taxonID	type	description	language	source
7123D92AFF9C1E20FF1A2BE1FCD4FA34.taxon	discussion	The holotype and isotype of Carex glossostigma Handel-Mazzetti (1922: 140), a species now placed in sect. Siderosticta in Roalson et al. (2021), showed immature utricles and nutlets (Figure 1: A, B). This species is widely distributed in East to South China and more than 100 specimens were examined by the authors. This species is clearly identified as vegetative culms different from flowering culms, leaf blades considerably broader> 1 cm, abaxially glabrous to pilose, spikes androgynous, 1 – 5 in each bract sheath (Dai et al. 2010) (Figure 1: D ‒ F, H). Ohwi (1936: 654) described Carex hypoblephara and indicated in the protologue that this species was similar to C. foliosissima F. Schmidt (1868: 195) (placed in Conica clade in Roalson et al. 2021) in leaf shape and to C. pilosa Scopoli (1772: 226) (in sect. Paniceae in Roalson et al. 2021) in utricle shape. In Flora of China, Dai et al. (2010) placed this species in sect. Careyanae Tuckerm. ex Kükenthal (1909: 679) and recorded the terminal spike as staminate. The holotype of C. hypoblephara, collected from Lushan of E China, was carefully checked. It showed that leaf blades of vegetative culms are pilose on lower surfaces, spikes androgynous, 1 – 3 in each bract sheath, and utricles densely papillose and short beaked (Figure 1: C, G), which is consistent to those of C. glossostigma in Institutum Botanicum Academiae Sinicae (1976: 314), Zheng (1993: 300), Liang et al. (2000: 218) and Dai et al. (2010: 348). Consequently, C. hypoblephara is reduced to a synonym of C. glossostigma.	en	Jin, Shui-Hu, Lu, Yi-Fei, Chen, Wei-Jie, Jin, Xiao-Feng (2022): Notes on Carex (Cyperaceae) from China (VII): new synonyms and imperfectly known species. Phytotaxa 531 (1): 54-62, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.531.1.4
7123D92AFF9D1E23FF1A2AB8FBC7FB0C.taxon	discussion	Carex graciliflora Dunn (1908: 372), was described as a new species from an immature specimen, which was similar to C. brunnea Thunberg (1784: 38), and now was placed in sect. Graciles in Roalson et al. 2021. It has not been treated in Flora of China or other Chinese floras to date. The holotype displays pseudo-lateral culms, spikes androgynous, 1 – 3 in each bract sheath, utricles glabrous, and stigmas 3 (Dunn described as ‘ stylus 2 - fidus’) (Figure 2: A). All these characters revealed that this plant is more related to C. grandiligulata Kükenthal (in Diels, 1905: 9) and C. glossostigma (in sect. Siderostictae Franchet, 1898: 106) than to C. brunnea. Types of both Carex dayunshanensis L. K. Ling & Y. Z. Huang (in Ling, 1995: 689) and C. wuyishanensis S. Yun Liang (1996: 94) were collected from Fujian Province of SE China. The former was initially reduced to a synonym of C. glossostigma, but the holotype and two paratypes showed leaf blades 4.5 – 7 mm wide, glabrous, and lax androgynous spikes with 3 – 7 utricles at the base. The collection by ‘ Y. Z. Huang (Ȓ 以ë) 188 ’ was marked as ‘ type’ (equivalent to ‘ 模式标本 ’ or holotype) of C. dayunshanensis but mistakenly numbered as ‘ 198 ’ in the protologue (Figure 2: B). Compared to the type materials of C. dayunshanensis and C. wuyishanensis with that of C. graciliflora (Figure 2), this resulted in that the former two names have to be reduced to synonyms of the latter.	en	Jin, Shui-Hu, Lu, Yi-Fei, Chen, Wei-Jie, Jin, Xiao-Feng (2022): Notes on Carex (Cyperaceae) from China (VII): new synonyms and imperfectly known species. Phytotaxa 531 (1): 54-62, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.531.1.4
7123D92AFF9E1E23FF1A28F0FEA1FFF8.taxon	discussion	Based on the specimen S. Yamazaki 31, collected from Mt. Yuelu of Changsha in Hunan, Koyama (1956: 315) described C. dolichogyne as a new species. He distinguished it from Carex formosensis H. Lév. & Vaniot (in Léveillé, 1905: 216, placed in Mitrata clade in Roalson et al. 2021) in having rather sparsely flowered pistillate spikes, and longer (ca. 4.5 mm) utricles. In the protologue, Koyama also considered that his new species was similar to C. ligata Boott (in Bentham, 1861: 402, placed in Truncatigluma clade in Roalson et al. 2021), but differed from it by its shorter staminate spikes (ca. 1.5 cm long) and longer utricles. Compared with other species in sect. Lageniformes (Ohwi, 1936: 340) Nelmes (1951: 366), Carex dolichogyne has the nutlets with a distinct, 0.7 – 0.8 mm long, cylindric neck at the apex, which is consistent to those of C. truncatigluma (nutlet necks cylindric, 0.5 – 1 mm long) (Figure 3). Thus, we reduced C. dolichogyne to a synonym of C. truncatigluma.	en	Jin, Shui-Hu, Lu, Yi-Fei, Chen, Wei-Jie, Jin, Xiao-Feng (2022): Notes on Carex (Cyperaceae) from China (VII): new synonyms and imperfectly known species. Phytotaxa 531 (1): 54-62, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.531.1.4
7123D92AFF9F1E22FF1A2E7FFB28FD51.taxon	discussion	From the protologue of Carex ferruginea var. tatsiensis Franch. (1898: 55) (≡ C. tatsiensis, placed in Haematostoma clade in Roalson et al. 2021) and C. kwangtoushanica K. T. Fu (1976: 447, not treated by Roalson et al. 2021), the latter is distinguished from the former in having rhizomes short (vs. rhizomes long and stoloniferous), and terminal spikes 2 or 3 and linear-cylindric (vs. terminal spike solitary and linear). Remarkably, in Flora of China, the authors divided section Aulocystis into two subsections by utricles glabrous or hispidulous, and placed C. kwangtoushanica and C. tatsiensis in each of the two subsections. We examined the holotype of Carex tatsiensis in P and an isotype in E. The rhizomes are frequently short (three individuals), rarely long with stolons (one individual), and terminal spikes 1 – 5, linear to linear-cylindric (Figure 4: A, B). Those of C. kwangtoushanica range into the variation of C. tatsiensis. The utricle bodies of C. kwangtoushanica and C. tatsiensis are both glabrous. Accordingly C. kwangtoushanica was reduced as a synonym.	en	Jin, Shui-Hu, Lu, Yi-Fei, Chen, Wei-Jie, Jin, Xiao-Feng (2022): Notes on Carex (Cyperaceae) from China (VII): new synonyms and imperfectly known species. Phytotaxa 531 (1): 54-62, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.531.1.4
7123D92AFF981E25FF1A2DD5FC6BFB2B.taxon	discussion	In our revision of sect. Rhomboidales Kükenthal (1909: 622) (Jin & Zheng 2013), the name Carex martini H. Léveillé & Vaniot (1902: 57, not treated by Roalson et al. 2021) was treated as a synonym of C. simulans C. B. Clarke (1904: 310, placed in sect. Rhomboidales in Roalson et al. 2021), mainly based on a photo of holotype in K (Jin & Zheng 2013). Based on the general morphology, Carex martini, C. simulans and C. rhynchophora Franchet (1895: 51, placed in sect. Rhomboidales in Roalson et al. 2021) are indeed similar to each another (Figure 5). In August 2016, the senior author (XF Jin) carried out a second visit to the Paris Natural History Museum, and found the holotype of Carex martini. The utricles of this specimen are glabrous, with the beak margin scabrous, and the nutlets are rhombic-ovoid, with 3 angles constricted at middle, and sides concave above and below (Figure 5: D – F). Carex rhynchophora, displays utricles ranging from glabrous to rarely sparsely pubescent (e. g. Y. J. Li 791 in CDBI!, anonymous 392 in CDBI!), with the beak margin scabrous, and the nutlets are rhombic-ovoid, with 3 angles shallowly constricted at middle, rarely markedly constricted (e. g. S. Y. Chang 130 in HHBG! & PE!, L. Hong 470 in HHBG!, S Guizhou Exped. 429 in PE!), and sides concave above and below. On the contrary, in C. simulans, the utricles are glabrous, and the nutlets are obovoid, with 3 angles not constricted at middle, and sides concave below. Consequently, Carex martini is correctly placed as a synonym of C. rhynchophora.	en	Jin, Shui-Hu, Lu, Yi-Fei, Chen, Wei-Jie, Jin, Xiao-Feng (2022): Notes on Carex (Cyperaceae) from China (VII): new synonyms and imperfectly known species. Phytotaxa 531 (1): 54-62, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.531.1.4
7123D92AFF991E24FF1A2DA3FF11FB09.taxon	discussion	Carex fokienensis Dunn (1908: 371, placed in sect. Hymonochlaenae in Roalson et al. 2021) is distributed in Fujian, south-western to southern Zhejiang, and south-eastern Guzhou provinces. It is characterized by staminate spike 1, terminal, lateral pistillate spikes 1 – 3 in each bract sheath, and utricles pale green, shiny, glabrous, obliquely to horizontally patent (Dunn 1908, Jin et al. 2007). Dunn (1908) designated the collection (Hongkong Herb. 3658 A) as the type, but didn’t cite the preserved herbarium. Jin et al. (2007) cited that the holotype was in K, and isotypes respectively in IBSC and P. We carefully checked three specimens marked ‘ Carex fokienensis ’ by Dunn, which deposited in IBSC (barcode IBSC 0005453), K (barcode K 000961013) and P (barcode P 00283130) (Figure 6). The specimen in K is ‘ Hongkong Herb. 3658 ’, but not ‘ Hongkong Herb. 3658 A ’, and should be actually identified as C. glossostigma (Figure 6: B). The specimen in IBSC is ‘ Hongkong Herb. 3656 ’, although it was also marked ‘ = 3658 A ’ with pencil (Figure 6: C). Herein, we recognized the specimen marked ‘ Hongkong Herb. 3658 A ’ in P (with barcode P 00283130), which is the best fit to the description of Dunn in 1908. Accordingly, the type citation in Jin et al. (2007: 364) must be considered erroneous.	en	Jin, Shui-Hu, Lu, Yi-Fei, Chen, Wei-Jie, Jin, Xiao-Feng (2022): Notes on Carex (Cyperaceae) from China (VII): new synonyms and imperfectly known species. Phytotaxa 531 (1): 54-62, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.531.1.4
7123D92AFF991E27FF1A2A04FDC4FA99.taxon	materials_examined	Type: — CHINA. Kouy-Tchéou [Guizhou], Pin-fa [Pingfa], 28 Apr. 1905, J. Cavalerie 2331 (holotype: P- 00280849!; isotype: P- 00280850!).	en	Jin, Shui-Hu, Lu, Yi-Fei, Chen, Wei-Jie, Jin, Xiao-Feng (2022): Notes on Carex (Cyperaceae) from China (VII): new synonyms and imperfectly known species. Phytotaxa 531 (1): 54-62, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.531.1.4
7123D92AFF991E27FF1A2A04FDC4FA99.taxon	discussion	Carex macrosandra (Franchet, 1897: 169) V. I. Kreczetowicz (1946: 189), was placed in sect. Clandestinae in Roalson et al. 2021. It has been recorded in some Chinese taxonomic literature as a poorly known species. Originally Franchet (1897) described this taxon as a variety of C. lanceolata Boott (in Gray, 1856: 326, placed in sect. Clandestinae in Roalson et al. 2021) (Figure 7: A) and designated three collections (Henry 1288, Henry 7846 and Henry 7860) as syntypes (Figure 7: B – F). Franchet noted that his new variety differed from the typical one, C. lanceolata, in having longer staminate spikes (Figure 7: B – E). Clarke (1904) transferred it as a variety of C. pediformis C. A. Meyer (1831: 219, placed in sect. Clandestinae in Roalson et al. 2021). Later Kreczetowitcz (1946) raised it to species rank. The syntypes of C. macrosandra have, in fact, relatively short staminate spikes and peduncles, which are consistent to those of C. lanceolata (Figure 7: F, G). Moreover, Kreczetowitcz (1946: 189) proposed the new combination, C. macrosandra, and erroneosly designated (1946: 190) A. Henry 7890 from Hubei as the type. Accordingly, the name still needs lectotypification, which we designate on Henry 1288. Carex cavaleriensis H. Lév. & Vaniot (in Léveillé, 1907: 349), placed in sect. Clandestinae in Roalson et al. 2021), was treated as a synonym of C. macrosandra (Zhao et al. 2011) (Figure 7: H – K). However, according to the examination of the type specimen, it differs from C. macrosandra in having staminate spikes longer, 5.5 – 7 cm long (vs. 0.5 – 2 cm long), staminate scales purple-black (vs. brown to red-brown), and lateral spikes 1.5 – 3 cm long (vs. 1 – 1.7 cm long) with 30 + flowers densely arranged (vs. with 5 – 13 flowers) (Figure 7: H, I). Thus, C. cavaleriensis is recognized as a distinct and independent species.	en	Jin, Shui-Hu, Lu, Yi-Fei, Chen, Wei-Jie, Jin, Xiao-Feng (2022): Notes on Carex (Cyperaceae) from China (VII): new synonyms and imperfectly known species. Phytotaxa 531 (1): 54-62, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.531.1.4
