2017
DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.313.2.8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correction to the misapplication of the name Tectaria subsageniacea (Tectariaceae) in China

Abstract: The misapplication of the name Tectaria subsageniacea or Ctenitopsis subsageniacea, is corrected here. The nomenclature type of these names is an individual of T. fuscipes and the plants which have long been referred to as C. subsageniacea or T. subsageniacea in China should be named T. austrosinensis. A lectotype is designated for T. austrosinensis.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

2
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
(7 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In southern China, Aspidium subsageniaceum Christ (1906) (= T. subsageniacea), Ctenitopsis glabra Ching & Chu H. Wang (Ching and Wang 1964) and Ctenitopsis acrocarpa Ching (Ching and Wang 1981) were proposed as morphologically similar species to T. fuscipes. The first author (Dong) agreed with a broad concept of T. fuscipes sensu Holttum (1988) and treated all these names for plants from southern China as synonyms of T. fuscipes (Dong et al 2002;Dong 2017). However, the phylogenetic analyses by Zhang et al (2017) showed that T. subsageniacea was in a different subclade from T. fuscipes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In southern China, Aspidium subsageniaceum Christ (1906) (= T. subsageniacea), Ctenitopsis glabra Ching & Chu H. Wang (Ching and Wang 1964) and Ctenitopsis acrocarpa Ching (Ching and Wang 1981) were proposed as morphologically similar species to T. fuscipes. The first author (Dong) agreed with a broad concept of T. fuscipes sensu Holttum (1988) and treated all these names for plants from southern China as synonyms of T. fuscipes (Dong et al 2002;Dong 2017). However, the phylogenetic analyses by Zhang et al (2017) showed that T. subsageniacea was in a different subclade from T. fuscipes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…1). The lowest pinnae seen on the sheet of type specimen was mistakenly regarded as the basal pinnae by , which leaded them and later authors (Wang 1999, Cheng 2005, Xing et al 2013 to associate this species with Ctenitopsis subsageniacea sensu Ching (1938: 311) (Christ 1907: 145) C. Christensen (1934: 177) (Dong 2017)], a species with the basal basiscopic lobes reduced on basal pinnae. Based on the misinterpretation of T. chinensis, we had never associated our new collections featured by long-erect caudices with T. chinensis because in the new collections the basal basiscopic pinnules of basal pinnae are constantly produced (Fig.…”
Section: Taxonomic Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most segregates allied to Tectaria, such as Aenigmopteris Holttum (1984: 3), Cionidium T. Moore (1857: xcviii), Ctenitopsis Ching ex Tardieu & C. Chr. (1938: 86), Dictyoxiphium Hooker (1840: 62), Fadyenia Hooker (1840: 53), Hemigramma Christ (1907: 170), Heterogonium C. Presl (1851: 142), Psomiocarpa C. Presl (1851: 161), Quercifilix Copeland (1928: 408), and Tectaridium Copeland (1926: 329), were strongly supported to be among Tectaria by molecular studies (Schuettpelz & Pryer 2007, Ding et al 2014, Wang et al 2014, Zhang et al 2016& 2017, Dong et al 2018, Zhou et al 2018. The monophyletic Tectaria was resolved to four major lineages, with one occurring in the Neotropics and three in the Old World (Ding et al 2014, Zhang et al 2017, Dong et al 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%