Next Article in Journal
Effect of Forest Edge Cutting on Transpiration Rate in Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.
Next Article in Special Issue
Identifying Suitable Restoration and Conservation Areas for Dracaena cinnabari Balf.f. in Socotra, Yemen
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Seasonal Variation on Leaf Cuticular Waxes’ Composition in the Mediterranean Cork Oak (Quercus suber L.)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Different Presowing Treatments to Break Seed Dormancy and Seed Collection Methods on the Germination of Dracaena steudneri Schweinf. Ex Engl.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/f13081237
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nomenclature Notes and Typification of Names in Dracaena (Asparagaceae, Nolinoideae)

by
Zhiyong Zhang
1,
Muhammad Idrees
1,*,
Xu Zheng
2,
Yongqing Jiao
2 and
Zakaria H. Prodhan
1
1
College of Life Science, Neijiang Normal University, Neijiang 641000, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Wheat and Maize Crop Science, and Center for Crop Genome Engineering, Longzi Lake Campus, College of Agronomy, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou 450046, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2022, 13(8), 1237; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13081237
Submission received: 20 June 2022 / Revised: 21 July 2022 / Accepted: 2 August 2022 / Published: 4 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Knowledge in Dragon Tree Research)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Two new names, Dracaena neoparviflora and Dracaena ridleyii are proposed as replacement names for the illegitimate names D. parviflora Baker, and D. nutans Ridl., respectively, the latter being a later homonym of D. parviflora Willd. ex Schult.f., and D. nutans H.Jaeger. Lectotypes are designated for D.cambodiana, D. interrupta (synonym of D. camerooniana), D. oddonii (synonym of D. camerooniana), D. cantleyi, D. cinnabari, D. cuspidibracteata (synonym of D. congoensis), D. haemanthoides, D. litoralis (synonym of D. braunii), D. parviflora, D. novoguineensis, D. nutans, D. petiolata, D. reflexa var. linearifolia, D. reflexa var. angustifolia, D. steudneri, D. tessmannii (synonym of D. mannii), and D. viridiflora. The second-step lectotypications are made for D. camerooniana, D. bushii, D. glomerata, D. papahu (synonym of D. steudneri), D. talbotii (synonym of D. bicolor), D. vaginata (synonym of D. viridiflora), and D. xiphophylla. A neotype is designated for the name Aletris arborea (basionym of D. arborea).

1. Introduction

The genus Dracaena Vand. ex L. belongs to the family Asparagaceae of subfamily Nolinoideae [1,2,3,4], and comprises about 189 species [5]. The genus is widely distributed in the tropical and subtropical regions of the world, with the main centre of diversity in the Guinea–Congo region in Western Africa (46 species) [6]. The genus also reaches Macaronesia, Arabia, Socotra, Madagascar, Southeastern Asia, Northern Australia, and the Pacific islands [7,8]. Most of the species in this genus are perennial to shrubby, bushy and arborescent forests, and are ecologically and economically important for use as horticulture [9,10], social functions in marking graves, sacred sites, and farm plots in many African societies [11], as well as medicine [12,13].
Recent molecular and morphology analysis based on the leaf base pigmentation and bark has supported the monophyly of Dracaenoids [1,14,15]. The red pigments may be related to the Dragon tree group’s specific mechanism for adaptation to hot and dry environments [16], but are also known to be a defensive mechanism [17]. Lu and Morden [4] revealed that only six Hawaiian Pleomele species form a monophyletic sister group to the Dracaena species, and are separated from them as a distinct genus, Chrysodracon P.L.Lu & Morden. Non-Hawaiian Pleomele are intermixed with Dracaena, whereas Sansevieriais is monophyletic, but nested within Dracaena [18,19]. The taxonomy of various Dracaena species is still unresolved or unclear, while new species are being continuously discovered [20,21,22,23].
Typification is an important starting point for nomenclatural and taxonomic research. In the course of an ongoing revision of the genus Dracaena, we reviewed 25 names in Dracaena and noticed that some names have not yet been typified. Hence, these names are typified here for nomenclatural stability. We studied the original protologues and original herbarium material of the following 25 names: Aletris arborea Willd. (basionym of D. arborea (Willd.) Link), D. bushii Damen, D. cambodiana Pierre ex Gagnep., D. camerooniana Baker, D. cantleyi Baker, D. cinnabari Balf.f., D. cuspidibracteata Engl. (synonym of D. congoensis Hua), D. glomerata Baker, D. haemanthoides Bos ex Damen, D. interrupta Baker (synonym of D. camerooniana Baker), D. litoralis Mwachala & Eb.Fish. (synonym of D. braunii Engl.), D. novoguineensis Gibbs, D. nutans Ridl., D. oddonii De Wild (synonym of D. camerooniana Baker), D. parviflora Baker, D. papahu Engl. (synonym of D. steudneri Engl.), D. petiolate Hoof.f., D. reflexa Lam. var. linearifolia Baker, D. reflexa Lam. var. angustifolia Baker, D. steudneri Engl., D. talbotii Rendle (synonym of D. bicolor Hook.), D. tessmannii Engl. & K.Krause (synonym of D. mannii Baker), D. vaginata Hutch. (synonym of D. viridiflora Engl. & K.Krause), D. viridiflora Engl. & K.Krause, and D. xiphophylla Baker, which are typified here.

2. Material and Methods

This work is based on a comprehensive study of the relevant literature, in addition to the protologues, to search for possible type and to verify the typification status of the names. Herbarium specimens (or their images) conserved at B, BM, BR, G, GH, K, L, LISU, NY, OXF, P, S, U, and WAG (acronyms according to Thiers [24]) were examined. The typified names are listed in alphabetical order, and the accepted names are highlighted in bold. The relevant information indicated in the protologue (“Protologue citation”) is provided here for all the names.The bibliographic citations of all names were verified from the original literature, as well as The Plant List [25], IPNI [26], POWO [27], and Tropicos [28].
According to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Arts. 9.12 and 9.17; Turland et al. [29]), the original protologue has been compared with original herbarium material and the most complete and informative herbarium specimen was selected. In addition, purposes of priority (Arts. 9.19, 9.20 and 10.5), designation of a type is achieved only if the type is definitely accepted as such by the typifying author, if the type element is clearly indicated by direct citation including the term “type” (typus) or an equivalent, and, on or after 1 January 2001, if the typification statement includes the phrase “designated here” (hic designatus) or an equivalent under Art. 7.11 of the Shenzhen code (hereafter ICN).

3. Results and Discussion

Typification of the Names

(1) Aletris arborea Willd., Enum. Pl. [Wildenow] 1: 381, 1809. ≡ Dracaena arborea (Willd.) Link, Enum. Hort. Berol. Alt. 1: 341, 1821. Protologue citation: “Habitat in Africa”. Neotype (designated here): [Nigeria] Nun. River, 1860, Mann 454 (K000400302 [digital image!], isoneotypes K000255891!, K000255891!, U1216533!).
Notes. Alteris arborea was described by Willdenow [30] and cited only the locality information: “Habitat in Africa”. When transferring the name Alteris arborea to Dracaena, Link [31] published a new combination, Dracaena arborea (Willd.) Link, and cited one collection “W.E. 381” as the type. Later, Bos [6] did not trace the specimen “W.E. 381” in Herb. Berol (B, destroyed), and selected from Nigeria “Mann 454” kept in K as neotype [first step]. We locate three duplicate specimens of “Mann 454”, deposited in K (K000255891, K000255892, and K000400302), accompanied by labels with the printed notes “Neotype Sheet 1, 2 and 3”; hence, they are syntypes (Art. 8.3 of the ICN [29]). Sheet 1 (K000255891) contains only flowers, without leaves, while sheet 2 (K000255892) contains only leaves; thus, these cannot be selected as neotype. Sheet 3 was the only one in K (K000400302) with a complete and well-preserved specimen; this blooming specimen is designated here as the neotype [second step].
(2) Dracaena bushii Damen, Blumea 63(1): 35, 2018. Protologue citation: “van Setten 988 (holo WAG [WAG.1152725 (sheet 1), WAG.1152726 (sheet 2), WAG0108898 (spirit), WAG0116789 (spirit)]), culta at Wageningen, The Netherlands, 3 Aug. 1988]”. Lectotype (designated here): [Netherlands], 3 Aug. 1988, van Setten 988 (WAG.1152725!, isolectotypesWAG.1152726!, WAG0108898!, WAG0116789!).
Notes. Dracaena bushii Damen was described in Damen et al. [32], and they cited one collection, “van Setten 988”, as the type, without indicating which one of them as the holotype [first step]. We locate four duplicate specimens, deposited in WAG (WAG.1152725 (sheet 1), WAG.1152726 (sheet 2), WAG0108898 (spirit), and WAG0116789 (spirit); thus, they are syntypes (Art. 8.3 of the ICN [29]), and it is necessary to select one of them as lectotype [second-step] (Art. 9.17 of ICN). Herein, we designate the specimen “van Setten 988” in WAG (WAG.1152725 (sheet 1) as the lectotype [second step]. The selected sheet is complete and there are well-preserved specimens that fully correspond with the protologue.
(3) Dracaena cambodiana Pierre ex Gagnep., Bull. Soc. Bot. France 81: 286, 1934. Protologue citation: “Cambodge: Mts Pra, Prov. Samrong-tong, no 660 (Pierre). —Annam: Nui-han-heo, pres Nhatrang, no 4790 (Poilane); env. De hue, no 4057 (Clemens)”. Lectotype (designated here): [Cambodge], Mts Pra, Prov. Samrong-tong, Pra Mountains, 28 March 1870, Pierre 660 (P00689826!, isolectotypes GH00098599!, P00689826!, P00689826!).
Notes. In the protologue, Gapnepain [33] cited three collections: “Pierre 660, Poilane 4790, & Clemens 4057”, when he described D. cambodiana, but did not indicate any type specimen. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN [29]). We locate seven duplicate specimens, four of them “Pierre 660” deposited in GH (GH00098599), and P (P00689824, P00689825 and P00689826), and two of them “Poilane 4790” in P (P00689820, and P00689821), and two of them “Clemens 4057” in P (P00689822 and P00689823). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes, according to Arts. 9.4 and 9.6 of ICN. After careful examination of all these collections, which have been deposited in P, it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype, in accordance with Art. 9.12 of ICN.We designate here the blooming specimen “Pierre 660” in P (P00689826) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is a complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic traits in agreement with the protologue.
(4) Dracaena camerooniana Baker, J. Bot. 12: 166, 1874a. Protologue citation: “Montes Cameroon, alt. 3500 pedes, G. Mann 1204”. Lectotype (designated here): [Cameroon], 3 Aug. 1988, van Setten 988 (K000255899!, isolectotypes GH00032996!, GH00032997!, K000255901!, K000255902!, K000255900!, P00442284!, S-G-7317!, U.1216526!). = Pleomele camerooniana (Baker) N.E.Br., Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1914(8): 277, 1914. = D. capitulfera De Willd. & T.Durand, Ann. Mus. Congo Belg, Bot. Ser. 2, 1(1): 59, 1899. Type: [Democratic Republic of Congo], 9 March 1896, A. Dewèvre 701 (BR0000008808325!, isotype WAG0184571!). = D. dundusanensis De Wild., Bull. Jard. Bot. État Bruxelles 5: 5 (1915). Lectotype (designated by Bos [6]): [Democratic Republic of Congo], Dundusana, July 1913, De Giorgi 1069 (BR0000008808233!). = D. frommii Engl. & K.Krause, Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 45(1): 151 (1910). Type: [Tanzania], Nordl. Nyssaland, 1300 m, April 1901, Münzner 245 (B-10-0160921!). = D. gentilii De Wild., Ann. Mus. Congo Belge, Bot. sér. 5, 1[3]: 228 (1906). Type: [Democratic Republic of Congo], 18 March 1902, L. Gentil 54 (BR0000008807939!). = D. interrupta Baker, Trans. Linn. Soc. London, Bot. 1(5): 252 (1878). Lectotype (designated here): [Angola], PungoAndongo, in sylvis ad marginem fluminis Tomble, March 1857, F. Welwitsch 3748 (BM000911611!, isolectotypes BM000911610!, LISU222116!, LISU222117!, LISU222118!). = D. lecomtei Hua, Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Autun 10: 667, 1897. Type: [Democratic Republic of Congo], Moromba, bords de la lagune, Feb. 1894, H. Lecomte E20 (P00442282!).= D. silvatica Hua, Bull. Soc. Nat. Hist. autun 10: 665, 1897. Type: [Democratic Republic of Congo], Brazzaville, May 1891, Thollon 4074 (P00442299!, isotype WAG0184575!). = D. odum Engl. & K.Krause, Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 45(1): 152 (1910). Type: [Cameroon], Gabunebiet, Campogebiet bei Bebai, 22 July 1908, G. Tessmann 453c (B-10-0160920!). = D. oddonii De Wild., Ann. Mus. Congo Belge, Bot. ser. 5, 1(3): 227, 1906. —Lectotype (designated here): [Democratic Republic of Congo], 1903, Gillet 3333 (BR0000008807397!, isolectotype BR0000008807380!). = D. ueleensis De Wild., Ann. Mus. Congo Belg, Bot. Ser. 2, 2(1): 20, 1907. Type: [Democratic Republic of Congo], 19 Dec. 1905, F. Seret 397 (BR0000008808295!, isotypes BR0000008807960!, BR0000008808332!, WAG0184572!).
Notes. Baker [34] described D. camerooniana, and cited one collection, “G. Mann 1204”, in the protologue, but did not indicate the herbarium where the specimen was deposited. Bos [6] and Damen et al. [32] selected the same specimen of “G. Mann 1204”, deposited in K as the type, which should be considered as first step. Four original materials were traced in K (K000255899, K000255900, K000255901, and K000255902), According to Arts. 8.3 and 40 Note 1 (ICN) [29], none of them can be treated as holotype, but these are syntypes; thus, it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.17 of ICN). We designate the blooming specimen “G. Mann 1204” in K (K000255899) as the lectotype [second step]. The selected sheet is a morphologically complete, and well-preserved specimen that fully correspond with the protologue.
D. interrupta was described by Baker [35] and provided the following locality information: “Pungo Andongo, in sylvis ad marginem fluminis Tomble, March 1857” in the protologue. Barker’s paper is devoted to a systematic account of the liliaceae (now Asparagaceae) of the Angolan Herbarium of the late Dr. Welwitsch. Friedrich Martin Josef Welwitsch’s (1806–1872) original specimens are housed at LISU Herbarium (Botanic Garden of Lisbon), the second-best set and a copy of the written material should remain in London at BM (now the Natural History Museum), and the remaining sets were passed to other institutions [36,37]. We located five original materials collected from Angola: “Welwitsch 3748”, deposited in BM (BM000911611, and BM000911610), and LISU (LISU222116, LISU222117, and LISU222118). According to Arts. 9.6 and 40 Note 1 (ICN), all these collectionsshould be regarded as syntypes; hence it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). The sheets in LISU did not mention any date, hence these sheets cannot be selected as lectotype. Among the available collections, we designate the specimen “Welwitsch 3748” in BM (BM000911611) as the lectotype. The selected sheet bears the same date, with morphologically complete and well-preserved specimens that fully correspond with the protologue.
In the protologue, De Wild [38] cited one collection, “Gillet 3333”, as a type when he described D. oddonii, but did not indicate herbarium where the specimen was deposited. De Wildeman′s original materials were deposited at BR [39]. Damen in Damen et al. [32] selected “Gillet 3333” in BR as the holotype, which should be considered as the first step. In addition, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN). We located two duplicate specimens, deposited in BR (BR0000008807397 and BR0000008807380). According to Arts. 9.6 and 40 Note 1 (ICN [29]), none of them can be treated as a holotype, but these are syntypes, so it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). We designate the specimen of “Gillet 3333” in BR (BR0000008807397) as the lectotype.
(5) Dracaena cantleyi Baker, J. Bot. 19: 326, 1874b. Protologue citation: “Amongst a number of plants brought home by Mr. Cantley, who was appointed a few month ago superintendent to the botanical garden at Singapore…”. Lectotype (designated here): [Netherlands], 3 August 1988, van Setten 988 (WAG.1152725!, isolectotypes WAG.1152726!, WAG0108898!, WAG0116789!). = Pleomele cantleyi N.E.Br., Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1914(8): 277 (1914). = D. marmorata Baker, Bot. Mag. 115: t. 7078 (1889). Type: [Singapore], Herb. Hort. Kew 285-82 Cantley, March 1888, s.coll. s.n. (K000400076!).
Notes. In the protologue, Baker [40] provided the following information: “Amongst a number of plants brought home by Mr. Cantley, who was appointed a few month ago superintendent to the botanical garden at Singapore, who is now in England—are specimens of fine new species of Dracaena”, but did not indicate any locality and type information. According to Stafleu & Cowan [39], Baker′ original materials were deposited at K and WELT (destroyed by fire in 1864). We locate two duplicate specimens collected from Singapore, deposited in BM (BM000799613), and K (K000400078). The specimen in BM collected by “Redley 4682” is annotated with the handwriting “type”; however, this sheet bears the date 1892, meaning it is probable that this sheet was not seen by Baker and is not part of the original materials. The sheet in K annotated by Baker with the handwriting “D. cantleyi Baker” is part of the original material. Therefore, following Rec. 9A.3 of ICN [29], we here designate the specimen in K (K000400078) as the lectotype.
(6) Dracaena cinnabari Balf.f., Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 32: 623, 1882. Protologue citation: “Socotra, per insulamtotam in montibus ultra 1000 ped. Alt. crescens. B.C.S. No 80, Schweinf. No 550, and Perry”. Lectotype (designated here): [Yemen], Socotra, 19 September 1878, Perry s.n. (K000255942!). = Draco cinnabari (Balf.f) Kuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 2: 710 (1891).
Notes. Dracaena cinnabari was described by Balfour [41], and he cited three collections: “B.C.S 89, Schweinf. 550, & Perry s.n.”, but did not indicate any type specimen. According to Arts. 9.6 and 40 Note 1 of ICN, all these collections should be regarded as syntypes, and a lectotype must be selected (Art. 9.12 of ICN [29]). Since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN). According to Stafleu& Cowan [39] and Balfour, [Sir] Isaac Bayley’s original materials were deposited in E, while the first set of Rodriguez and Socotra island were deposited at K. Furthermore, Socotra, Aden and Scottish plants were also kept in OXF. We did not locate the specimen “B.C.S. No 80, and Schweinf. No 550”, at E, K, or OXF. However, one original material of “Perry s.n.” was traced in K (K000255942). The sheet in K was annotated with the handwriting “D. cinnabari, September 19th 1878”; hence, following Art. 9.12 of ICN, we designate the specimen of “Perry s.n.”, in K (K000255942) as the lectotype. The selected sheet bears the collection from Socotra and is a morphologically complete and well-preserved specimens that fully correspond with the protologue.
(7) Dracaena congoensis Hua, Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Autun 10: 668, 1897. Type: [Democratic Republic of Congo], Forêt de Mayumba, 1890–1891, Thollon s.n. (P00442278). = D. cuspidibracteata Engl., Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 32(1): 96, 1902. Protologue citation: “Kamerun: imUrwald von Quamudorf bei Bipinde (ZENKER n. 1616”.—Bluhendim December1897”. Lectotype (designated here): [Cameroon], im Urwald von Quamudorf bei Bipinde, 22 December 1897, Zenker 1616 (B-10-0160844!, isolectotypes K000255929!, S06-4674!, WAG0209424!).
Notes. In the protologue, Engler [42] provided the following locality information: “Kamerun: imUrwald von Quamudorf bei Bipinde (ZENKER n. 1616”.—Bluhendim December 1897”, when he described D. cuspidibracteata. Since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN [29]). According to Stafleu & Cowan [39], Engler′s specimens are supposed to be conserved at B. We locate three duplicate specimens of “Zenker 1616”, deposited in B (B-10-0160844), K (K000255929), and S (S06-4674). According to Arts. 9.6 and 40 Note 1 of ICN, none of them can be treated as the holotype, but should be regarded as syntypes, so alectotype must be selected (Art. 9.12 of ICN). We here designate the specimen “Zenker 1616” in B (B-10-0160844) as the lectotype. The selected sheet bears the same date “Dec. 1897” and is morphologically complete with the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescence that fully correspond with the protologue.
(8) Dracaena glomerata Baker, J. Bot. 12: 166, 1874a. Protologue citation: “Africa tropicalis occidentalis ad insulam Kobi, 1 N. lat, G. Mann, 1630”.—Bluhendim December1897”. Lectotype (designated here): [Netherlands], 3 August 1988, van Setten 988 (WAG.1152725!, isolectotypesWAG.1152726!, WAG0108898!, WAG0116789!). = Pleomele glomerata N.E.Br., Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1914(8): 278 (1914). = D. buettneri Engl., Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 15(4): 478 (1892). Type: [Gabon], Imwaldbei der Sibange-Farm, Sept. 1884, Buettner537 (B-10-0160843!). = D. gabonica Hua, Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Autun 10: 669, 1897. Type: [Gabon], Munda, Sibange Farm, 16 July 1880, H. Soyaux 98 (P00487007!). Pleome le gabonica (Hua) N.E.Br., Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1914(8): 278 (1914).
Notes. Baker [34] cited one collection “G. Mann 1630” as the type [first step], without indicating the herbaria where the specimen was deposited. Three original materials of “G. Mann 1630” were traced, two of them in K (K000255925 and K000255926), and one in P (P00442296). According to Arts. 9.6 and 40 Note 1 of ICN [29], all these collections should be regarded as syntypes; hence it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.17of ICN).It is well known that Baker’s original materials were deposited at K and WELT [39]. Therefore, we designate the specimen “G. Mann 1630” in K (K000255925) as the lecotype [second step]. The selected herbarium specimen is well preserved and comprises a stem and many leaves with numerous flowers and inflorescence that fully agree with both the description and the current application of the name.
(9) Dracaena haemanthoides Bos ex Damen, Blumea 63(1): 37, 2018. Protologue citation: “Veldhuizen, J van 982 (holo WAG [WAG.1153971 (sheet 1), WAG.1153970 (sheet 2), WAG0116648 (spirit)], culta, in greenhouse at Wageningen, The Netherlands (No. 1972PT00634 ex Leeuwenberg, AJM 10334, 16 September 1972, 14 km E of Kumba, 28 km W of Loum., N4°41′ E9°31′), 26 Jan. 1984.”. Lectotype (designated here): [Netherlands], 3 August 1988, van Setten 988 (WAG.1152725!, isolectotypes WAG.1152726!, WAG0108898!, WAG0116789!).
Notes. In the protologue, Damen in Damen et al. [32] cited one collection, “J van 982”, as the type, without indicating which one of them as the holotype [first step]. We locate three duplicate specimens, deposited in WAG (WAG.1153971 (sheet 1), WAG.1153970 (sheet 2), and WAG0116648 (spirit); thus, they are syntypes (Art. 8.3 of the ICN [29]) and it is necessary to select one of them as lectotype [second step] (Art. 9.17 of ICN). We designate the specimen “J van 982” in WAG (WAG.1153971, sheet 1) as the lectotype. The selected herbarium specimen is well preserved and comprises a stem and many leaves with numerous flowers and inflorescence that fully agree with both the description and the current application of the name.
(10) Dracaena braunii Engl., Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 15(4): 479, 1892. Lectotype (designated by Damen in Damen et al. [32]): [Cameroon], Malimba, 1889, Berlin s.n. (B-10-0184054!). = D. litoralis Mwachala & Eb. Fisch., Novon 22(4): 444, 2013. Protologue citation: “Cameroon, Kribi District: betw. Kribi & Longi, 19 Mar. 1968, P. Mezili 90 (P)”. Lectotype (designated here): [Cameroon], Kribi District: betw. Kribi &Longi, 19 March 1968, P. Mezili 90 (P00283988!, isolectotype P00283989!).
Notes. In the protologue, Mwachala & Fischer [23] cited one collection “P. Mezili 90” kept in P as the type [first step]. Since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN [29]). We locate two duplicate specimens, deposited in P (P00283988 and P00283989), from which a lectotype must be selected (Art. 9.17 of ICN). We designate one of the sheets in P (P00283988) as the as the lectotype since it is morphologically complete with the presence of a stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescence that fully agree with the protologue.
(11) Dracaena neoparviflora M. Idrees, nom. nov.
Replaced name: Dracaena parviflora Baker, Trans. Linn. Soc. London, Bot. 1(5): 252, 1878 nom. illeg., non D.parvilfora Willd. ex Schult.f., Syst. Veg. ed. 15 bis [Roemer & Schultes] 7(1): 348, 1829. Protologue citation: “Golungo Alto ad rivulos in editioribussylvaticis. Floret Feb. “Die calunga” incolarum”. Lectotype (designated here): [Angola], Golungo Alto, 20 February 1856, Welwitsch 3739 (LISU222105!, isolectotypes BM000911620!, K000255944!, P00442408!).
Notes. Dracaena parviflora Baker [35] is an illegitimate a later homonym of D. parviflora Willd. ex Schult.f. [43], according to ICN (Art. 53.1) [29]. Recently, Figueiredo & Smith [44], and The Plants of the World Online database (https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/531101-1, accessed on 15 May 2022) accepted this species, and gave its native range as Angola. Hence, a new replacement name, Dracaena neoparviflora M. Idrees, is therefore proposed here. The specific epithet derives from the prefix neo-, meaning new, and parviflora, the epithet used by Baker [35].
In the protologue, Baker [35] provided the following locality information: “Golungo Alto ad rivulos in editioribus sylvaticis. Floret Feb. “Die calunga” incolarum”, but did not indicate the type. Baker’s paper is devoted to a systematic account of the liliaceae (now Asparagaceae) of the Angolan Herbarium of the late Dr. Welwitsch. According to Stearn [36], Friedrich Martin Josef Welwitsch (1806–1872) original specimens, notes and descriptions are housed at LISU Herbarium (Botanic Garden of Lisbon), the second best set and a copy of the written material should remain in London at BM (now the Natural History Museum), and the remaining sets passed to other institutions [37]. We located two original materials collected from Angola: “Welwitsch 3739”, deposited in BM (BM000911620), K (K000255944), P (P00442408), and LISU (222105), as well as another collection, “Welwitsch 3740”, deposited in LISU (LISU222106). According to Arts. 9.6 and 40 Note 1 (ICN [29]), all these collectionsshould be regarded as syntypes; hence, it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). Among the available collections, we designate here the specimen “Welwitsch 3739” in LISU (LISU222105) as the lectotype. The selected sheet bears the same locality and containsmorphologically complete and well-preserved specimens that fully correspond with the protologue.
(12) Dracaena novoguineensis Gibbs, Fl. Arfak Mts. [Gibbs] 203, 1917. Protologue citation: “Hab. Manokoeari, common undergrowth in high forest on “Korang.” Fl., Fr. Jan. 6195”. Lectotype (designated here): [New Guinea], Irian Jaya, Manokwari, Mankoeari, Jan. 1914, L.S. Gibbs 6195 (BM000799735!, isolectotypes K000292039!, L0461769!).
Notes. In the protologue, Gibbs [45] cited one collection from New Guinea, Manokwari, Mankoeari: “Gibbs 6195” as the type [first step], but did not indicate the herbarium where the type preserved. Three original materials were traced in BM (BM000799735), K (K000292039), and L (L0461769); hence, they are syntypes (Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1 of ICN [29]). According to Stafleu & Cowan [39], Gibbs′ original materials were deposited in BM, while duplicate specimens were kept in BO, K, L, MO, and P. We designate here the blooming specimen “Gibbs 6195” in BM (BM000799735) as the lectotype [second-step]. BM000799735 is a morphologically complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic traits in agreement with the protologue.
(13) Dracaena petiolate Hook.f., Fl. Brit. India [J.D. Hooker] 6(18): 331, 1892. Protologue citation: “UPPER ASSAM; near Kujoo, and at the Brama Khoond, Griffith”. Lectotype (designated here): [East Bengal], Upper Assam, H. Griffith 5880 (NY00320092!, isolectotype K001057052!). = Pleomelepetiolata (Hook.) N.E.Br., Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1914(8): 278 (1914).
Notes. Dracaena petiolata was described by J.D. Hooker [46], and cited the following locality information from Upper Assam: “near Kujoo, Griffith” and “Brama Khoond, Griffith”. These are without a collector number and he did not mention the herbarium where the type was deposited. We locate two original materials “Griffith 1328” deposited in K (K000401250), while another specimen “Griffith 5880” mounted in one sheet in K (K001057052), and NY (NY00320092). According to Arts. 9.6 and 40 Note 1 of ICN [29], all these collections should be regarded as syntypes, and lectotype must be designated (Art. 9.12 of ICN). Among theavailable collections, we designate one the specimen of “Griffith 5880”, in NY (NY00320092) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is a well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic features in agreement with the protologue.
(14) Dracaena reflexa var. linearifolia Ayres ex Baker, J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 14: 531, 1875. Protologue citation: “Mauritius ad montempouce, Dr. Ayres!”. Lectotype (designated here): [Mauritius], ad montempouce, without date, Ayres s.n. (K000432419!, isolectotypes P00446342!, P00446343!). = Pleomele linearifolia (Ayres ex Baker) N.E.Br., Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1914(8): 278 (1914).
Notes. Dracaena reflexa var. linearifolia was described by Baker [47] and cited the following information, “Mauritius ad montempouce, Dr. Ayres!”, in the protologue, but did not indicate the herbarium where the specimen was deposited. According to Stafleu & Cowan [39], Baker’s original materials were deposited at K and WELT (destroyed by fire in 1864). We locate three duplicate specimens of “Ayres s.n., deposited in K (K000432419) and P (P00446342 and P00446343); hence, they are syntypes and the name D. reflexa var. linearifolia needs lecotypification (Art. 9.12 of ICN [29]). Thus, we designate here the sheet kept in K (K000432419) as the lectotype since it is morphologically complete with the presence of stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescence that fully agree with the protologue.
(15) Dracaena reflexa var. angustifolia Baker, J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 14: 531, 1875. Protologue citation: “Sierra Leone, Borkstadt!; Bourbon, Capt. Carmichael!, Bory!; Africa austro-tro-picalis orientalis ad moramballa, Dr. Kirk! (forma foliispurpureis); St. Helena, Burchell!, (culta). Hort. Kew trunco 16-18 pedali!; Madagascaria, Dr. Lyall!”. Lectotype (designated here): [Saint Helena], Irian Jaya, Manokwari, Mankoeari, Jan. 1914, L.S. Gibbs 6195 (K000256277!, isolectotype K000256278!).
Notes.Baker [47] cited six collections, “Borkstadt s.n.; Carmichael s.n., & Bory s.n.; Kirk s.n.; Burchell s.n., Hort. Kew trunco 16-18 pedali!; and Lyall!”, when describing D. reflexa var. linearifolia, but did not indicate any type specimen. Since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN [29]). It is well known that Baker’s original materials were deposited at K and WELT [39]. We locate five original materials, one of them “Carmichael s.n.” kept in K (K000432420), two of them “Burchell s.n.” in K (K000256277 and K000256278), one of them “Hort. Kew” in K (K000400066), and one of them “Lyall 128” in K (K000400066). According to Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1 of ICN, all these collections should be regarded as syntypes; hence, it is necessary to select one of them as lectotype (Art. 9.17 of ICN [29]).Among all available collections, we designate the specimen “Burchell s.n.” in K (K000256277) as the lecotype. The selected sheet is a perfect match to the description and locality that displays all the morphological diagnostic traits in agreement with the protologue.
(16) Dracaena ridleyii M. Idrees, nom. nov.
Replaced name: Dracaena nutans Ridl., Trans. Linn. Soc. London, Bot. 3: 406, 1893 nom. illeg., non D. nutans H.Jaeger, Gartenflora 6: 242, 1857. Protologue citation: “In damp spots by the river Ayer Hitam, near Pekan”. Lectotype (designated here): [Angola], Golungo Alto, 20 Feb. 1856, Welwitsch 3739 (LISU222105!, isolectotypes BM000911620!, K000255944!, P00442408!).
Notes. The name Dracaena nutans Ridley [48] was validly published in 1893 based on the specimen collected from Ayer Hitam, Malaysia: “Ridley s.n.”. However, the name is preoccupied by a taxon: D. nutans H.Jaeger [49]. According to Art. 53.1 of the ICN [29], Dracaena nutans Ridl. is an illegitimate name, being a later homonym of D. nutans H.Jaeger. A new name, Dracaena neoparviflora M. Idrees, is therefore proposed here. The specific epithet honors Prof. Dr. Ridley Henry Nicholas (Scientific Director of the Singapore Botanic Gardens), author of the replaced name, whose contributions to the Flora of the Malay Peninsula are outstanding and invaluable.
In the protologue, Ridley [48] cited the locality information “Ayer Hitam, near Pekan”, without indicating any type specimen. We locate the original materials of “Ridley s.n.” collected from Ayer Hitam, near Pekan, Malaysia, deposited in BM (BM000799736), and K (K000292052). According to Arts. 9.6 and 40 Note 1 of ICN [29], none of them can be treated as a holotype, but should be regarded as syntypes, and a lectotype must be selected (Art. 9.12 of ICN). We here designate the specimen of “Ridley s.n.”, in K (K000292052) as the lectotype since it is morphologically complete with the presence of a stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescence that fully agree with the protologue.
(17) Dracaena steudneri Engl., Plandzenw. Ost-Afrikas C 143, 1895. Protologue citation: “Dschibba, Gondar.—Steudner n. 477”. Lectotype (designated here): [Ethiopia], Dschibba, Gondar, 1862, Steudner 477 (S06-4677!, isolectotype BR0000009888289!). = Pleomele steudneri (Engl.) N.E.Br., Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1914(8): 279 (1914). = D. papahu Engl., Pflanzenw. Ost-Afrikas C (1895) 143. Lectotype (designated here): [Tanzania], Dschibba, Gondar, 1862, Steudner 477 (K000255936!, isolectotypes BR0000009888005!, BR0000009887336!, BR0000009887664!). = Pleomele papahu (Engl.) N.E.Br., Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1914(8): 278 (1914).
Notes. In the protologue, Engler [50] cited one collection: “Steudner 477” as the type but did not mention the herbarium where the type was deposited. According to Stafleu & Cowan [39], Engler′s specimens are supposed to be conserved at B. Later, Bos &Teketay [51], and Mwachala & Mbugua [52] mentioned that the holotype was destroyed in B. Since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN [29]). We traced two original materials of “Steudner 477”, deposited in BR (BR0000009888289) and S (S06-4677), from which a lectotype should be chosen (Art. 9.12 of ICN). We designate one of the sheets in S (S06-4677) as the lectotype. The selected sheet bears the same localty “Dschibba” according to original protologue and is amorphologically complete specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic traits in agreement with the protologue.
For Dracaena papahu, Engler [50] provided the following information, “USB., Lutindi. Holst n. 3260”, without indicating where the type specimen was preserved. Engler′s original type specimens are supposed to be conserved at B [39]. Since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN [29]). We did not trace the original material in B, and it is possible that the specimen is destroyed during WWII. However, we locate four duplicate specimens of “Holst 3260”, deposited in BR (BR0000009888005, BR0000009887336 and BR0000009887664), and K (K000255936). According to ICN, Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1, all these collections should be regarded as syntypes and it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). Herein, we designate the specimen “Holst 3260” in K (K000255936) as the lectotype [second step]. The selected sheet is a well-preserved specimen that fully corresponds with the protologue.
(18) Dracaena bicolor Hook., Bot. Mag. 87: t. 5248, 1861. Lectotype (designated by Damen in Damen et al. [32]): [Guinea], Fermando Po, Feb. 1861, Hort. Kew s.n. (K000099865!, isolectotype K000099866!). = D. talbotii Rendle, Cat. Pl. Obam 112, 1913. Protologue citation: “Oban: n. 1532”. Lectotype (designated here): [Nigeria], Oban, South Nigeria, 1912, P.A. Talbot 1532 (BM000911624!, isolectotypes BM000911623!, K000255919!, K000255920!).
Notes. In the protologue, Rendle [53] cited one collection: “Talbot 1532” as the type, but did not indicate the herbarium where the specimen was preserved. Bos [8] selected the same specimen kept in BM as type [first step]. We locate two duplicate specimens, deposited in BM (BM000911624 and BM000911623), from which a lectotype [second step] must be chosen (Art. 9.17 of ICN [29]). Hence, we designate the blooming specimen of “Talbot 1532” kept in BM (BM000911624) as the lectotype. The selected sheet is morphologically complete with the presence of many branches, stems, leaves, and flowers that fully correspond with the protologue.
(19) Dracaena mannii Baker, J. Bot. 12: 164, 1874. Lectotype (designated by Damen in Damen et al. [32]): [Nigeria], River Old Calabar, 1863, Mann 2329 (K000255908!, isolectotypes K000255909!, K000255910!). = D. tessmannii Engl & Krause, Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 45(1): 151, 1910. Protologue citation: “Gabungebiet: Hinterland von Spanisch-Guinea, bei Mabungo, 450 m u. M. (Tessmann no. 358.—Bluhendim April 1908.—Einheim. Name: alenemonessame”. Lectotype (designated here): [Democratic Republic of Congo], Hinterland von Spanisch-Guinea, bei Mabungo, 450 m u. M., 21 April 1908, Tessmann 358 (B-10-0160913!, isolectotype B-10-0160914!).
Notes. Engler & Krause [54] cited one collection “Tessmann 358” when they described Dracaena tessmannii. Damen in Damen et al. [32] selected the same sheet in B as the type [first step], Since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN [29]). According to Stafleu & Cowan [39], Engler′s specimens are supposed to be conserved at B. We locate two duplicate specimens of “Tessmann 358”, deposited in B (B-10-0160913 and B-10-0160914); hence, they are syntypes (Art. 8.3 of ICN [29]), and a lectotype must be selected (Art. 9.17 of ICN). We here designate the specimen of “Tessmann 358” kept in B (B-10-0160913) as the lectotype since it is morphologicallycomplete with the presence of a stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescence that fully agree with the protologue.
(20) Dracaena viridiflora Engl & Krause, Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 45(1): 153, 1910. Protologue citation: “Kamerun: bei Bipindihof im schattigen Urwald des Lokundjetales (ZENKER n. 3223. BluhendimJuli 1904”. Lectotype (designated here): [Cameroon], bei Bipindihof im schattigen Urwald des Lokundjetales, July 1904, Zenker 3223 (B-10-0160837!, isolectotypes BM000911625!, BR0000008807557!, G00168261!, K000255931!). = D. vaginata Hutch., Fl. W. Trop. Afr. [Hutchinson & Dalziel] 2: 383, in clavi, 384,anglice. (1936). Lectotype (designated here): [Nigeria], Oban., 1911, P.A. Talbot 729 (K000255932!, isolectotype BM000911626!). = D. letestui Pellegr., Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. 1930, Ser. II. ii. 571. Type: [Goban], Boumé-Boumé, 23 Aug. 1908, G.M.P.C. Le Testu 1376 (K000255932!, isolectotypes P00442290!, P00442291!). = D. mildbraedii K.Krause, Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 51(3-4): 447 (1914). Type: [Cameroon], Boumé-Boumé, 17 April 1911, J. Mildbraed 4976 (B-10-0160841!).
Notes. Engler & Krause [54] cited one collection “Zenker 3223” as the type in the protologue, without indicating the herbarium where the type was preserved. Since then, no author has designated a lectotype, even inadvertently (Art. 7.11 of ICN [29]). According to Stafleu & Cowan [39], Engler′s specimens are supposed to be conserved at B. Five original materials of D. viridiflora were tracedin B (B-10-0160837), BM (BM000911625), BR (BR0000008807557), G (G00168261), and K (K000255931); hence, they are syntypes (Arts. 9.6 & 40 Note 1 of ICN), so it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). We here designate the specimen of “Zenker 3223” in B (B-10-0160837) as the lectotype, since it is morphologically complete with the presence of a stem, leaves, flower, and inflorescence that fully agree with the protologue.
For D. vaginata, Hutchinson [55] cited one collection “Talbot 729” as the type [first step], but did not indicate the herbarium where the type was preserved. We locate two duplicate specimens, deposited in BM (BM000911626) and K (K000255932). According to ICN, Arts. 9.6, and 40 Note 1, all these collections should be regarded as syntypes and it is necessary to select one of them as lectotype (Art. 9.17 of ICN). Herein, we designate one of the sheets in K (K000255932) as the lectotype [second step], since K000255932 is a morphologically complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic traits in agreement with the protologue.
(21) Dracaena xiphophylla Baker, J. Linn. Soc., Bot. 21: 449, 1885. Protologue citation: “Baron 2455!, 2729!, 2804!”. Lectotype (designated here): [Madagascar], without date, Baron 2804 (K000432422!, isolectotype B-10-0160836!). = Pleomele xiphophylla (Baker) N.E.Br., Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1914(8): 279 (1914).
Notes. In the protologue, Baker [56] cited three collections: “Baron 2455!, 2729!, 2804!”, but did not indicate any type specimen. According to Stafleu& Cowan [39], Baker′s original materials were deposited at K and WELT (destroyed by fire in 1864). We locate three original materials, one of them of “Baron 2455” deposited in K (K000432421), two of them “Baron 2729” deposited in E (E00193928) and K (K000400060), and two of them “Baron 2804” deposited in B (B-10-0160836) and K (K000432422). All these collections should be regarded as syntypes, so, according to Arts. 9.6 and40 Note 1 of ICN [29], it is necessary to select one of them as the lectotype (Art. 9.12 of ICN). After careful examination of all collections, we designate the blooming specimen “Baron 2804” in K (K0000432422) as the lectotype. The selected sheet bears a complete and well-preserved specimen that displays all the morphological diagnostic traits in agreement with the protologue.

4. Conclusions

The present contribution is a part of ongoing revisions and research on the Dracaena taxonomy, aiming to update the nomenclature and extend the existing systematic knowledge. We have reviewed the typification status of the names in the Dracaena, and designated the lectotypes and neotypes for the 25untypified names. In addition, we also proposed new replacement names for D. parviflora Baker and D. nutans Ridl., which are discovered to be an illegitimate a later homonyms of D. parvilfora Willd. ex Schult.f., and D. nutans H.Jaeger, respectively.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.I.; methodology, M.I.; investigation, Z.Z. and M.I.; resources, X.Z. and Z.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, M.I.; writing—review and editing, Y.J.; X.Z. and Z.H.P.; supervision M.I.; project administration, Z.Z.; funding acquisition, Z.Z. and X.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Key Research and Development Project of Sichuan Provincial Department of Science and Technology (2022YFN0032), High-level Talent Introduction Project of Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province of China (2021JDGD0019), the High-level Talent Teams of Neijiang Normal University (RSC202102), and the Scientific Research Project of Neijiang Normal University (2020WJ02).

Data Availability Statement

All data are available within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APGIII. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2009, 161, 105–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Chase, M.W.; Reveal, J.L.; Fay, M.F. A subfamilial classification for the expanded asparagalean families Amaryllidaceae, Asparagaceae and Xanthor-rhoeaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2003, 161, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Stevens, P.F. Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 9. 2008. Available online: http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/ (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  4. Lu, P.-L.; Morden, C.W. Phylogenetic relationships among Dracaenoidgenera (Asparagaceae: Nolinoideae) inferred from chloroplast DNA loci. Syst. Bot. 2014, 39, 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Govaerts, R.; Zonneveld, B.J.M.; Zona, S.A. World Check List of Asparagaceae. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 2021. Available online: http://wcsp.science.kew.org/ (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  6. Bos, J.J. Dracaena in West Africa; Wageningen University and Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1984; Volume 84, pp. 1–126. [Google Scholar]
  7. Marrero, A.; Almeida, R.S.; González-Martín, M. A new species of the wild dragon tree, Dracaena (Dracaenaceae) from GranCanaria and its taxonomic and biogeographic implications. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 1998, 128, 291–314. [Google Scholar]
  8. Takawira-Nyenya, R.; Mucina, L.; Cardinal-Mcteague, W.M.; Thiele, K.R. Sansevieria (Asparagaceae, Nolinoideae) is a herbaceous clade within Dracaena: Inference from non-coding plastid and nuclear DNA sequence data. Phytotaxa 2018, 376, 254–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Singh, H.P.; Dadlani, N.K. Current Status of Floriculture–National and International Scenario; Commercial Floriculture, Malhotra Publishing House: New Delhi, India, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wijsman, J.C.G. Land-entuinbouwcijfers (LEI-rapport): 56. Den Haag: LEI, Onderdeel van Wageningen UR/CBS; LEI Wageningen UR: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2012; p. 260. [Google Scholar]
  11. Sheridan, M. Tanzanian ritual perimetrics and African landscapes: The case of Dracaena. Int. J. Afr. Hist. Stud. 2008, 41, 491–521. [Google Scholar]
  12. Thu, Z.M.; Myo, K.K.; Aung, H.T.; Armijos, C.; Vidari, G. Flavonoids and stilbenoids of the genera Dracaena and Sansevieria: Structures and bioactivities. Molecules 2020, 25, 2608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Song, M.; Guan, Y.; Ma, X. Corrigendum: Species identification of Dracaena using the complete chloroplast genome as asuper-barcode. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Judd, W.S.; Campbell, C.S.; Kellogg, E.A.; Stevens, P.F.; Donoghue, M.J. Plant Systematics: A Phylogenic Approach, 3rd ed.; Sinauer Associates Inc.: Sunderland, UK, 2007; pp. 459–494. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lu, P.L.; Morden, C. Phylogenetics of the plant genera Dracaena and Pleomele (Asparagaceae). Bot. Orient. 2010, 7, 4–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Lu, P.L. Systematics, Evolution, and Biogeography among Dracaenioid Genera: Dracaena, Pleomele, and Sansevieria (Asparagaceae). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hawai’i, Manoa, HI, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  17. Jura-Morawiec, J.; Tulik, M. Dragon’s blood secretion and its ecological significance. Chemoecology 2016, 2016, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Jankalski, S. Subgenera and new combination in Dracaena. Sansevieria 2008, 18, 17–21. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jankalski, S. The Sansevieria inflorescence and new sections proposed. Sansevieria 2009, 19, 8–10. [Google Scholar]
  20. Wilkin, P.; Suksathan, P.; Keeratikiat, K.; Welzen, P.V.; Wiland-Szymańska, J. A new threatened endemic species from central and northeastern Thailand, Dracaena jayniana (Asparagaceae: Tribe Nolinoideae). Kew Bull. 2012, 67, 697–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wilkin, P.; Suksathan, P.; Keeratikiat, K.; Welzen, P.V.; Wiland-Szymańska, J. A new species from Thailand and Burma, Dracaena kaweesakii Wilkin & Suksathan (Asparagaceae subfamily Nolinoideae). PhytoKeys 2013, 26, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mwachala, G.; Cheek, M.; Fischer, E.; Muasya, A.M. A new species of Dracaena L. (Dracaenaceae-Ruscaceae) from Mt Kupe and the Bakossi Mts, Cameroon. Kew Bull. 2007, 62, 613–616. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mwachala, G.; Fischer, E. Two New Species of Dracaena (Asparagaceae, Nolinoideae) from Central Africa, with a Note on the Identity of D. braunii. Novon 2013, 22, 442–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Thiers, B. Index Herbarium. 2016. Available online: http://sciweb.nybg.org/science2/IndexHerbariorum.asp (accessed on 13 August 2016).
  25. The Plant List. The Plant List Version 1.1. Missouri Botanical Gardens, St.Louis, and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 2013. Available online: www.theplantlist.org (accessed on 1 January 2013).
  26. IPNI (the International Plant Names Index). [Descriptive Phrase or Object Identifier or Locator…]. 2022. Available online: http://www.ipni.org/ (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  27. POWO. The Plants of the World Online Database. 2022. Available online: https://powo.science.kew.org/ (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  28. Tropicos. Tropicos.org. Missouri Botanical Garden. 2022. Available online: http://www.tropicos.org (accessed on 31 May 2022).
  29. Turland, N.J.; Wiersema, J.H.; Barrie, F.R. (Eds.) International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (Shenzhen Code) Adopted by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China, July 2017; Koeltz Botanical Books: Glashütten, Germany, 2018; Volume 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Willdenow, K.L. Enumeratio Plantarum Horti Regii Berolinensis, 1809; In Taberna Libraria Scholae Realis: Berolini, Germany, 1809; p. 1099. Available online: https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/records/item/10963-enumeratio-plantarum-horti-regii-berolinensis (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  31. Link, J.H.F. Enumeratio Plantarum Horti Regii Botanici Berolinensis Altera; Apud G. Reimer: Berolini, Germany, 1821; Volume 1, p. 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Damen, T.H.J.; van der Burg, W.J.; Wiland-Szymańska, J.; Sosef, M.S.M. Taxonomic novelties in African Dracaena (Dracaenaceae). Blumea 2018, 63, 31–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gagnepain, F. Quelques Liliacees Nouvelles d’Indochine. Bull. Société Bot. Fr. 1934, 81, 286–289. Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/75933 (accessed on 15 May 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Baker, J.G. On New Dracaenas from Tropical Africa. J. Bot. Br. Foreign 1874, 12, 164–167. Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34837498#page/178/mode/1up (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  35. Baker, J.G. XVII. Report on the Liliaceae, Iridaceae, Hypoxidaceae, and Haemodoraceae of Welwitsch’s Angolan Herbarium. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 1878, 1, 245–273. Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/761654#page/292/mode/1up (accessed on 15 May 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Stearn, W.T. The catalogue of the African plants collected by Dr Friedrich Welwitsch (1853–1861) and his litigious background. Garcia OrtaSér. Bot. 1973, 1, 101–104. [Google Scholar]
  37. Swinscow, T.D.V. Friedrich Welwitsch, 1806–1872, a centennial memoir. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1972, 4, 269–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. De Wildeman, E.A.J. Dracaena oddonii DeWild. Ann. Mus. Congo Belg. Bot. 1906, 1, 227. [Google Scholar]
  39. Stafleu, F.A.; Cowan, R.S. Taxonomic Literature: A Selective Guide to Botanical Publications and Collections with Dates, Commentaries and Types; Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1976; Volume I, Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/103414#page/11/mode/1up (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  40. Baker, J.G. A New Dracaena from Singapore. J. Bot. Br. Foreign 1874, 19, 326–327. Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34839769#page/340/mode/1up (accessed on 18 May 2022).
  41. Balfour, I.B. XXVII. The Dragon’s Blood Tree of Socotra. Trans. R. Soc. Edinburg 1882, 30, 619–623. Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41400094#page/714/mode/1up (accessed on 18 May 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Engler, H.G.A. Liliaceae Africanae. II. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 1902, 32, 89–97. Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/184891#page/96/mode/1up (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  43. Schultes, J.H. 1358. Cordyline. In Systema Vegetabilium, 15th ed.; von Linné, C., Schultes, J.A., Schultes, J.H., Sprengel, K.P.J., Cotta, J.G., Eds.; Sumtibus, J.G. Cottae: Stuttgardtiae, Germany, 1829; Volume 7, pp. 347–349. Available online: https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=Ftb0nKh5RF0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR57&dq=Systema+Vegetabilium&ots=2HOruIX6Ih&sig=V6So1KozlJxalX88X0JsXum9EHY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Systema%20Vegetabilium&f=false (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  44. Figueiredo, E.; Smith, G.F. Plants of Angola Strelitzia; National Botanical Institute: Pretoria, South Africa, 2008; Volume 22, pp. 1–279. [Google Scholar]
  45. Gibbs, L.S. Liliaceae. In A Contribution to the Phytogeography and Flora of the Arfak Mountains, 1st ed.; Gibbs, L.S., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 1917; pp. 202–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Hooker, J.D. Order CLVI. Liliaceae. In The Flora of British India; Hooker, J.D., Ed.; L. Reeve: London, UK, 1892; Volume 6, pp. 299–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Baker, J.G.; Tribus, I. Dracaena. 1. Dracaena, Vand. J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 1875, 14, 523–538. Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/238300#page/545/mode/1up (accessed on 15 May 2022).
  48. Ridley, H.N.X. On the Flora of the Eastern Coast of the Malay Peninsula. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. Bot. 1893, 3, 267–408. Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2925905#page/494/mode/1up (accessed on 18 May 2022). [CrossRef]
  49. Jaeger, H. 6. Ueber Die Sommercultureiniger Dracanenimfreien Landde. Gartenflora 1857, 6, 240–242. Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40083157#page/302/mode/1up (accessed on 18 May 2022).
  50. Engler, H.G.A. Unterfamilie: Dracaenoideae. In Die Pflanzenwelt Ost-Afrikas und der Nachbargebiete; Engler, H.G.A., Ed.; Reimer: Berlin, Germany, 1895; Volume 2, pp. 143–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Bos, J.J.; Teketay, D. Dracaenaceae. In Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea; Edwards, S., Mesfin, T., Demissew, S., Eds.; The National Herbarium, Addis Ababa University: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1997; Volume 6, pp. 76–82. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mwachala, G.; Mbugua, P.K. Dracaenaceae. In Flora of Tropical East Africa; Beentje, H.J., Ghazanfar, S.A., Eds.; Royal Botanic Gardens: Kew, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  53. Rendle, A.B. Catalogue of the Plants Collected by Mr. & Mrs. P.A. Talbotin the Oban District, South Nigeria; Printed by Order of the Trustees: London, UK, 1913; p. 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Engler, H.G.A.; Krause, K. Liliaceae Africanae II–Dracaena. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 1910, 45, 123–155. Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/216945#page/162/mode/1up (accessed on 18 May 2022).
  55. Hutchinson, J. Dracaena vaginata Hutch. Flora West Trop. Afr. 1936, 3, 384. [Google Scholar]
  56. Baker, J.G. Further Contributions to the Flora of Madagascar. J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 1885, 21, 407–455. Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/176983#page/463/mode/1up (accessed on 18 May 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, Z.; Idrees, M.; Zheng, X.; Jiao, Y.; Prodhan, Z.H. Nomenclature Notes and Typification of Names in Dracaena (Asparagaceae, Nolinoideae). Forests 2022, 13, 1237. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13081237

AMA Style

Zhang Z, Idrees M, Zheng X, Jiao Y, Prodhan ZH. Nomenclature Notes and Typification of Names in Dracaena (Asparagaceae, Nolinoideae). Forests. 2022; 13(8):1237. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13081237

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Zhiyong, Muhammad Idrees, Xu Zheng, Yongqing Jiao, and Zakaria H. Prodhan. 2022. "Nomenclature Notes and Typification of Names in Dracaena (Asparagaceae, Nolinoideae)" Forests 13, no. 8: 1237. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13081237

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop