Untangling two Chinese Salix species (Salicaceae) published by C. K. Schneider, with lectotypification of four names

: Salix rhoophila C. K. Schneid. was originally described based on three collections. The specimens in these collections belong to two different taxa: S. rhoophila as currently recognized and a species that until now has usually been called S . alfredii Goerz ex Rehder & Kobuski. The original material of S. polyclona C. K. Schneid. and S. mictotricha C. K. Schneid. also represent the same two species. The names S. alfredii, S. mictotricha, S. polyclona and S. rhoophila are lectotypified. The orthography of S. wuana K. S. Hao ex C. F. Fang & A. K. Skvortsov is corrected (originally spelled as “ Wuiana ”). Salix alfredii , S. mictotricha and S. wuana are recognized as synonyms of S. polyclona . (


Introduction
Working within the framework of the Flora of Pan-Himalaya project, we have examined much relevant literature on Salix L. (Salicaceae) since 2010. In Plantae Wilsonianae, Schneider (1916) described 32 new Chinese taxa in Salix, including 30 species and two varieties based on E. H. Wilson's collections during the years 1907, 1908 and 1910. We examined the protologues of these taxa and all the original material that we could trace. We found that the original material of the names S. mictotricha C. K. Schneid., S. polyclona C. K. Schneid. and S. rhoophila C. K. Schneid., which Wilson collected from two neighbour-ing counties of Hubei Province (Xingshan County and Fang County), represent two currently recognized species: S. alfredii Goerz ex Rehder & Kobuski and S. rhoophila. This issue has been almost completely overlooked by previous taxonomists (Hao 1936;Chou & al. 1984;Fang & al. 1999). A. K. Skvortsov examined the original material of S. polyclona (Wilson 2116 and 2116 bis ), and labelled Wilson 2116 (A barcode 00031199) as S. hylonoma C. K. Schneid. and Wilson 2116 bis as S. rhoophila. Unfortunately, he did not discuss this issue in his publications. The purpose of the present work is to clarify the application of the names S. alfredii, S. mictotricha, S. polyclona and S. rhoophila as well as their taxonomy.
Phenology -Flowering from mid-April to mid-May; fruiting in May and June.

Distribution -Hubei and Shaanxi provinces of China.
Habitat -Mountain slopes, roadsides and valleys at altitudes of 1345 -2300 m. -Schneider (1916) described Salix rhoophila and cited Wilson 2117 as the "type", Wilson 2117 a as the "cotype", and another collection with sterile plant fragments, Wilson 2117 bis , which had mature leaves. Three duplicates of Wilson 2117 were found: A barcode 01536135 (♀), BM barcode BM000958022 (♀) and E barcode E00301602 (♀). In addition, three duplicates of Wilson 2117 a were traced: A barcode 00404477 (♂), BM barcode BM000958022 (♂) and US barcode 00105210 (♂); and one duplicate of Wilson 2117 bis was located: A barcode 01536133 (sterile). A barcode 01536135 and A barcode 0404477 are mounted together on a single sheet, and BM barcode BM000958022 includes material of both sexes. In Plantae Wilsonianae, Schneider (1916) always cited one gathering as the "type" and another gathering with branch(es) of the opposite sex as the "cotype"; if he had material of only one sex, he always only indicated one gathering as the "type". Because Wilson 2117 and Wilson 2117 a were collected by the same collector at one place and time, they belong to a single gathering as defined by Art. 8.2 footnote of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Turland & al. 2018, hereafter "Code"), even though they were given different numbers. Hence, all the specimens (duplicates) of Wilson 2117 and Wilson 2117 a are syntypes of S. rhoophila (Art. 9.6 of the Code).

Remarks
Our examinations indicated that duplicates of the type gathering (Wilson 2117 and Wilson 2117 a ) belong to two different taxa as currently recognized: Salix rho ophila and S. polyclona. Schneider (1916) was uncertain whether the sterile 2117 bis with mature leaves belonged to S. rhoophila as he defined it; we tentatively identify it as a hybrid of S. rhoophila. However, that specimen collected on a different date is not part of the gathering to which the syntypes belong.  Schneider's (1916) work was based on material collected by Wilson "for the Arnold Arboretum". However, the publication did not specify that typifications were restricted to the existing material at A, so the A and US duplicates of Wilson 2116 were syntypes under Art. 9.6 of the Code. The duplicate A barcode 00031199 is designated as the lectotype of S. polyclona because it is in far better condition, with several inflorescences, whereas the duplicate US barcode 00105232 is fragmentary and has no intact inflorescences. As for the other cited gathering, Wilson 2116 bis (A barcode 00055980), we note some confusion as to its numbering. Wilson originally wrote "2118 Bis" in grey on the label of the sheet, which someone later changed to "2116 Bis", scrawling "6" over "8" in black pen on the label without any note of explanation. Skvortsov noted on the sheet in 1997 that the collecting number on that sheet should be Wilson 2118 bis . However, we do not know who changed the number, when or why; Wilson himself might have made an error and later corrected it. The two numbers, Wilson 2116 and Wilson 2116[2118] bis , were collected on the same date, 16 May 1909, but on Wilson's labels of the two specimens at A the altitude of Wilson 2116 was given as "7-8000 ft" and that of Wilson 2116 [2118] bis was given as "5-7000 ft"; therefore, they were not from the same gathering.
Skvortsov observed part of Schneider's original material in 1997 and labelled Wilson 2116 (A 00031199) as "Salix hylonoma Schneid." and Wilson 2116[2118] bis (A barcode 00055980) as "Salix rhoophila Schneid." However, this was not mentioned in the subsequent Flora of China treatment (Fang & al. 1999) Schneider (1916) described Salix mictotricha and indicated Wilson 2118 as "type" and Wilson 2118 a as "cotype". These specimens belonged to a single gathering, because they were collected by the same person at one time and place. One specimen of Wilson 2118 was traced: A barcode 00404476 (♂). Four duplicates of Wilson 2118 a were found: A barcode 00055963, BM barcode BM000958023, E barcode E00301605 and US barcode 00105201 (all ♀). The single sheet at A includes fragments with inflorescences of both sexes: the main label gives the number 2118 and is marked "♂" and the barcode above it is 00404476, while elsewhere on the sheet, near a female fragment, is the annotation "♀ 2118 a " and the barcode 00055963. Our examination shows that the four duplicates of Wilson 2118 a are identifiable as S. rhoophila and the single fragment of Wilson 2118 is identifiable as S. polyclona. However, Hao (1936) overlooked this issue when he published an image of the sheet at A (i.e. A barcode 00055963 [♀] + barcode 00404476 [♂]) in his monograph. The protologue of S. mictotricha (Schneider 1916: 57) says of the male catkins: "bracteis obovato-rotundis utrinque fulvo-sericeis (pilis albis intermixtis)" and adds "This species may be easily distinguished by the brownish silky bracts of the ♂ plant" and "The specific name is derived from μικτός, mixed, and θρίξ, hair." Therefore, Wilson 2118 (A barcode 00404476 [♂]) best fits Schneider's concept of S. mictotricha and is designated as the lectotype of that name. Salix mictotricha and S. polyclona, now synonyms, were described simultaneously by Schneider in the same monograph and therefore have equal priority. No choice between the two names has previously been made under Art. 11.5 of the Code. We choose to adopt the name S. polyclona because the original material for this name is in better condition. Chou & al. (1984) treated "Salix Wuiana K. S. Hao" (Hao 1936, not validly published) as a synonym of S. alfredii before it was validated by Fang & Skvortsov (1998). However, the validly published name S. wuana K. S. Hao ex C. F. Fang & A. K. Skvortsov was not recorded in Flora of China (Fang & al. 1999). After examining the type specimens of S. wuana and S. polyclona, no relevant differences between these taxa were found. Therefore, the name S. wuana is synonymized with S. polyclona. Neither Hao (1936) nor Fang & Skvortsov (1998) specified an etymology for the epithet. However, Hao (1936: 13, 95, fig. 72) gave the epithet as "Wuiana", proving that it was named for a person, because throughout this work he capitalized the first letter of epithets only when they were based on people's names. Wu is a very common surname in China, shared by dozens of botanists, while "Wui" is not a Han name nor indeed a syllable normally used in Mandarin Chinese. Therefore, we assume that the species honoured a person named Wu and that the original spelling of the epithet is to be treated as an error to be corrected to wuana in accordance with Art. 60.8(c) of the Code.