identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03858791FFC7FF94DF0B922EFD90F844.text	03858791FFC7FF94DF0B922EFD90F844.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cheirostylis moniliformis (Griff.) Seidenf.	<div><p>Cheirostylis moniliformis (Griff.) Seidenf. in Dansk Bot. Ark. 32: 69. 1978.</p> <p>Ξ Goodyera moniliformis Griff., Itin. Pl. Khasyah Mts.: 143, no. 679. 1848.</p> <p>Typus: BHUTAN “ Bootan ”: Griffith A 679 (holo-: K [K000 387624], photo!;iso-: OXF).</p> <p>= Cheirostylis chinensis var. glabra Bhaumik &amp; M. K. Pathak in Bull. Bot. Surv. India 47: 183. 2006.</p> <p>Typus: INDIA. Arunachal Pradesh: Dibang Valley district, Bejari, 150 m, 5.III.2004, Bhaumik &amp; Tham 104752[A] (holo-: CAL!; iso-: ASSAM!, 2 sheets [B] [C]), syn. nov.</p> <p>Specimens examined. – INDIA. Arunachal Pradesh: Lohit District, Minzong-yasang, 3.X.1985 [flowered on 11.III.1986 at Sessa], A. N. Rao 21463, 21489 (Orchid Herbarium Tipi); West Kameng District, 2 km from Munna Camp (towards Dirang), 1491 m, 16.IV.2006, A. Bhattacharjee 34819 A, 34819 B (CAL).</p> <p>Note. – BHAUMIK &amp; PATHAK (2006) described C. chinensis var. glabra based on collections from Arunachal Pradesh and distinguished it from the type variety in having glabrous bracts and ovary, acuminate petals and epichile with 2 broad green patches at the base. But these authors overlooked the earlier described C. moniliformis which is identical (Fig. 1) with their variety. Thus, C. chinensis var. glabra is treated here as a heterotypic synonym of C. moniliformis.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03858791FFC7FF94DF0B922EFD90F844	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bhattacharjee, Avishek	Bhattacharjee, Avishek (2012): On the status of some species of Cheirostylis Blume (Orchidaceae) from India. Candollea 67 (1): 31-35, DOI: 10.15553/c2012v671a3
03858791FFC7FF94DC509770FBB2F845.text	03858791FFC7FF94DC509770FBB2F845.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cheirostylis parvifolia Lindl.	<div><p>Cheirostylis parvifolia Lindl.inEdwards ’s Bot.Reg. 25: 19. 1839.</p> <p>Typus: SRI LANKA “ Ceylon ”: Loddiges s.n. (holo-: K [K000718267], photo!).</p> <p>= Cheirostylis seidenfadeniana C. S. Kumar &amp; F. N. Rasm. in Nordic J. Bot. 7: 409. 1987.</p> <p>Typus: INDIA. Kerala: Ponmudi, Trivandrum Dist., 950 m, 25.X. 1983, C. Sathish Kumar CU 36960 (holo-: TBGT; iso-: C, CALI), syn. nov..</p> <p>Distribution. – India: Kerala, Maharashtra (fide JAYAWEERA, 1981;P UNEKAR, 2002);SriLanka.</p> <p>Note. – SATHISH KUMAR &amp; RASMUSSEN (1987) distinguished C. seidenfadeniana from C. parvifolia on the basis of epichile with entire lobules and 2 conspicuous tufts of hairs at its base. The authors mentioned that the material of C. parvifolia was very scarce from India and they could consult only 3 old herbarium specimens including the type (Loddiges s.n., K) which was in very bad condition. However, it has been found that the holotype including its associated illustrations of flower and dissected floral parts (on the type sheet) is sufficient for its purpose and there is no need of epitypification at present. During the present work, critical study of the live specimens of C. seidenfadeniana provided by Dr. C. Sathish Kumar (first author of C. seidenfadeniana) revealed that the minute tufts of hairs at the base of epichile can be seen only in live, pickled or very well preserved specimens but not in the old herbarium specimens. The present study also reveals that the margin of the epichile lobules of C. seidenfadeniana varies (Fig. 1) from nearly entire to 2-4 lacerate which clearly indicates that C. seidenfadeniana and C. parvifolia are the same species. Thus, C. seidenfadeniana is treated here as synonym of C. parvifolia. In spite of author’s personal visit to CALI and TBGT, the holotype and isotype(s) of C. seidenfadeniana could not be located as claimed in the protologue. Dr. Olof Ryding, Curator of Vascular Plants of C also confirmed the unavailability of any type specimen of C. seidenfadeniana in C. Surprisingly, a specimen bearing the same collection number and field data (excepting the date which is prior to publication of C. seidenfadeniana) as that of the holotype and isotypes of C. seidenfadeniana has been located at K. In absence of all the designated types (holotype and isotypes), the K-specimen may be selected as lectotype (if there is no doubt that it was actually used while describing C. seidenfadeniana) or as neotype of C. seidenfadeniana. For the time being the lecto-or neotypification has not been done in the present paper with a hope that the types may be found in near future. This rare species is presently grown and conserved in the Orchidarium of Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India by Dr. Sathish Kumar and his co-workers.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03858791FFC7FF94DC509770FBB2F845	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bhattacharjee, Avishek	Bhattacharjee, Avishek (2012): On the status of some species of Cheirostylis Blume (Orchidaceae) from India. Candollea 67 (1): 31-35, DOI: 10.15553/c2012v671a3
03858791FFC5FF96DF099075FAADFC05.text	03858791FFC5FF96DF099075FAADFC05.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cheirostylis griffithii Lindl.	<div><p>Cheirostylis griffithii Lindl. in J. Proc. Linn. Soc., Bot. 1: 188. 1857.</p> <p>Lectotypus (designated by SEIDENFADEN, 1978): INDIA. Meghalaya: Mamloo, Griffith s.n. (K-LINDL, photo!).</p> <p>= Cheirostylis mohanramii Chaturv., Moaakum &amp; C. S. Kumar in Nagaland Univ. SAP-Seminar Leaflet: [4]. 2009, nom. nud.</p> <p>Distribution. – India: Arunachal Pradesh (fide CHOWDHERY, 1998), Meghalaya, Nagaland, Sikkim (fide LUCKSOM, 2007), Uttaranchal (fide DEVA &amp; NAITHANI, 1986), West Bengal; Bangladesh; China; Myanmar; Nepal; Pakistan; Thailand.</p> <p>Specimens examined. – INDIA. Meghalaya: East Khasi Hills District, Mawphlong forest, 7.XI.1966, S. K. Kataki 37155 (ASSAM); Mawsmai, Khasi Hills, 19.XII.1972, P. K. Hajra 51876 (ASSAM). Nagaland: Naga Hills, 1935, N. L. Bor s.n. (DD). West Bengal: Darjeeling District, Kumai, near Jaldhaka river, 1219 m, XI.1894, Pantling 353 (CAL).</p> <p>Note. – The name C. mohanramii Chaturv., Moaakum &amp; C. S. Kumar was assigned to a collection from Aotsakilimi, Zunheboto district of Nagaland. It was claimed as a new species with a published photograph of an inflorescence (with three flowers) and brief information on its habit, habitat and phenology in a leaflet during a seminar organized by Department of Botany, Nagaland University on 20 th April, 2009. The leaflet is also available online at «http://www.nagauniv.org.in/menu/ events/SAP_SEMINAR_ 20April2009.pdf» and a photo-plate of C. mohanramii has also been deposited in CAL. However, the name C. mohanramii does not fulfill the conditions of an effective and valid publication as it lacks Latin diagnosis or description and type (s). After the study of dissected floral parts (photographs) of ‘ C. mohanramii ’ sent by Dr. C. Sathish Kumar, it is found identical to C. griffithii. In this circumstances C. mohanramii does not require to be validly published.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03858791FFC5FF96DF099075FAADFC05	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bhattacharjee, Avishek	Bhattacharjee, Avishek (2012): On the status of some species of Cheirostylis Blume (Orchidaceae) from India. Candollea 67 (1): 31-35, DOI: 10.15553/c2012v671a3
03858791FFC5FF96DF0A9770FDDCFA03.text	03858791FFC5FF96DF0A9770FDDCFA03.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cheirostylis yunnanensis Rolfe	<div><p>Cheirostylis yunnanensis Rolfe in Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1896: 201. 1896.</p> <p>Typus: CHINA. Yunnan: Mengtse, IV.1893, Hancock 25 (holo-: K, photo!).</p> <p>= Cheirostylis munnacampensis A. N. Rao in Nordic J. Bot. 8: 340. 1988 (synonymised by CHEN &amp; al., 2009).</p> <p>Typus: INDIA. Arunachal Pradesh: Munna Camp (W. Kameng Dist.), 2000 m, 16.V.1984, A. N. Rao 14567 (holo-: Orchid Herbarium Tipi!; iso-: Orchid HerbariumTipi!).</p> <p>Distribution. – India: Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim (fide PEARCE &amp; CRIBB, 2002), West Bengal; China; Myanmar; Thailand; Vietnam.</p> <p>Other specimens examined. – INDIA. Arunachal Pradesh: Tipi, 28.III.2002, A. N. Rao 30862 (Orchid Herbarium Tipi). West Bengal: Darjeeling District, Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary, 1 km away from Kalijhora towards Setikhola, 12.III. 2008, T. K. Paul 43698 (CAL).</p> <p>Note. – While describing C. munnacampensis, RAO (1988) discriminated it from C. yunnanensis in having oblong petals, hypochile with 7 pairs of calli and stelids almost two times longer than the rostellar arms instead of spathulate petals, hypochilewith3or 4pairsof calli and stelids almost as long as the rostellar arms found in C. yunnanensis. But C. yunnanensis isahighlyvariablespecies and shows variation inthe shape of petals, number of calli inside the hypochile, relative length of stelids and rostellar arms. The shape of petals varies from obliquely oblong to spathulate to obliquely elliptic-lanceolate. SEIDENFADEN (1978) observed obtuse apices of the petals, whereas in the present study both obtuse and acute apices of petals have been found. During the present study 3-9 pairs of calli observed inside the hypochile of C. yunnanensis. Therelative lengthof stelids and rostellar armsalso varies in different specimens of C. yunnanensis, but the stelids are always longer than the rostellar arms. Considering these ranges of variation (Fig. 2), C. munnacampensis is confirmed as a heterotypic synonym of C. yunnanensis.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03858791FFC5FF96DF0A9770FDDCFA03	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Bhattacharjee, Avishek	Bhattacharjee, Avishek (2012): On the status of some species of Cheirostylis Blume (Orchidaceae) from India. Candollea 67 (1): 31-35, DOI: 10.15553/c2012v671a3
