Phanera bassacensis (Pierre ex Gagnep.) de Wit, Reinwardtia

Phanera bassacensis (Pierre ex Gagnep.) de Wit, Reinwardtia View in CoL 3: 472. 1956. Bauhinia bassacensis Pierre ex Gagnep., Notul. Syst. Paris 2:

168. 1912. Lectotype (designated by de Wit, 1956):

Cochinchina, ad Attopen, 03.1877, Harmand ‘1240’

(P [P00798474, digital image!]).

The protologue ( Gagnepain, 1912) of Bauhinia

Received: 11.06.2023; Revised & Accepted: 23.06.2024

Published Online: 30.06.2024

bassacensis Pierre ex Gagnep. View in CoL refers the collections from Laos ( Harmand), Cochin-chine ( Pierre ) which can be considered as original material. De Wit (1956) selected the former collection (at P) as a lectotype. We could locate two collections by Harmand of B. bassacensis View in CoL at P (P00798474, P00798475) of which P00798474 agrees with the protologue except the number 1540, which is listed as 1240. The specimen is deteminavited by H.C.D. de Wit in 1951 perhaps used while proposing Phanera bassacensis (Pierre ex Gagnep.) de Wit. View in CoL The discrepancy in the number (1540 instead of 1240) appears to be a typographical error in the protologue. P00798474 also annotated by S. Saksuwan Larsen in 1977, indicating Bauhinia bassacensis Pierre ex Gagnep. var. bassacensis View in CoL . Another sheet P00798475, appears to be a duplicate of P00798474 but has a different collection time viz. 2/77 (also see K000760864 with the same month and year of collection i.e. 2/77) and is without de Wit’s annotation and bears similar annotation of S. Saksuwan Larsen as found on P00798474. Although it has an isotype label affixed, it is not an exact duplicate of P00798474. Larsen & Larsen (1980) cited “TYPE: Harmand 1240, P”. Subsequently Larsen & Larsen (1996) cited ‘Type: Harmand 1240 (P, holo), which need to be brought down as syntype. In this case the number 1240 is attached to both the collections by Harmand at different times (2/1877: P00798475 and 3/1877: P00798474). It seems that 1240 was referred as identifier rather than a collection number. Bandyopadhyay (2014) cited Harmand 1540 as a lectotype (following de Wit, 1956) instead of Harmand ‘1240’ was an error which is corrected here (Art. 9.2, Turland et al., 2018).