Nardostachys jatamansi (D.Don) DC. (1830)

1. Nardostachys jatamansi (D.Don) DC. (1830) View in CoL 624 — Fig. 1 View Fig

[ Valeriana jatamansi sensu D.Don ,in Lamb.(1821) 180, t., non Jones (1790)].

Patrinia jatamansi D. Don (1825) View in CoL 159.

Cited material: ‘in Bhotaniae alpibus. Wallich ’.

Lectotype (here designated). The plate labelled ‘ Valeriana Jatamansi’ in Lambert (1821).

Epitype. The material cited by Weberling as ‘Typus’:‘Wallich 431 (1) resp. 431 ( A) , Tibet, Gossainthan ( G photo!; isotypus in K, LE, M, W) ’.

Note — In the Numerical List ( Wallich 1829) the two collections under 431 are designated ‘(1)’ and ‘(2)’, but in some of the distributed duplicates these appear to have been re-numbered as ‘(A)’ and ‘(B)’.

Don (in Lambert 1821) originally quoted the source of his material as “in Bootaniae et Nepaliae Alpibus ... (V.S.)”, but in his discussion Lambert (in the same work) referred only to a single collection: “fine Nepalese specimens sent to me by ... Dr. Wallich” from which the plate (here designated as lectotype) was made. The formal citation is ambiguous, and it seems possible that the citation ‘Bootaniae’ could merely have been a repetition of one of the traditional localities of Jones, rather than Wallichian specimens therefrom. From the date of collection (before Wallich himself had visited Nepal), this collection must have been made by, or for, the Hon. Edward Gardner (Resident at the Nepalese court, and botanical correspond- ent of Wallich – see Fraser-Jenkins 2006, M. Watson pers. comm.). Any ‘Wallich’ specimens in the East India Company herbarium would have reached London too late for Don’s 1825 publication, and it appears that the Valeriana work had, in fact, been completed in time for publication in 1821.

Later, Don (1825) cited a single locality “in Bhotaniae alpibus” and the collector’s name Wallich – that is, with no ‘v.s’., but, as he referred back to ‘Lambert’, that paper and its original materials can be used in typification. Lambert’s herbarium was sold and widely dispersed after his death (some dispersal having predated this), though much of the Nepalese material was purchased by Robert Brown and is now at BM – for details see Miller (1970). Although it is conceivable that an original specimen may exist in another herbarium (CGE, G, etc.) this is unlikely. As there is no relevant specimen from Lambert’s herbarium at BM, and the published plate is an excellent one, it seems safest to lectotypify the name on the plate.As Weberling (1978) cited as ‘Typus’ material that was not available to Don in 1821, this cannot be accepted as a lectotypification, though in the interests of continuity it is here redesignated as ‘epitype’.

Nardostachys grandiflora DC. (1830) 624, Hara (1975) 107

Cited material: ‘in Emodo ad Kamaon Nepalensium. Wallich ... (v.s. comm. ab hon. coetu merc. andl. Ind. or. [i.e., in herb. E.I.C.]’.

Lectotypified by Weberling (1978), who cited ‘Typus:Wallich 431 (2) resp.431 (B), Kumaun [sic] Range,“Emodus ad Kamaon” ( G photo!; isotypus K, LE) ’.

Note — For numbering of ‘Wallich’ specimens see above un- der N. jatamansi . The entry in the Numerical List ( Wallich 1829) gives the collecting details as “Kamaon alpes. R. B[linkworth]”.

Nardostachys chinensis Batalin (1894) View in CoL 376

Cited material:‘ China borealis,prov. Szechuan septentrionalis mons Kungala, custodia chinensis Shindshetan View in CoL , in paludibus, 25 July 1885, flor. (Potanin) [s.n., LE]’. Weberling cited isotypes at K and Z, though no specimen appears on the Kew online list of types .

Nardostachys gracilis Kitam. (1954) 134

Type. ‘ Nepal, Tsumje 3900 m ( 24 July 1953 S. NAKAO Typus) [ KYO] ’.

The type was not seen by Weberling,but the illustration published by Kitamura the following year (1955) confirms the identification.

Distribution — India, Nepal, Bhutan, China ( Gansu, Qinghai,

Sicuan, Xizang, Yunnan).

The jatamansi of international commerce.