ISSN 1346-7565 Acta Phytotax. Geobot. 70 (3): 183–188 (2019) doi: 10.18942/apg.201909 Tipularia japonica f. harae and T. josephi f. cunninghamii: New Combinations and New Status for Tipularia harae and Didiciea cunninghamii (Orchidaceae) Kenji SuetSugu Department of Biology, Graduate School of Science, Kobe University, 1-1 Rokkodai, Nada-ku, Kobe, Hyogo 657-8501, Japan. [email protected] Tipularia harae S. C. Chen (= Didiciea japonica H. Hara) and T. cunninghamii (King & Prain) S. C. Chen, S. W. Gale & P. J. Cribb (= D. cunninghamii King & Prain) are considered to be peloric mutants of Tipularia japonica Matsum. and Tipularia josephi Rchb. f. ex Lindl., respectively. Due to their sympat- ric distribution, the two taxa should be recognized as infraspecific variants of the same species. New combinations and new status, T. japonica f. harae (S. C. Chen) Suetsugu and T. josephi f. cunninghamii (King & Prain) Suetsugu, are proposed. A lectotype for T. japonica is also designated. Key words: Orchidaceae, peloria, Tipularia, typification Didiciea King & Pantling (Orchidaceae) was referred to as peloria or pseudopeloria (Rudall & described based on the type species, D. cunning- Bateman 2002). hamii, collected in Sikkim in the eastern Hima- Since the flowers of Didiciea have either a laya. It was later found throughout the eastern very reduced spur or no spur, peloria has been and northwestern Himalaya and Taiwan (King & suspected in the evolution of the genus (Freuden- Pantling 1896, 1898, Deva & Naithani 1986, Su stein et al. 2017). While some authors still recog- 2002). Another species, D. japonica H. Hara, was nize Didiciea (Seidenfaden & Arora 1982, Su described some 40 years later in Japan (Hara 2002), other authors consider it to be a peloric 1937). Didiciea japonica differs from D. cun- form of Tipularia (Maekawa 1971, Chen et al. ninghamii by having a spurless lip and dark pur- 2009). For example, Maekawa (1971) considered plish perianth (Hara 1937). Didiciea is most simi- D. japonica to be a peloric form of T. japonica lar to Tipularia Nutt. in gross morphology, but Matsum. and treated it as T. japonica var. harae differs in the length of the column and the mor- F. Maek., without explaining the use of the epi- phology of the lip (King & Pantling 1898, Mat- thet ‘harae’. Maekawa (1971) neither directly nor sumura 1901, Su 2002, Lai et al. 2018). The col- indirectly cited D. japonica in proposing the new umn of Didiciea is shorter than in Tipularia, has form, nor its author or its place of publication. We a lip without lobes and scarcely produces a spur, can easily surmise that it was based on D. japon- whereas in Tipularia the spur is longer than the ica H. Hara and named for Hara. Since a new ovary (King & Pantling 1898, Su 2002, Lai et al. name is not validly published unless a full and di- 2018). The species of Didiciea show no or little rect reference is given to the author and place of differentiation between the lip and the other te- valid publication of the replaced name, since 1 pals. The mutation in which the lip is not differ- January 1953 (Turland et al. 2018), the new com- entiated or hardly differentiated from the tepals is bination is invalid. Chen (in Chen & Tsi 1987) 184 Acta Phytotax. Geobot. Vol. 70 Fig. 1. (A) Holotype of Tipularia japonica f. harae (F. C. Greatrex N.47/37, TI). Flowering plants. (B) Close-up of flower. Bar = 3 mm. later made the new combination, Tipularia harae While peloric mutants are sometimes treated (F. Maek.) S. C. Chen, without noticing that T. ja- as varieties, subspecies or species when they oc- ponica var. harae was invalid. Chen (in Chen & cur allopatrically in distinct and stable popula- Tsi 1987) did, however, provide a full citation to tions (Chen & Tsi 1987, Rudall & Bateman 2002), both T. japonica var. harae and Didiciea japoni- they are often described formae when they are ca. Tipularia harae was thereby validly pub- sympatric with the normal form (Suetsugu 2013, lished and should be cited as T. harae S. C. Chen, 2018, Hayakawa et al. 2014, Suetsugu & Hayaka- without F. Maekawa as the parenthetical author wa 2019). Since T. japonica and T. harae occur (see Art. 46.4 of the ICN, Turland et al. 2018). within the same population at the type locality Considering that D. japonica has not been validly (Momoshita & Tanaka 2001). I consider the pelo- published by Maekawa, and not aware of Chen’s ric mutant to be a form of Tipularia japonica and name, Bo Li proposed the new name, T. kyush- propose the new combination and status, Tipular- uensis Bo Li for D. japonica (Lai et al. 2018). ia japonica f. harae (S. C. Chen) Suetsugu. Since T. harae and T. kyushuensis are both based Since the lip of T. cunninghamii is tepal-like, on the same type, T. harae has priority at the rank it is difficult to determine its ancestral condition of species. Chen et al. (2009) also transferred D. based on lip morphology. However, based on the cunninghamii to Tipularia, making the new com- descriptions of Lindley (1857) and King & Pan- bination T. cunninghamii (King & Prain) S. C. tling (1896) and detailed images of type speci- Chen, S. W. Gale & P. J. Cribb. Recent phyloge- mens in GH (GH00090917, image!) and K netic analysis has confirmed thatDidiciea is nest- (K000895728 and K000974386, images!), I con- ed within Tipularia (Freudenstein et al. 2017), cluded that in gross morphology and size of the justifying the transfers from Didiciea to Tipular- flowers, T. cunninghamii is similar to T. josephi . ia (Chen et al. 2009). Considering that T. josephi and T. cunninghamii October 2019 Suetsugu – Tipularia japonica f. harae and T. josephi f. cunninghamii 185 Fig. 2. Lectotype of Tipularia japonica (Nikko, collected by Matsumura, flowering plant on left) and two syntypes (Mt. Tsu- kuba, collected by Owatari, and Mt. Koya, collected by Matsumura). (TI). 186 Acta Phytotax. Geobot. Vol. 70 Fig. 3. Syntype of Tipularia josephi f. cunninghamii (R. Pantling 396, P). are the only species of Tipularia in the Himalaya, Type: Japan: Tochigi Pref., Nikko, June 1901, J. Mat- and the type locality of both T. cunninghamii and sumura s.n. (lecto-, designated here, TI!). Ibaraki Pref., Mt. Tsukuba, 13 July 1895, C. Owatari s.n. (syn-, TI!). T. josephi are the same (Lachen, Sikkim) (Lind- Wakayama Pref., Mt. Koya, 19 July 1883, J. Matsumura ley 1857, King & Pantling 1896), T. cunninghamii s.n. (syn-, TI!). Hyogo Pref. prov. Settsu, June 1879, T. must be derived from T. josephi. Because of their Uchiyama (according to the protologue) s.n. (syn-, TI!). sympatric distribution I am also proposing the new combination and change in status, Tipularia Note. In the protologue of T. japonica, Matsumu- josephi f. cunninghamii (King & Prain) Suetsu- ra (1901) cited four specimens ("Hab. in sylvis gu. umbrosis: Japonia, prov. Shimotsuke Nikkō (ipse); prov. Hitachi monte Tsukuba legit C. Ōwatari; prov. Kii, monte Kooya (sic); prov. Sett- Taxonomic Treatment su legit T. Uchiyama") without designating a type specimen. Three of the specimens, other than the Tipularia japonica Matsum. in Bot. Mag. (To- one collected in Settsu by T. Uchiyama, are kyo) 15: 87 (1901). —Fig. 1. mounted on a single sheet. Considering that T. japonica f. japonica and October 2019 Suetsugu – Tipularia japonica f. harae and T. josephi f. cunninghamii 187 Tipularia japonica f. harae can only be distin- hamii (King & Prain) S. C. Chen, S. W. Gale & P. guished during the flowering season, and the J. Cribb in Fl. China 25: 251 (2009). specimens collected in Nikko by Matsumura Type: India. Sikkim Himalaya: Lachen Valley City, himself is the flowering specimen cited in the ca. 12,000 ft., July 1895, R. Pantling 396 (syn-, protologue (Matsumura 1901), I select it as the BR0000008578761, image!, syn-, P00420867, image!). lectotype in accordance with Art. 9.3 of ICN Note. While T. josephi f. cunninghamii from the (Turland et al. 2018). Himalaya is a peloric mutant of T. josephi, I do not know if the plant from Taiwan reported to T. cunninghamii (Su 2002, Chen et al. 2009) is also Tipularia japonica Matsum. f. harae (S. C. its peloric mutant, considering that T. josephi has Chen) Suetsugu, comb. & stat. nov. —Fig. 2. not been reported from Taiwan. Su (2002) noted Basionym: Tipularia harae S. C. Chen in that the pseudobulb, leaf and peduncle of the Tai- Acta Phytotax. Sin. 25: 335 (1987). wan specimen are similar to T. odorata, while the Homotypic synonyms: Didiciea japonica H. flowers are smaller than in T. odorata (Su 2002, Hara in J. Jap. Bot. 13: 605 (1937). Chen et al. 2009). Since T. odorata is only species Tipularia kyushuensis Bo Li in Novon 26: 141 of Tipularia reported from Taiwan, other than T. (2018), nom. superfl. cunninghamii, it is possible that T. cunninghamii [Tipularia japonica Matsum. var. harae F. in Taiwan is a peloric form of T. odorata. Unfor- Maek., Wild Orchids Japan Colour: 469 (1971), tunately, the lip of the specimen of T. cunning- nom. nud.] hamii is tepal-like and I could not determine its Type: Japan. Kumamoto Prefecture, Higo Prov., in derivation based on the lip morphology. Further Mt. Tara-dake, 20 May 1937, F. C. Greatrex N.47/37 investigations using molecular methods of T. jo- (holo-, TI!). sephi, T. josephi f. cunninghamii and the plant re- corded as T. cunninghamii from Taiwan might be Note. Lai et al. (2018) , apparently without seeing useful for determining their true identity. the specimen, noted that Hara (1937) cited two different specimens in the protologue of Didiciea japonica, F. C. Greatrex 37 and F.