(2759) Androsace bulleyana Forrest in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 4: 233. Apr 1908 [Angiosp.: Primul.], nom. cons. prop.

Typus: China, Yunnan, on the descent from the Chung Tien plateau to the Yangtze valley near Tang Tui, dry rocky hillsides, alt. 10,000 ft., Sep 1906, Forrest 108 (E barcode E00024860!; isotypus: K barcode K000750346!).

(=) Androsace coccinea Franch. in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 33: 63. 1 Apr 1886, nom. rej. prop.

Lectotypus (hic designatus): China, Yunnan, Lan Kong (Eryuan County), “yang in chan”, alt. 2500 m, 30 Jul 1883, Delavay 65 (P barcode P04907125!; isolectotypi: P barcodes P04906863!, P04906865!, P04906867!).

Androsace coccinea Franch. (in Bull. Soc. Bot. France 33: 63. 1886) is a name mentioned in the discussion of the morphological distinction between Primula L. and Androsace L. in light of the collections from China by the Abbé Delavay. Franchet noted that the corolla color of a new species differed from all other Androsace species and included a new name in parentheses, writing: “Les Androsace ne sont plus toujours des plantes à fleurs blanches ou rosées; leurs fleurs peuvent être aussi d'un rouge ponceau (A. coccinea sp. nov.)” [The Androsace are no longer always plants with white or pink flowers; their flowers can also be poppy red (A. coccinea sp. nov.)]. Due to the lack of a detailed description and of cited specimens, the name A. coccinea has nearly always been treated as a nomen nudum ever since its listing in Index Kewensis (Jackson, Index Kew. Suppl. 1: 27. 1902) and the first review of the genus Androsace by Pax & Knuth (in Engler, Pflanzenr. IV. 237 (Heft 22): 185. 1905) through to recently published literature, including the online checklists of the International Plant Names Index (https://www.ipni.org/n/700231-1 [accessed on 26 Apr 2020]) and The Plant List (http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2637473 [accessed on 26 Apr 2020]).

Actually, Franchet himself may not have recognized that the name A. coccinea was validly published as, when he described the new variety A. aizoon Duby var. coccinea Franch. (in J. Bot. (Morot) 9: 456. 1895), he made no mention of his earlier publication but again emphasised the poppy or darker red flowers (“rouge‐ponceau ou rouge noir”).

However, strictly following the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN, Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018), despite the brevity and informality of the descriptive statement for A. coccinea, it is clearly presented as a diagnosis (“a statement of that which in the opinion of its author distinguishes the taxon from other taxa”, Art. 38.2 of the ICN). According to our morphological observations, especially on living material, the vermilion to scarlet corolla is the key character by which A. coccinea can be distinguished from all other species of Androsace. Thus, the name A. coccinea was indeed validly published by Franchet (l.c. 1886; cf. ICN Art. 38 Ex. 5).

As mentioned above, no specimen was cited by Franchet when publishing the name Androsace coccinea, but in describing A. aizoon var. coccinea, Franchet (l.c. 1895) cited three collections: Delavay 65 from Yunnan, Prince Henri d'Orléans from “Su‐tchuen” (Sichuan) and Soulié from “Tongolo” (Xinduqiao Town near Kangding in Sichuan). After examining all of these specimens, we find that only Delavay 65 was labeled with both “Androsace coccinea Franch.” and “Androsace aizoon Duby var. coccinea Franch.” by Franchet himself. This is in accord with the discussion of Delavay collections in the protologue; thus, we consider that Delavay 65 is original material of A. coccinea. Furthermore, only the sheet P04907125 (Delavay 65; deposited at P) was annotated by Franchet. Hence, we selected this sheet as the lectotype of the name A. coccinea. The other two collections mentioned in the account of A. aizoon var. coccinea Franch., those of Prince Henri d'Orléans and Soulié, deposited at P (barcodes P04907149! and P04907146!, respectively) proved to be of another well‐established taxon of Androsace (A. integra (Maxim.) Hand.‐Mazz.).

Androsace bulleyana Forrest (in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 4: 233. 1908) was described based on a collection by George Forrest in Yunnan Province, China. The precise locality is on the descent from the Chung Tien plateau to the Yangtze valley near Tang Tui, adjacent to Lan Kong (Eryuan County), the type locality of A. coccinea, and the collection data also included “Flowers bright vermillion”, similar to those described for A. coccinea. All subsequent authors have agreed that the two are conspecific and customarily used the name A. bulleyana, overlooking the valid publication of A. coccinea giving it priority over A. bulleyana.

The only exception in the taxonomic literature of which we are aware is the account of A. coccinea in Curtis's Botanical Magazine (Scott in Bot. Mag. 142: t. 8653. 1916). Scott considered that Pax & Knuth (l.c.) had validated the name by citing it as a synonym of A. aizoon var. coccinea (a view that had only become untenable in the Vienna Rules; Briquet, Règles Int. Nomencl. Bot. 1906). Androsace coccinea, as first published by Franchet, has always been treated as a nomen nudum and, when mentioned, listed as a synonym of A. bulleyana in taxonomic revisions (Handel‐Mazzetti in Acta Horti Gothob. 2: 113. 1926, in Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh 15: 276. 1927; Hu & Yang in Acta Phytotax. Sin. 24: 231. 1986), floras (Yang & Huang in Chen & Hu, Fl. Reipubl. Popularis Sin. 59(1): 199. 1989; Hu & Kelso in Wu & Raven, Fl. China 15: 98. 1996; Fang, Fl. Yunnan. 15: 399. 2003), checklists (Ying & al. in Wu, Index Fl. Yunnan. 2: 1476. 1984; Yu & al., Sp. Cat. China 1(7): 209. 2016; Chen in Hong, Fl. Pan‐Himalaya Prelim. Cat.: 232. 2019) and monographs (Smith & Lowe, Androsaces: 37. 1977; Smith & Lowe, Genus Androsace: 55. 1997).

Therefore, for the sake of maintaining nomenclatural stability and for the convenience of the users, we propose that the name A. bulleyana be conserved against A. coccinea under Art. 14 of the ICN.