. 2024 — Identité d’Amphorkis inermis Thouars et d’Arnottia mauritiana A.Rich. : deux espèces distinctes, traitées en synonymie commeCynorkis inermis (Thouars) Hermans& P. J. Cribb dans la flore des Mascareignes. Adansonia, sér. 3, 46(16): 161-168. https://doi.org/10.5252/adansonia2024v46a16. http://adansonia.com/46/16 paIller t. & henze f. 2020. — Orchidées de la Réunion. Éditions Orphie, Saint-Denis, 210 p. paIller t., andylIat m., andrIanarIvo C., baIder C., bytebIer ., fIler d., henze f., morel C., rapanarIvo s., raKotoarInIvo m. & razafImandIby h. 2018. — Guide des orchidées des îles de l’Océan Indien : espèces indigènes et endémiques. Université de La Réunion, Commission de l’Océan Indien, Mauritius, 174 p. 339 Typification of two species of Cynorkis Thouars (Orchidaceae, Orchidioideae, Habenariinae) from the Mascarene Islands ADANSONIA, sér. 3 • 2025 • 47 (20) paIller t., baIder C. & bytebIer b. 2022a. — Note on the typification and synonymy of Cynorkis coccinelloides (Frapp.) Schltr., C. trilinguis (Frapp.) Schltr. and C. flexuosatis (Thouars) Hermans (Orchidaceae, Orchidoideae, Habenariinae). Adansonia, sér.3, 44 (8): 57-62. https://doi.org/10.5252/adansonia2022v44a8. http://adansonia.com/44/8 paIller t., laverGne v., Catan l., vandesChrICKe f., flores o., mallet b., baIder C. & bytebIer b. 2022b. — Révision taxonomique de douze espèces du genre Cynorkis Thouars (Orchidaceae, Habenariinae) de La Réunion, basée sur une approche morphologique et écologique. Adansonia, sér. 3, 44 (25): 331344. https://doi.org/10.5252/adansonia2022v44a25. http:// adansonia.com/44/25 paIller t., GauChe m., da sIlva d. & besse p. 2024 — Position taxonomique de Hemiperis micrantha (Frapp. Ex Cordem.) Schltr. (Orchidaceae; Orchidioideae; Habenariinae), par séquençage des genes ITS et matK. Adansonia, sér. 3, 46 (14) 149-155. https://doi. org/10.5252/adansonia2024v46a14. http://adansonia.com/46/14 reIChenbaCh h. G. 1855. — Symbolae orchidaceae. Bonplandia 3: 15-16; 212-227. rIChard a. 1828. — Monographie des orchidées des Îles de France et Bourbon. Mémoires de la Société d’Histoire naturelle de Paris, sér. 2, 4: 1-83 + 11 pl. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/ bpt6k985693.texteImage sChleChter r. 1915. — Kritische Aufzählung der bisher von Madagaskar, den Maskarenen, Komoren und Seychellen bekantgewordenen Orchidaceen. Beihefte zum Botanischen Centralblatt 33: 390-440. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33651984 t urland n. J., W Iersema J. h., b arrIe f. r., G reuter W., h aWKsWorth d. l., h erendeen p. s., K napp s., K usber W.- h., lI d.-z., marhold K., may t. W., mCneIll J., monro a. m., prado J., prICe m. J. & smIth G. f. (eds) 2018.— International code of nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen code) adopted by the nineteenth International Botanical congress Shenzhen, China, july 2017. Regnum Vegetabile 159. Glashütten : Koeltz. https://doi.org/10.12705/Code.2018 Submitted on 14 January 2025; accepted on 3 April 2025; published on 17 November 2025.