Decalobanthus boisianus var. fulvopilosus, (Gagnep.) A. R. Simoes & Staples

b. var. fulvopilosus (Gagnep.) A.R.Simões & Staples View in CoL — Fig. 2 View Fig ; Map 1 View Map 1

Decalobanthus boisianus (Gagnep.) A.R.Simões & Staples var. fulvopilosus (Gagnep.)A.R. Simões & Staples (2017) View in CoL 569. — Ipomoea boisiana Gagnep. var. fulvopilosa Gagnep. (1915a) View in CoL 142. — Merremia boisiana (Gagnep.) Ooststr.var. fulvopilosa (Gagnep.) Ooststr.(1939b) View in CoL 314. — Ipomoea boisiana var. rufopilosa Gagnep.(1915b) View in CoL 263 ‘ fulvopilosa’, nom.inval. — Merremia boisiana var. rufopilosa C.Y.Wu (1965) View in CoL 113, nom. superfl., illeg. (here lectotypified with Bon 4801 as other specimens cited are D. bimbim View in CoL ). — Type: Bon 4801 (holo P [ P00622201 ]; iso P [ P00622202 , P03536892 ]), ( Vietnam, Hoah Binh ,) ‘Tonkin meridional, reg. Lac Thô’ .

Young stems, branchlets, petioles, leaves, peduncles, and pedicels greyish yellow tomentose (drying reddish or fulvous). Flower buds, sepals, and corollas identical with typical variety.

Previously published illustration — Staples (2018: 275,

f. 14.2).

Distribution — China ( Guangxi), Vietnam ( Hoa Binh, Khanh Hoa, Quang Ninh).

Habitat & Ecology — Collectors recorded little data on specimen labels, only one collection reported the plant was growing on a roadside; elevation 1000–1434 m.

Vernacular name — 黄毛金钟º (transliteration: huang mao jin zhong teng, Fang & Staples 1995).

Uses — The entire plant is used medicinally to treat arthritis ( Fang & Staples 1995: 299).

Typification — Gagnepain ( September 1915 b) created an invalid name when he mistakenly used the varietal epithet ‘ rufopilosa ’ instead of fulvopilosa, which he had published a few months previously ( 15 July 1915 a). Wu (1965: 113) tried to make a new combination in Merremia for var. ‘ rufopilosa ’ and created a superfluous name in the process: his use of the abbreviation ‘ll. cc.’refers to the full citations of both the Gagnepain works on the preceding page 112, thereby providing a direct reference to the Latin diagnosis for var. fulvopilosa Gagnep. (1915a: 142) . Thus, one error became two.

Notes — I maintain this variety although it scarcely seems worthwhile to distinguish plants with more hair as a distinct taxon. As pointed out by Wang et al. (2007) nearly all the herbarium specimens from China labelled as ‘ Merremia boisiana var. fulvopilosa ’ actually proved to be D. bimbim . After this taxonomic confusion was sorted out, there are very few specimens with the floral morphology of D. boisianus combined with distinctly hairy stems and leaves. These few collections occur in Vietnam and adjoining Guangxi province, China. Could these few specimens represent hybrids between the two species? Their intermediate morphology suggests as much. It is worthwhile flagging them with a name so that field studies and perhaps molecular sampling can be carried out to better understand their status and relationships. For this reason, I continue to recognize these intermediate specimens with a name.

Lastly, a comment is warranted about the resolution to the long-standing confusion and misidentification between genuine D. boisianus var. fulvopilosus and D. bimbim in China.Although Wang et al. (2007) basically sorted this out correctly they did not annotate specimens they studied with the correct names. Thus, in the CVH there are no Chinese specimens identified as D. bimbim and some of the specimens called ‘ Merremia boisiana ’ are either wrongly named or confusingly named when the digital images are matched against specimens cited in Wang et al. (2007). It is to be hoped that curators, both herbarium and digital, will step in and correct this omission by updating the names on the specimens and their images to reflect current taxonomic concepts. When authors fail to annotate the material they studied it deprives future researchers of a tangible means to assess taxonomic concepts and test their value. And in this case, despite a publication more than a decade ago, the wrong names left on herbarium specimens will only generate more confusion into the future, especially because they are online. In light of this situation it is even more unfortunate that the photographs in Simões et al. (2020: f. 2D, 2E) have been misidentified, which perpetuates the confusion in taxonomic concepts.