(2782) Calanthe R. Br. in Bot. Reg. 7: ad t. 573 (‘578'). 1 Nov 1821 [Orchid.], nom. cons.

Typus: C. veratrifolia Ker Gawl. (in Bot. Reg.: t. 720. 1 Jul 1823), nom. illeg. (Orchis triplicata Willemet, C. triplicata (Willemet) Ames).

(=) Phaius Lour., Fl. Cochinch.: 517, 529. Sep 1790, nom. rej. prop.

Typus: P. grandifolius Lour.

(=) Alismorkis Thouars in Nouv. Bull. Sci. Soc. Philom. Paris 1: 318. Apr 1809, nom. rej.

Typus (hic designatus): A. sylvalismis Thouars (Hist. Orchid.: t. 35, 36. 1822) (Centrosis sylvatica Thouars).

(=) Cyanorkis Thouars in Nouv. Bull. Sci. Soc. Philom. Paris 1: 317. Apr 1809, nom. rej. prop.

Typus (hic designatus): C. cyanorchis Thouars (Hist. Orchid.: t. 33, 34. 1822) (Epidendrum tetragonum Thouars).

(=) Gastorkis Thouars in Nouv. Bull. Sci. Soc. Philom. Paris 1: 317. Apr 1809, nom. rej. prop.

Typus: Limodorum tankervilleae Banks.

Phylogenetic analyses of the orchid tribe Collabieae (Xiang & al. in PLoS One 9: e87625. 2014; Zhai & al. in Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 77: 216–222. 2014) have clearly demonstrated that species of the genera Calanthe and Phaius as currently circumscribed are intermixed in the phylogenetic tree (non‐monophyletic) with the smaller genera Gastrorchis Schltr. (1921) and Cephalantheropsis Guillaumin (1960) embedded among the various clades formed by the first two. Before these last two genera were described, their species were included in Phaius and Calanthe, respectively. Calanthe is a relatively large genus (c. 220 species; Clayton & Cribb, Gen. Calanthe: 1–411. 2013; Chase & al. in Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 177: 151–174. 2015) and is important in many Asian floras and global horticulture, whereas Phaius has c. 41 species (Stone & Cribb, Lady Tankerville's Legacy: 1–278. 2017), Gastrorchis 8 and Cephalantheropsis only 5. To avoid the need to transfer the more numerous species of Calanthe to Phaius, which has priority, Yukawa & Cribb (in Bull. Natl. Mus. Nat. Sci., Ser. B, 40: 145–151. 2014) proposed to split up Calanthe, leading to the resurrection of Preptanthe Rchb. f. (1853) and Styloglossum Breda (1829) to maintain a monophyletic Calanthe s.str. This is unsatisfactory from a morphological perspective because there are no significant morphological characters to distinguish Preptanthe and Styloglossum from Calanthe s.str. Likewise, there are no reliable morphological characters distinguishing the other genera, including Phaius and Gastrorchis, from Calanthe. Traditionally, Calanthe and Phaius were distinguished by the lip being adnate to or almost free from the column, respectively, but all intermediate conditions exist. Zhai & al. (l.c.) proposed Paraphaius J.W. Zhai & F.W. Xing to accommodate a group of former Phaius species that clustered with a clade composed of Calanthe species and moved another species of Phaius into a newly proposed section of Calanthe. Zhai & al. (l.c.) included only 9 (mostly Chinese) of the c. 41 species of Phaius in their analyses and none of Gastrorchis, which was shown by Xiang & al. (l.c.) to also be embedded in this clade, perhaps as sister to Calanthe s.str. It is unclear how the remainder of the species in these genera will fit into the generic scheme proposed by Zhai & al. (l.c.), but it is likely that more genera would need to be established in order to maintain a classification that attempts to retain some form of Calanthe s.str.

Phaius precedes Calanthe by 31 years, and both names are still in common use. We propose here to combine all genera in the Calanthe‐Phaius alliance and to reject the name Phaius and its synonyms Cyanorkis and Gastorkis in favour of that of the largest and horticulturally most important genus, Calanthe, which will give taxonomic stability to this group. Recognition of both Phaius and Calanthe would require acceptance of a still undetermined number of additional genera, resulting in a classification with little if any morphological support. If the name Phaius is maintained because of its priority over Calanthe, a much larger number of new combinations will be needed when the two genera are combined. Several Calanthe s.l. species and a large number of artificial hybrids are ubiquitous in horticulture, whereas only three or four species of Phaius are at all common in cultivation, and few hybrids have been made. In the interest of nomenclatural stability, we propose the rejection of Phaius against the already conserved genus Calanthe (conserved against Alismorkis Thouars, nom. rej.; Wiersema & al., ICN Appendices I–VII, https://naturalhistory2.si.edu/botany/codes-proposals/).

The names proposed by Thouars (l.c. 1809, and later) have caused much confusion because in addition to using the nomenclature broadly in use at that time he also proposed an alternative naming system (Friis & Rasmussen in Taxon 24: 307–318. 1975). He published the three genera Alismorkis, Cyanorkis and Gastorkis in 1809 with a short diagnosis for each, but without listing the species that he considered to belong to them. Of Alismorkis and Cyanorkis he noted that they contained a single species. In the case of Gastorkis he mentioned that Limodorum tankervilleae Banks would belong to it, among others, but the diagnosis exclusively applies to some species that were later included in Schlechter's genus Gastrorchis. According to the Code (Art. 10.2 and Art. 40.3), L. tankervilleae must be considered the type of Gastorkis, so that the latter cannot have priority over Gastrorchis, since L. tankervilleae cannot be included in Gastrorchis (it is a synonym of the type of Phaius). In a later publication, Thouars (Hist. Orchid. 1822) changed the spelling of ‐orkis to ‐orchis and provided illustrations of the four species concerned, giving names to them both in his alternative naming system and according to “traditional” nomenclature: Gastorkis (‘Gastorchis') tuberogastris (‘Tuberogastris'), with traditional name Limodorum tuberculosum; Gastorkis (‘Gastorchis') villosagastris (‘Villosagastris'), with traditional name Limodorum villosum; Cyanorkis (‘Cyanorchis') cyanorchis (‘Cyanorchis'), with traditional name Epidendrum tetragonum; and Alismorkis (‘Alismorchis') sylvalismis (‘Sylvalismis'), with traditional name Centrosis sylvatica. The last mentioned is listed in two columns of the “Premier Tableau des Espèces d'Orchidées” in the front matter of the book as “Centrosis? Sw.” “Plantaginea”, where the generic name can be taken as a validly published, although superfluous, replacement name for Alismorkis. Since Thouars (l.c. 1822) only associated one specific epithet with these generic names, we designate (above) Alismorkis sylvalismis Thouars (l.c. 1822: tt. 35 & 36) and Cyanorkis cyanorchis Thouars (l.c. 1822: tt. 33 & 34) as types of Alismorkis and Cyanorkis, respectively. Beginning with Sprengel (Syst. Veg. 3: 1–936. 1826), Richard (in Mém. Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris 4: 1–74. 1828) and Lindley (Gen. Sp. Orchid. Pl.: 123. 1831), authors have largely misunderstood and ignored Thouars's alternative names such as Gastorkis villosagastris and used the traditional names as basionyms, so that Limodorum villosum became the basionym of Bletia villosa (Thouars) Spreng., Phaius villosus (Thouars) Schltr. and Gastrorchis villosus (Thouars) J.V. Stone & P.J. Cribb. However, as first argued by Kuntze (in Bull. Herb. Boissier 2: 457–464. 1894) and supported by Friis & Rasmussen (l.c.), for the purpose of nomenclature Thouars's alternative names must be accepted as validly published, and they will occasionally have priority when new combinations are needed.

In summary, conserving Calanthe against Phaius, Cyanorkis and Gastorkis would allow for a much smaller number of new combinations and new names. A broadly circumscribed Calanthe is the most taxonomically and nomenclaturally stable solution; it would better reflect morphology and be compatible with likely results of future molecular phylogenetic studies.

（2782）卡兰特河 在Bot。Reg。7：广告 573（'578'）。1821年11月1日[兰花]，标称值。缺点

类型：C。veratrifolia Ker Gawl。（Bot。Reg .: t。720. 1823年7月1日），标称值。illeg。（Orchis triplicata Willemet，C. triplicata（Willemet）Ames）。

（=）Phaius Lour。，Fl。Cochinch：517，529。1790年9月，标价。rej。支柱。

Typus：P. grandifolius阴沉。

（=）新艺术风格的Alismorkis Thouars。公牛。科学 Soc。菲隆 巴黎1：318。1809年4月，标价。rej。

Typus（Typicus）： A。sylvalismis Thouars（Hist。Orchid.：t。35，36 . 1822）（Sylosis sylvatica Thouars）。

（=）努瓦的Cyanorkis Thouars。公牛。科学 Soc。菲隆 巴黎1：317。1809年4月，标价。rej。支柱。

Typus（Typicus）： C。cyanorchis Thouars（Hist。Orchid . : t。33，34 . 1822）（Epidendrum tetragonum Thouars）。

（=）Gastorkis Thouars的在Nouv。公牛。科学 Soc。菲隆 巴黎1：317。1809年4月，标价。rej。支柱。

Typus：Limodorum tankervilleae银行。

兰花部落Collabieae的系统发育分析（Xiang等人，PLoS One 9：e87625。2014； Zhai等人，Molec。Phylogen。Evol。77：216–222。2014）清楚地证明了Calanthe和目前限定的Phaius与较小的Gastrorchis Schltr属在系统发育树中混合（非单系）。（1921）和头足类动物纪尧姆（1960）嵌入了前两个形成的各种进化枝中。在描述这两个属之前，它们的种类分别包含在Phaius和Calanthe中。卡兰特是一个相对较大的属（约220种; Clayton＆Cribb，Gen. Calanthe：1–411。2013; Chase等人在Bot。J. Linn。Soc。177：151–174。2015）并且在许多亚洲植物区系和全球园艺，而Phaius有c。41种（Stone＆Cribb，Lady Tankerville的遗产：1-278。2017年），Gastrorchis 8和Cephalantheropsis仅5种。为了避免将更多的Calanthe物种转移到Phaius（优先考虑），Yukawa＆Cribb（in Bull）（Natl。Mus。Nat。Sci。，Ser。B，40：145-151。2014）建议拆分Calanthe，导致Preptanthe Rchb复活。F。（1853年）和Styloglossum布雷达（1829）保持单系Calanthe s.str。从形态学的角度来看，这是不能令人满意的，因为没有明显的形态学特征可将Preptanthe和Styloglossum与Calanthe s.str。分开。同样，也没有可靠的形态学特征将其他属（包括Phaius和Gastrorchis）与Calanthe区分开。传统上，Calanthe和Phaius的特征是唇部贴合在圆柱上或几乎没有圆柱，但存在所有中间条件。翟等 （lc）建议的帕拉菲乌斯ZW Zhai和FW Xing容纳一组以前的Phaius物种，这些物种聚集了由Calanthe物种组成的进化枝，并将另一种Phaius物种移入了一个新提议的Calanthe地区。翟等 （lc）仅包括c中的9个（大部分为中文）。41种的鹤顶在他们的分析和无的Gastrorchis，这是由项＆人示出。（lc）也可能嵌入到这个分支中，也许是作为Calanthe的姐妹s.str。目前尚不清楚这些属中的其余物种如何适应Zhai等人提出的通用方案。（lc），但可能需要建立更多的属，以维持试图保留某种形式的Calanthe s.str。的分类。

Phaius比Calanthe早31年，而且这两个名字仍然很常用。我们在此建议合并Calanthe - Phaius联盟中的所有属，并拒绝使用Phaius及其同义词Cyanorkis和Gastorkis的名称，而推荐最大的且在园艺上最重要的属Calanthe，这将为该类提供分类学稳定性。认识Phaius和Calanthe都需要接受尚不确定数量的其他属，从而导致几乎没有形态学支持的分类。如果名字叫Phaius由于其优先级高于Calanthe，因此将其保留下来，将这两个属合并时，将需要大量新的组合。园艺中普遍存在几种Calanthe sl物种和大量人工杂种，而在养殖中普遍只有3或4种Phaius物种，很少杂交。为了命名稳定性，我们建议拒绝Phaius反对已经保守的Calanthe属（保守反对Alismorkis Thouars，nom。rej .； Wiersema等人，ICN附录I–VII，https：//naturalhistory2.si.edu / botany / codes-proposals /）。

Thouars（lc 1809及以后）提出的名称引起了很大的混乱，因为除了广泛使用当时使用的命名法外，他还提出了一种替代的命名系统（Friis＆Rasmussen in Taxon 24：307-318。1975）。 。他于1809年发表了Alismorkis，Cyanorkis和Gastorkis三个属，并对每个属进行了简短的诊断，但没有列出他认为属于它们的物种。的Alismorkis和Cyanorkis他指出，他们包含在一个单一的物种。对于Gastorkis，他提到Limodorum tankervilleae银行将属于该银行，但该诊断仅适用于某些后来被包括在Schlechter的Gastrorchis属中的物种。根据《守则》（第10.2条和第40.3条），L。tankervilleae必须被认为是Gastorkis的类型，这样后者就不能优先于Gastrorchis，因为L. tankervilleae不能包含在Gastrorchis中（这是Phaius类型的同义词）。在后来的出版物中，Thouars（Hist。Orchid。1822）将Orkis的拼写改为Orchis并提供了有关的四个物种的插图，并在他的替代命名系统中并根据“传统”命名为它们命名：Gastorkis（' Gastorchis '）tuberogastris（' Tuberogastris '），传统名称为Limodorum tuberculosum；Gastorkis（' Gastorchis '）villosagastris（' Villosagastris '），传统名称为Limodorum villosum；Cyanorkis（' Cyanorchis '）cyanorchis（' Cyanorchis '），传统名称为Epidendrum tetragonum; 和Alismorkis（' Alismorchis '）sylvalismis（' Sylvalismis '），传统名称为Centrosis sylvatica。最后提到的这本书的最前面一栏在“西班牙兰花高级总理”的两栏中列出了“中枢？Sw。” “ Plantaginea ”，其中的通用名称可以被视为Alismorkis的有效替代名称，尽管是多余的。由于Thouars（lc 1822）仅将一个特定的上位词与这些通用名称相关联，因此我们将Alismorkis sylvalismis Thouars（lc 1822：tt。35＆36）和Cyanorkis cyanorchis指定（上）Thouars（lc 1822：tt。33＆34）分别是Alismorkis和Cyanorkis的类型。从Sprengel（Syst。Veg。3：1–936。1826），Richard（在Mém。Soc。Hist。Nat。Paris 4：1–74。1828）和Lindley（Gen. Sp。Orchid。Pl .: 123）开始。 （1831年），作者在很大程度上误解并忽略了Thouars的替代名称，例如Gastorkis villosagastris，并使用传统名称作为Basionym，因此Limodorum villosum成为Bletia villosa（Thouars）Spreng。，Phaius villosus（Thouars）Schltr的基础名称。和Gastrorchis villosus（呼声）JV Stone和PJ Cribb。但是，正如Kuntze（在Bull.Herb.Boissier 2：457–464.1894中）首先提出的那样，并在Friis＆Rasmussen（lc）的支持下，出于命名的目的，Thouars的替代名称必须被接受为有效发布，并且它们将需要新的组合时，有时会优先处理。

总之，保护虾脊兰属对鹤顶，Cyanorkis和Gastorkis将允许的新组合和新的名字要少很多。界线宽泛的Calanthe是分类学和命名学上最稳定的解决方案。它会更好地反映形态，并与将来的分子系统发育研究的可能结果兼容。