ArticlePDF Available

Three new synonyms in Gastrochilus (Orchidaceae) with notes on typification of Gastrochilus calceolaris and misreport of Gastrochilus changjiangensis from India

Authors:

Abstract

Morphological variation in Gastrochilus calceolaris (Buch.-Ham. ex Sm.) D.Don has been studied based on live and herbarium specimens. As a result, Gastrochilus carnosus Z.H.Tsi and Gastrochilus garhwalensis Z.H.Tsi are treated here as heterotypic synonyms of Gastrochilus calceolaris. Similarly, Gastrochilus corymbosus A.P.Das & S.Chanda has been synonymised to Gastrochilus distichus (Lindl.) Kuntze. A note on typification of Gastrochilus calceolaris has been provided and the report of Gastrochilus changjiangensis Q.Liu & M.Z.Huang from India has been found as misidentification for Gastrochilus linearifolius Z.H.Tsi & Garay.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tabg21
Botany Letters
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tabg21
Three new synonyms in Gastrochilus (Orchidaceae)
with notes on typification of Gastrochilus
calceolaris and misreport of Gastrochilus
changjiangensis from India
Avishek Bhattacharjee, Dinesh Kumar Agrawala, Jeewan Singh Jalal & Chaya
Deori
To cite this article: Avishek Bhattacharjee, Dinesh Kumar Agrawala, Jeewan Singh Jalal & Chaya
Deori (2021): Three new synonyms in Gastrochilus (Orchidaceae) with notes on typification of
Gastrochilus�calceolaris and misreport of Gastrochilus�changjiangensis from India, Botany Letters,
DOI: 10.1080/23818107.2021.2000889
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23818107.2021.2000889
Published online: 15 Nov 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Three new synonyms in Gastrochilus (Orchidaceae) with notes on typication
of Gastrochilus calceolaris and misreport of Gastrochilus changjiangensis from
India
Avishek Bhattacharjee
a
, Dinesh Kumar Agrawala
b
, Jeewan Singh Jalal
b
and Chaya Deori
c
a
Central National Herbarium, Botanical Survey of India, West Bengal, India;
b
Headquarters, Botanical Survey of India, West Bengal, India;
c
Eastern Regional Centre, Botanical Survey of India, Meghalaya, India
ABSTRACT
Morphological variation in Gastrochilus calceolaris (Buch.-Ham. ex Sm.) D.Don has been studied
based on live and herbarium specimens. As a result, Gastrochilus carnosus Z.H.Tsi and
Gastrochilus garhwalensis Z.H.Tsi are treated here as heterotypic synonyms of Gastrochilus
calceolaris. Similarly, Gastrochilus corymbosus A.P.Das & S.Chanda has been synonymised to
Gastrochilus distichus (Lindl.) Kuntze. A note on typication of Gastrochilus calceolaris has been
provided and the report of Gastrochilus changjiangensis Q.Liu & M.Z.Huang from India has been
found as misidentication for Gastrochilus linearifolius Z.H.Tsi & Garay.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 19 September 2021
Accepted 27 October 2021
KEYWORDS
Gastrochilus carnosus;
Gastrochilus corymbosus;
Gastrochilus distichus;
Gastrochilus garhwalensis;
lectotype; nomenclature;
taxonomy
Introduction
The genus Gastrochilus D.Don (Epidendroideae:
Vandeae: Aeridinae) comprises c. 55 species (Chase
et al. 2015) and is distributed in tropical and subtro-
pical Asia (Govaerts et al. 2021), i.e. from India and Sri
Lanka to Java, Sulawesi, Korea and Japan. The genus
can be morphologically identified by the immobile
labellum which is typically bipartite, with a saccate to
cupular hypochile and a broad or narrow epichile, two
porate, globose pollinia borne on a slender stipe and
a bifurcate viscidium. Singh et al. (2019) reported 20
taxa of this genus from India, of which 6 were ende-
mic. While working for the “All India Coordinated
Project on Orchidaceae”, “Revision of the genus
Gastrochilus (Orchidaceae) in India” and “Flora of
India, volume 25 & 26 (Hydrocharitaceae to
Orchidaceae)” we have studied a large number of live
and herbarium specimens (including types) of
Gastrochilus calceolaris (Buch.-Ham ex Sm.) D.Don
across its distributional range in India and found this
species to be widely distributed depicting a highly
variable morphology. The range of variation (dis-
cussed in detail under “Taxonomic treatment”)
accommodates two little known endemic species of
the genus viz. Gastrochilus carnosus Z.H.Tsi and
Gastrochilus garhwalensis Z.H.Tsi which are here
synonymized under Gastrochilus calceolaris. Another
little-known species from the Eastern Himalaya,
Gastrochilus corymbosus A.P.Das & S.Chanda, which
was treated under the synonymy of Gastrochilus pseu-
dodistichus (King & Pantl.) Schltr. by Singh et al.
(2019) has been found to be conspecific with
Gastrochilus distichus (Lindl.) Kuntze. A note on the
typification of Gastrochilus calceolaris is also provided
as Seidenfaden (1988) and Tsi (1996) have cited two
different specimens as “type” in their respective treat-
ments. Further, the report of Gastrochilus changjian-
gensis Q.Liu & M.Z.Huang as a new record for India
by Gogoi and Rinya (2020) has been found to repre-
sent Gastrochilus linearifolius Z.H.Tsi & Garay, thus
the former has been excluded from Flora of India.
Taxonomic treatment
1. Gastrochilus calceolaris (Buch.-Ham. ex Sm.) D.
Don, Prodr. Fl. Nepal.: 32. 1825; A.S. Rao & N.P.
Balakr., Rec. Bot. Surv. India 20: 213. 1973; Seidenf.
& Arora, Nordic J. Bot. 2: 17. 1982; Deva & H.B.
Naithani, Orch. FI. N.W. Himalaya: 399, fig. 231.
1986; Seidenf., Opera Bot. 95: 289, fig. 187–188 1988;
Z.H. Tsi, Guihaia 6: 135. 1996; H.J. Chowdhery, Orch.
Fl. Arunachal Pradesh: 413, fig. 247. 1998; Hynn. et al.
in Hajra & U. Chatterjee (eds.), Orch. Nagaland: 188.
2000; N. Pearce & P.J. Cribb, Orch. Bhutan: 520. 2002;
Lucksom, Orch. Sikkim N.E. Himalaya: 890, fig. 535.
2007; H.J. Chowdhery & Agrawala, Cent. W. Himal.
Orch.: 216. 2013; Vij et al., Orch. Himachal Pradesh:
201, fig. 62. 2013; D.K. Ghosh & J.K. Mallick, Fl.
Darjeeling Himalaya: 713. 2014; C.S. Rao &
S. K. Singh, Wild Orch. Meghalaya: 34. 2015;
K. Gogoi, Wild Orch. Assam: 248. 2017; A.A. Mao &
C. Deori, Checkl. Orch. Manipur: 81. 2018. Aerides
CONTACT Avishek Bhattacharjee avibsi@rediffmail.com Central National Herbarium, Botanical Survey of India, P.O. Botanic Garden, West Bengal,
Howrah 711 103, India
BOTANY LETTERS
https://doi.org/10.1080/23818107.2021.2000889
© 2021 Société botanique de France
Published online 15 Nov 2021
calceolaris Buch.-Ham. ex Sm. in Rees, Cycl. [A. Rees],
(London ed.) 39 (add. & corr.): Aerides n. 11. 1818
(“calceolare”). Epidendrum calceolare Buch.-Ham. ex
D.Don, Prodr. Fl. Nepal.: 32. 1825, nom. inval. (pro.
syn.). Sarcochilus nepalensis Spreng., Syst. Veg., ed. 16
[Sprengel]: 721. 1826 (“nepalense”), nom. alt.
Saccolabium calceolare (Buch.-Ham. ex Sm.) Lindl.,
Gen. Sp. Orchid. Pl.: 223. 1833; Hook.f., Fl. Brit.
India 6: 60. 1890; King & Pantl., Ann. Roy. Bot.
Gard., Calcutta 8: 225, pl. 300. 1898; Duthie, Ann.
Roy. Bot. Gard., Calcutta 9: 147. 1906. Types.
NEPAL. Upper Nipal, Narain hetty,
15 February 1803, Buchanan-Hamilton s.n. [lectotype
BM (BM000539333), photo!, designated by
Seidenfaden (1988, p. 290) as “type”; isolectotype
LINN (LINN-HS 1404.29), photo!].
Gastrochilus carnosus Z.H.Tsi, Guihaia 16: 137.
1996, syn. nov. Type. – INDIA. Jaintea Hills, Sundai,
April 1899, Dr. Prain’s collector 167 [holotype AMES
(AMES00287119, photo)!; isotypes CAL
(CAL0000087328)!, P (P00361072, photo!)].
Gastrochilus garhwalensis Z.H.Tsi, Guihaia 16: 138.
1996, syn. nov. Type. – INDIA. Western Himalaya,
Garhwal, Pareva Kotah Range, 15-6-02, Inayat s.n.
[holotype AMES (AMES00271838, photo!)].
Morphological description
Epiphytic herbs, 8–32 cm long. Stems 4–10 cm long,
0.5–1.0 cm thick, internodes covered with sheathing
leaf bases. Leaves 5–8, narrowly oblong to linear-
lanceolate to oblong-lanceolate, 6–30 × 0.8–3.0 cm,
distichous, fleshy, carinate or nearly flat, with nar-
rower bases, acutely and unequally bifid at apex,
sheathing and articulate at base. Inflorescences lateral,
1–4 appearing together, 3.5–5.0 cm long, corymbose
to umbellate, 4–10-flowered. Floral bracts broadly
ovate-triangular, 4–5 × 3–35 mm, acute at apex.
Flowers 1.5–3.0 cm long, 1.3–2.0 cm across, crowded,
faintly fragrant; sepals and petals pale green blotched
with reddish-brown (size, density and intensity of
blotches variable); hypochile light greenish-yellow
basally and yellowish-white towards mouth, spotted
with purplish-red; epichile white except the yellow
subtriangular disc near center, blotched with purplish-
red; pedicel and ovary 1.2–2.8 cm long. Sepals subeq-
ual, obovate-oblong to obovate-lanceolate, 5.5–
12.0 × 3.5–7.0 mm, obtuse at apex, spreading, laterals
slightly narrower and shorter. Petals oblong-obovate
to elliptic-obovate to obliquely oblong-spathulate,
5.5–11.0 × 3–6 mm, obtuse at apex. Labellum adnate
to lower half of column; hypochile cup-shaped, 6–
7 × 5–6 mm, rim of hypochile sometimes with trun-
cate upper margin and almost vertical front edges or
rim not forming vertical front edges; epichile suborbi-
cular to subreniform to subovate, 3.2–4.5 × 6.0–
8.5 cm, white-papillose on adaxial surface except the
central yellow cushion that is minutely hairy or rough,
with a cavity at base of cushion, lacerate-fringed to
erose at margins. Column 2.5–4.0 mm long. Anthers
1.5–2.0 × 2.0–2.4 mm; pollinia 2, ovoid-elliptic, 0.7–
1.1 × 0.4–0.8 mm; stipe linear, 1.6–2.5 mm long, hya-
line; viscidium oblong-elliptic, 0.5–0.8 × 0.4–0.6 mm.
Phenology
– March–September (flowering and fruiting).
Habitat
– On tree trunks and branches in humid evergreen or
mixed deciduous forests at 110–2700 m elevation.
Distribution
INDIA (Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Andhra
Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Himachal
Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland,
Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarakhand, West Bengal),
Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Malaysia, Myanmar,
Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam.
Chromosome number
– n = 19 (Mehra and Sehgal 1978); n = 38 (Mehra and
Vij 1970).
Etymology
– The specific epithet is derived from the Latin calceo-
lus (a small shoe) referring to the shape of the
labellum.
Specimens examined
NEPAL: Upper Nepal, Narainhetty, 15.2.1803,
Buchanan-Hamilton s.n. [BM – photo (lectotype of
G. calceolaris); LINN (LINN-HS 1404.29) photo
(isolectotype of G. calceolaris)]. INDIA: Andhra
Pradesh, East Godavari District, Sesharayi-
Yaralagadda, 701 m, 15.2.1947, V. Narayanaswami &
party 675 (CAL). Arunachal Pradesh, Lower Dibang
Valley District, near Tiwari Gaon, 2.3.2018, 1287 m,
A. Bhattacharjee 46071 (CAL); Papum Pare District,
20 km from Doimukh near Kheel, 30.10.1985, G.D. Pal
2052 (ARUN); Kheel, 422 m, 8.5.2016, K. Chowlu
40159 (ARUN); Tirap District, Chennhang,
27.6.1961, D.B. Deb 26231 (CAL, ASSAM); Kangsang
forest (Rothang), 26.6.1961, D.B. Deb 26164 (ASSAM);
West Kameng District, Tipi foothills, 22.1.1998, A.N.
Rao 30453, 30454 (Orchid Herbarium Tipi, not in
“Index Herbariorum” and here abbreviated as OHT);
Dirang, 14.5.1990, S.N. Hegde 25669 (OHT); Sessa,
21.4.1982, S.N. Hegde 4120 (OHT); Sessa, 11.1.2015,
fld. under cult. at Gangtok during March 2016, D.K.
Agrawala 37893 (BSHC); Khupi, 31.10.1997, A.N. Rao
29566 (OHT); Tipi, Kamla Bridge, 23.3.1993, A.N. Rao
26455 (OHT); Kamlaban, Tipi, 497 m., 28.3.2004, D.K.
Agrawala 32604 (CAL); Namorah, 08.3.1983, S.N.
Hegde 4125 (OHT); Changlang District, Miao,
14.10.1983, J. Joseph 84019 (ASSAM); East Kameng
2A. BHATTACHARJEE ET AL.
District, Chayang Tajo, 20.3.1998, A.N. Rao 30519
(OHT). Assam, Bongaigaon District, Zulna bridge,
Kakoi reserve forest, 12.2.2011, D.K. Roy 121356
(ASSAM), Assam (erstwhile; precise locality not men-
tioned), April 1893, Dr. King’s collector s.n. (CAL,
BM – photo); Assam (erstwhile; precise locality not
mentioned), April 1893, G. Mann s.n. (CAL).
Manipur, Tamenglong, 28.03.2012, Nanda et al. s.n.
(Herbarium of the Centre for Orchid Gene
Conservation of the Eastern Himalayan Region,
Hengbung, not in “Index Herbariorum” and here
abbreviated as COGCEHR); Kamjong, 26.3.11,
Kishor et al. 00433 (COGCEHR). Meghalaya, East
Khasi Hills District, Khasia Hills, 7.4.1894, G.A.
Gammie 470 (CAL); West Garo Hills District,
Nokrek Biosphere Reserve, Patalgiri, 29.3.2008, V.N.
Singh & B. Singh 118273 (ASSAM); Patalgiri to
Simsongre, 29.3.2008, V. N. Singh & B. Singh 116884
(ASSAM); West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai,
March 1897, Mr. Rita s.n. (CAL); Jowai, c. 1219 m,
March 1899, Dr. Prain’s collector 183 (BM – photo,
CAL, DD, MH, P – photo); West Jaintia Hills District,
Sundai, April 1899, Dr. Prain’s collector 167 [AMES
photo (holotype of G. carnosus); CAL, P photo
(isotypes of G. carnosus)]; Sundai, May 1899,
Dr. Prain’s collector 217 (CAL); Jaintea Hills, Dawki,
22.4.1968, S.K. Kataki 37189 (ASSAM); Jowai,
March 1897, Pantling s.n. (CAL). Mizoram, Langlei
District, c. 914 m, 9.4.1899, A.T. Gage 174 (CAL).
Sikkim, East Sikkim District, Bhusuk Forest,
29.4.1985, N.C. Deori 66149 (ASSAM); Andheri
Khola area, 26.3.2015, M.U. Sharief 37936 (BSHC);
N.C. Deori 66152 (ASSAM). West Sikkim District,
Yuksom, c. 1067 m, 9.10.1875, C.B. Clarke 25159
(BM – photo); Barsey, 19.4.2009, B.S. Kholia 35089
(BSHC); Near Dhupdi Monastery, 21.8.2015, fld.
under cult. at Gangtok during April 2016, D.K.
Agrawala 37692 (BSHC); Yuksom Bakhim,
22.8.2015, fld. under cult. at Gangtok during
March 2016, D.K. Agrawala 37697 (BSHC); Yuksom,
24.8.2015, fld. under cult. at Gangtok during
April 2016, D.K. Agrawala 39214 (BSHC); Maenam
Wildlife Sanctuary, 5.3.2019, A. Bhattacharjee 46082
(CAL); South Sikkim District, Tendong R.F.,
20.4.1999, Shukla 21707 (BSHC); Phamthang – Sada,
07.8.2013, fld. under cult. at Gangtok during
March 2015, D.K. Agrawala 38624 (BSHC); Arri . . .
(not properly readable), c. 1524–1829 m, 1859, J.D.
Hooker s.n. (P photo); Sikkim (precise locality not
mentioned), 1829 m, March 1891, R. Pantling 68
(BM – photo, DD, P – photo); Sikkim (precise locality
not mentioned), March 1896, M.C. Turner s.n. (CAL);
Sikkim (precise locality not mentioned), 1829 m,
24.3.1909, native collector Kari 833 (Herbarium of
the Lloyd Botanical Garden, Darjeeling, not in
“Index Herbariorum” and here abbreviated as
LLOYD); Sikkim (erstwhile)/ West Bengal (precise
locality not mentioned), Cinchona plantation,
6.4.1906, A. Mayr s.n. (CAL). Uttarakhand, Almora
District, Ranikhet to Gyarsen, 21.4.1983, P.K. Hajra
74466 (BSD); Dehradun District, Dehradun, 1898, J.S.
Gamble s.n. (DD); Kalsi, c. 610 m, June 1889, J.S.
Gamble 24693 (CAL); Dehradun, c. 610 m,
March 1895, J.S. Gamble s.n. (CAL); Dehradun, near
Yaspal Rana Shooting range, 15.12.2007, fld. under
cult. at Dehradun during March 2008, D.K. Agrawala
40128 (BSD); Mussorie, c. 1219 m, 24.4.1899, P.W.
Mackinnon s.n. (CAL); Mussorie, c. 1067 m,
April 1900, P.W. Mackinnon s.n. (CAL); Dehradun,
10.5.1900, P.W. Mackinnon s.n. (CAL); Jharipani,
1500 m, 27.4.1957, J.A. Rao & Yuvraj K. Sariu 2372
(BSD); Jharipani, 1000 m, 24.1.1969, C.M. Arora
38844 (BSD); Dehradun, F.RI., 26.7.1989, B.M. Misra
34991 (BSD); Pithoragarh District, Askote, 1800 m,
3.5.1962, U.C. Bhattacharyya 21379 (BSD); Kanadhar-
Didihat, 29.4.1964, P.C. Pant 31851 (BSD); Didihat,
1800 m, 9.11.1965, C.M. Arora 36417 (BSD); Barum-
Maitli, 1800 m, 12.3.1976, C.M. Arora 55806 (BSD);
Maitli, 2000 m, 15.3.1976, C.M. Arora 55812 (BSD);
Dafia Dhura, 2000–2500 m, 4.8.1980, C.M. Arora
70819 (BSD); Shandev, 8.6.1994, D.K. Singh & S.K.
Manto 86955 (BSD); Shandev forest, 11.5.2008, H.J.
Chowdhery & D.K. Agrawala 40198 (BSD); Gori val-
ley, 10.5.2008, fld. under cult. at Dehradun during
March 2009, H.J. Chowdhery & D.K. Agrawala
112062 (BSD); Tehri Garhwal District, April 1900, P.
W. Mackinnon 24196 (DD); Garhwal, Pareva Kotah
Range, 15.6.1902, Inayat s.n. [AMES (holotype of
G. garhwalensis) – photo]; Outer Garhwal Hills (pre-
cise locality not mentioned), 15.6.1902, Inayat 25814
(DD); Tehri Garhwal District, Phata, 1600 m,
15.10.1965, N.C. Nair 35920 (BSD). West Bengal,
Darjeeling District, Mungpoo, Cinchona plantation,
6.4.1906, A.J. Gi.(not properly readable) s.n. (CAL);
Kalimpong District, Rishap, April 1878, J.L. Lister s.n.
(CAL); Jaldhacca valley, c. 1828 m, March 1894,
R. Pantling 68 (CAL); Kalimpong, c. 1311 m,
25.4.1961, coll? 266 (CAL); Kalimpong–Lava,
2.4.2007, D.K. Agrawala 32681 (BSD).
Note
– Smith (1818) described Aerides calceolaris based on
Francis Buchanan-Hamilton’s manuscript and men-
tioned “ – Gathered by Dr Buchanan, of the mossy
branches of trees, in Upper Nepaul”. During our study
we have found two sheets of Aerides calceolaris Buch.-
Ham. ex Sm. [Gastrochilus calceolaris (Buch.-Ham.
ex Sm.) D.Don] which are part of the original material.
The sheet LINN-HS 1404.29 in the Smith Herbarium
of the Linnean Society of London bears two plants
with two labels (‘Epidendrum calceolare, Narain
Hetty, 15th Feby 1803ʹ and ‘Upper Nipal, Buchanan,
1806ʹ) apparently indicating two gatherings. However,
on enquiry on these labels, Ms Andrea Deneau, Digital
BOTANY LETTERS 3
Assets Manager of LINN informed us on behalf of the
Curator of LINN – “The sheet represents a single
collection event (it is not two gatherings, despite the
dates). The writing on the main label is in the hand of
Buchanan–Hamilton. The nearby writing on the sheet
is in the hand of J.E. Smith (the date 1806 appears to
relate to when he received it). The pencil in the bottom
right-hand of the sheet may be in the hand of N.R.
Pearce”. Another specimen collected by Buchanan-
Hamilton from “Narainhetty” with the same label-
data as the LINN-specimen has been found in BM
(BM000539333). Seidenfaden (1988, p. 290) cited the
BM-specimen as type, whereas the LINN-specimen
was mentioned as type by Tsi (1996, p. 136).
However, Seidenfaden has the credit of typifying the
name Aerides calceolaris ( Gastrochilus calceolaris)
due to priority and the term “type” used by
Seidenfaden (1988) before 1 January 2001 is correct-
able to “lectotype” as per Art. 9.10 of ICN (Turland
et al. 2018; also see Art. 7.11 of ICN). It is worth
mentioning that Buchanan-Hamilton’s artist’s colour
drawing of Epidendrum calceolare” (preserved at
LINN and BM) was probably based on the type(s) of
Aerides calceolaris (Gastrochilus calceolaris).
Gastrochilus calceolaris is a highly variable species
of the genus which is reported from Nepal to Hainan
and West Malesia (Govaerts et al. 2021). The variabil-
ity includes plant size (with varying stem length); size
of the leaves and nature of apex (the unequally retuse
apex may have obtuse, subacute or acute lobes); num-
ber and size of the flowers; size, density and intensity
of blotches on perianth; texture and thickness of
sepals, petals and labellum; the cupular hypochile
with or without a rim at the juncture with the epichile;
density and distribution of papillate hairs on epichile;
shape and margins of epichile; and presence or
absence of purplish spots on the yellow cushion on
the epichile (this is available in all possible combina-
tions: present on both dorsal and ventral surface,
absent on both surfaces, present at dorsal only and
present on ventral only). Further, these variations do
not maintain any geographical correlation i.e. multiple
variants are available in the same area. One of the
reasons of high morphological variations in
G. calceolaris may be due to presence of both diploid
and polyploid members. Some of this variability has
been depicted in Figures 1 and 2. Tsi (1996) described
Gastrochilus carnosus based on a single specimen pre-
served at AMES (barcode 00287119, photo!) collected
from Sundai, West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya,
India by Dr. Prain’s collector in April, 1899. Tsi (1996)
did not cite or study any isotypes of G. carnosus which
were preserved at CAL, P and distinguished this spe-
cies from Gastrochilus calceolaris in having a very
fleshy texture of flower and in the shape of the label-
lum (Tsi 1996, p. 138). However, after study of the
flower (soaking with ammonia solution) taken from
the isotype preserved at CAL, we have not found any
significant difference in thickness of the floral parts
and also in shape of the labellum between G. carnosus
and G. calceolaris. In the same publication, Tsi (1996)
also described Gastrochilus garhwalensis based on
a single specimen preserved at AMES (barcode
00271838, photo!) collected by Inayat on
15 June 1902 from Tehri Garhwal District,
Uttarakhand, India. He distinguished it from
Gastrochilus calceolaris in having ovate-lanceolate
sepals and petals, an ovate epichile and a subcupular
hypochile (Tsi 1996, p. 138). However, the shape of
sepals, petals and labellum is also variable in some
extent in G. calceolaris which is also evident from the
Figures 1 and 2. In the key, Tsi (1996) separated these
two species from Gastrochilus calceolaris mainly based
on rim of hypochile which is with truncate upper
margin and a nearly vertical front edges in
Gastrochilus calceolaris, but without vertical front
edge in Gastrochilus carnosus and Gastrochilus garh-
walensis. Tsi (1996) further distinguished G. carnosus
from G. garhwalensis in having a suborbicular blade of
the lip and a rim raising above the blade with oblique
front edges (vs. subovate blade of lip and rim flush
with the blade, not forming distinct front edges in
G. garhwalensis). Apart from the holotypes of
Gastrochilus carnosus and Gastrochilus garhwalensis,
we have also studied two isotypes of Gastrochilus car-
nosus at CAL (CAL0000087328!) and P (P00361072,
photo!) and one more specimen of Gastrochilus garh-
walensis at DD (!) with almost the same label-data as
the holotype (collected by Inayat from Garhwal on
same date, i.e. 15.06.1902) as that of the holotype.
However, the precise collecting locality “Pareva
Kotah Range” as mentioned in the label-data of the
holotype of G. garhwalensis is not mentioned in the
label-data of the DD-specimen and the holotype col-
lection by Inayat is devoid of any collection number,
whereas the DD-specimen has a collection number
(‘25814ʹ). Therefore, it is doubtful whether the DD-
specimen is an isotype or not. Further, we have studied
several live and herbarium specimens of Gastrochilus
calceolaris collected from different localities and
observed that the diagnostic characters depicted by
Tsi (1996) from the holotypes of both G. carnosus
and G. garhwalensis fall within the range of variation
of G. calceolaris (Figures 1, 2). Hence, Gastrochilus
carnosus and Gastrochilus garhwalensis are treated
here as heterotypic synonyms of Gastrochilus
calceolaris.
2. Gastrochilus distichus (Lindl.) Kuntze, Revis.
Gen. Pl. 2: 661. 1891; Deva & H.BNaithani, Orch. Fl.
N. W. Himalaya: 403, fig. 232. 1986; Kataki, Orch.
Meghalaya: 184. pl. 66(2a b). 1986; Z.H. Tsi,
Guihaia 6: 144. 1996; H.J. Chowdhery, Orch. Fl.
Arunachal Pradesh: 413. 1998; Hynn. et al. in Hajra
& U. Chatterjee (eds.), Orch. Nagaland: 188. 2000;
4A. BHATTACHARJEE ET AL.
Figure 1. Gastrochilus calceolaris (Buch.-Ham. ex Sm.) D. Don: a–e. Variation in flower-colour, a’–e’. Variation in sepals and petals.
[a, a’: A. Bhattacharjee 46071 (CAL); b, b’: D.K. Agrawala 37913 (BSHC); c, c’: H.J. Chowdhery & D.K. Agrawala 112062 (BSD); d, d’: D.K.
Agrawala 32681 (BSD); e, e’: H. J. Chowdhery & D.K. Agrawala 40198 (BSD)].
BOTANY LETTERS 5
Figure 2. Gastrochilus calceolaris (Buch.-Ham. ex Sm.) D. Don: a1–a5. Variation of labellum (adaxial), b1–b4. Variation of labellum
(abaxial), c1–c4. Variation of labellum including pedicellate ovary (side view). [a1, b1, c1: A. Bhattacharjee 46071 (CAL); a2: D.K.
Agrawala 37913 (BSHC); a3, b2, c2: H.J. Chowdhery & D.K. Agrawala 112062 (BSD); a4, b3, c3: D.K. Agrawala 32681 (BSD); a5, b4, c4:
H. J. Chowdhery & D.K. Agrawala 40198 (BSD)].
6A. BHATTACHARJEE ET AL.
N. Pearce & P.J. Cribb, Orch. Bhutan: 525. 2002;
Krishan Lal et al., Indian J. Forest. 33: 621. 2010; Vij
et al., Orch. Himachal Pradesh: 203, fig. 63. 2013; D.K.
Ghosh & J.K. Mallick, Fl. Darjeeling Himalaya: 714.
2014; Kumar et al., Phytotaxa 164: 97. 2014; A.A. Mao
& C. Deori, Checkl. Orch. Manipur: 82. 2018.
Saccolabium distichum Lindl., J. Proc. Linn. Soc., Bot.
3: 36. 1858; Hook.f., Fl. Brit. India 6: 64. 1890; King &
Pantl., Ann. Roy. Bot. Gard., Calcutta 8: 227, pl. 303.
1898. Types. – INDIA. Sikkim: 6–8000 ft, J.D. Hooker
206 [syntype K (K000873754), photo!].
Gastrochilus corymbosus Das & Chanda, J. Econ.
Taxon. Bot. 12: 401. 1988 (publ. 1989); Liu et al.,
PhytoKeys 138: 116. 2020, syn. nov. Types. INDIA.
West Bengal: Darjeeling, Jalapahar, 2200 m,
29 October 1982, Das 823 (holotype cited as being at
CAL, but actually not deposited there and could not be
traced anywhere including NBU where the authors
were working while publishing the species).
Morphological description
– Epiphytic, pendulous herbs, 6–35 cm long with
filiform roots. Stems slender, elongate, filiform, 5–
32 cm long, often branched, sheathed with leaf
bases. Leaves several, distichous, narrowly ovate-
oblong to narrowly lanceolate, 2.0–2.5 × 0.5–0.8 cm,
sometimes curved, sometimes with purplish-red or
brownish-maroon spots, often with 2–3 tiny bristle-
like projections at apex, acuminately and unequally
2-lobed at apex. Inflorescences terminal and axillar,
shortly racemose or subumbellate or corymbose, 1.5–
2.5 cm long, pendulous, peduncle up to 2.5 cm long,
2–6-flowered. Floral bracts oblong, 0.2–0.4 cm long,
subacute at apex. Flowers 0.8–2 × 1–1.8 cm; sepals
and petals green or pale yellowish with dark purple-
maroon spots; hypochile pale yellowish-green with
purple-maroon to brownish spots, epichile white to
pale yellow-green with purple-maroon to brownish
spots, depressed area usually darker, yellow-green
with denser purple-maroon to brownish spots.
Pedicel and ovary terete, 1.0–1.5 cm long. Sepals
subsimilar, ovate-oblong to elliptic-oblong to oblong,
3–8 × 2.0–4.5 mm, concave, subacute to obtuse at
apex; petals subobovate, 3–8 × 2.0–4.2 mm, obtuse at
apex. Labellum adnate to the base of the column;
hypochile saccate, 3.2–7.0 × 4–6 mm, subacute to
obtuse and entire at apex; epichile semicircular, 3–
5 × 7–9 mm, width of blade of epichile more than
width of hypochile, convex with deflexed margins,
with 2 blunt subconical calli at base gradually form-
ing a semicircular to rhombic depression at centre,
glabrous. Column c. 2 mm long; rostellum curved
downwards, 1.0–1.5 mm long, bifid. Anthers 2.5–
3.0 × 1.8–2.2 mm; pollinarium c. 3 mm long; pollinia
2, subglobose, c. 0.8 mm in diam., porate; stipe linear,
1.2–1.6 mm long, hyaline; viscidium oblong-elliptic,
0.7–1 × 0.4–0.6 mm.
Phenology
– September–June (flowering and fruiting).
Habitat
– On tree trunks in forests between 1100 and 2800 m
elevation.
Distribution
INDIA (Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh,
Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim,
Tripura? Uttarakhand, West Bengal), Bhutan, China,
Myanmar, Nepal.
Chromosome number
n = 19 (Mehra and Vij 1970).
Etymology
– The specific epithet is derived from the Latin dis-
tichus (in two rows, the one opposite to the other)
referring the arrangement of the leaves of the species.
Specimens examined. – BHUTAN: Donga La (West
side), c. 2591 m, 23.4.1949, F. Ludlow, G. Sherri & J.
H. Hicks 20512 (BM 000539354 – photo). NEPAL:
Bagmati Province (“zone”), Kathmandu District,
Seopuri ridge, 2250 m, 13.5. 1967, D.H. Nicolson
3348 (BM 000539352 – photo). INDIA: Arunachal
Pradesh, Lower Dibang Valley District, Mayudia
Pass, 2300 m, 20.4.1999, M. Bhaumik 2497
(CAL0000087410); West Kameng District, Tipi, 4th
camp near Saddle, 06.2.1984, A.N. Rao 11587 (OHT);
Tipi, Chaku camp, 2500 m, 23.2.1991, A.N. Rao 26042
(OHT); Lohit District, near Melinja base, 4.5.2003, D.
K. Agrawala & C.M. Sabapathy 32595 (CAL).
Himachal Pradesh, Sirmour District, village Uncha
Tikker, near Andheri, 1826 m, 24.3.2010, K. Lal 1608
(BSD); Choras to Chor Road, Nohradhar, 1900 m,
10.4.2010, K. Lal 1614 (BSD). Manipur, Japfu peak,
1829 m, March 1882, G. Watt. 6236 (CAL, P – photo);
Summit of Khongui, April 1882, G. Watt. 6338 (CAL,
MH). Meghalaya, East Khasi Hills District,
Mawphalang forest, 17.11.1971, N.C. Deori 50908
(CAL0000087368, ASSAM); 6.2.1966, S.K. Kataki
37112 (ASSAM); 28.8.1966, S.K. Kataki 37128
(ASSAM); Lawlyingdoh forest, 15.3.1950, G.K. Deka
s.n. (ASSAM). Nagaland, Kohima District, Konoma,
May 1895, Reporter on Economic Products to the Govt.
of India 11764 (CAL). Sikkim, West Sikkim District,
Yuksom, 2286 m, 17.10.1875, C.B. Clarke 25396 (BM –
photo); Okhrey–Hilley, 26.8.2015, fld. under cult. at
Gangtok during November 2015, D.K. Agrawala
39232 (BSHC); South Sikkim District, Maenam
Wildlife Sanctuary, 25.11.2017, A. Bhattacharjee
46057 (CAL); Sikkim (precise locality not mentioned),
J.D. Hooker 206 [K photo (syntype of Gastrochilus
distichus)]; Sikkim (precise locality not mentioned),
S. Kurz s.n. (CAL0000087317); East Himalaya (precise
locality not mentioned), W. Grith 5211 (P
BOTANY LETTERS 7
00361092 – photo). Uttarakhand, Almora District, on
the way from Loharkhet to Dhakuri, 25.9.1999, M.S.
Pundir 94732 (BSD); Chamoli District, Nagnath,
26.6.1979, B.D. Naithani 68124 (BSD); Nagnath,
May 1986, S. Singh 31080 (BSD); Pauri Garhwal
District, Bhainswara, 5.5.1995, B.P. Uniyal & S. Singh
90588 (BSD); Tehri Garhwal District, c. 1829 m,
April 1900, P.W. Mackinnon s.n. (CAL0000087319);
April 1900, Mackinnon’s collector 24196 (CAL);
Govana, 1500–1800 m, 26.5.1979, A.K. Goel 67822
(BSD); Govana, 1800 m, 24.09.1979, A.K. Goel 67819
(BSD); Govana, 1400 m, 24.6.1981, A.K. Goel 72683
(BSD). West Bengal, Darjeeling District, Birch Hills, c.
1829 m, May 1880, J.S. Gamble 8075 (CAL). Darjeeling
District, Mongpu/ Mungpoo, 7.10.1884, C.B. Clarke
36327 (CAL); Mongpu/ Mungpoo, 1676 m,
October 1884, C.B. Clarke 36327 (CAL); Senchal/
Sinchal, April 1891, R. Pantling 132 (CAL); Senchal,
c. 2134 m, May 1891, R. Pantling 132 (CAL); Senchal,
c. 2134 m, May 1891, R. Pantling 132 (BM – photo, P –
photo); Darjeeling, 20.4.1897, coll? (CAL).
Note
Das and Chanda (1988) distinguished Gastrochilus
corymbosus from Gastrochilus distichus (Figure 3) in
having a shorter peduncle, which remains adpressed
to the stem, four opposite decussate flowers forming
a perfect corymb, and number, shape, size of blotches
on sepals, petals and terminal lobe of the labellum.
However, all these characters are variable and the
diagnostic characters of Gastrochilus corymbosus fall
within the circumscription of Gastrochilus distichus.
As Das and Chanda (1988) described their species
based on only one specimen collected from
Darjeeling District of West Bengal, India, it could
not be possible for them to note the variation of the
above-mentioned characters in their newly described
species. Kumar et al. (2014), while describing
Gastrochilus kadooriei, Kumar et al., provided notes
on allied taxa in section Microphyllae found in the
region. They distinguished G. corymbosus from
G. distichus on the base of the shorter peduncle,
which remains appressed to the stem, and by the
four opposite, decussate flowers arranged in
a corymb. However, Kumar et al. (2014) did not
attempt to merge G. corymbosus to G. distichus due
to lack of type and live specimens (pers. comm. with
P. Kumar in 2014 by the first author as a co-author in
Kumar et al. 2014). While reporting G. corymbosus as
a new record for Myanmar, Liu et al. (2020) distin-
guished it from G. distichus based on variable charac-
ters, i.e. shorter (less than 15 cm) and stout stem, leaf
apex unequally 2-lobed without awns, and inflores-
cence a corymb with 4–6-flowers [versus longer
(more than 30 cm) and slender stem, leaf apex with 2
or 3 awns, inflorescences subumbellate with 2–4 flow-
ers in G. distichus]. However, there is variation in the
thickness of the stem and its length, in leaf shape and
size, the size of peduncle, and number and arrange-
ment of flowers which are evident from Figure 4. It
should be noted that the awns at the leaf apex may or
may not be present as it is depending on the maturity.
Kumar et al. (2014) also demonstrated the variation in
leaf-apices while describing Gastrochilus kadooriei.
Although Das and Chanda (1988) did not deposit
their specimen, i.e. the holotype of Gastrochilus cor-
ymbosus at CAL (as per the protologue) or at NBU
(where the authors were working while publishing
G. corymbosus), the description and illustration pro-
vided by them clearly suggest its merger under
Gastrochilus distichus. Therefore, though the type of
Gastrochilus corymbosus apparently does not exist, we
conclude that G. corymbosus is conspecific with
G. distichus because the diagnostic characters (shorter
peduncle that remains adpressed to the stem, four
opposite decussate flowers forming a perfect corymb,
and number, shape, size of blotches on sepals, petals
and terminal lobe of the labellum) fall in the variation
of G. distichus. Seidenfaden (1988) also mentioned the
variability of colour, size, density and intensity of
blotches on the perianth lobes. Further, the distribu-
tion and phenology of G. corymbosus also overlap with
that of the G. distichus. Therefore, Gastrochilus cor-
ymbosus is treated here as a heterotypic synonym of
Gastrochilus distichus. Singh et al. (2019) erred while
placing Gastrochilus corymbosus as a synonym of
Gastrochilus pseudodistichus (King & Pantl.) Schltr.
3. Gastrochilus linearifolius Z.H.Tsi & Garay,
Guihaia 16(2): 138. 1996; N.Pearce & P.J. Cribb,
Orch. Bhutan: 522. 2002; Lucksom, Orch. Sikkim
N. E. Himalaya: 890. 2007.
Types
INDIA. Sikkim Himalaya, Nepal frontier, 4000 ft,
Pantling 356 [holotype AMES (AMES00256486)
photo!; isotypes BM photo!, CAL! (CAL0000054882),
DD!, K (K000891608) photo!]; CHINA. Xizang, Qing
ai Xizang 74–5099 (Paratype PE).
Saccolabium intermedium sensu King & Pantl.,
Ann. Roy. Bot. Gard., Calcutta 8: 226, pl. 301. 1898,
non. Griff. ex Lindl.: 1858. Gastrochilus intermedius
sensu H.J. Chowdhery, Orch. Fl. Arunachal Pradesh:
413. 1998, non (Griff. ex Lindl.) Kuntze: 1891.
Gastrochilus changjiangensis sensu K. Gogoi &
K. Rinya in Pleione 14: 153. 2020, non Q. Liu & M.Z.
Huang: 2019.
Morphological description
Epiphytic herbs. Stems 8–45 (–60) cm long, c. 0.5 cm
in diam., slender, usually branched. Leaves linear to
narrowly linear-lanceolate to narrowly falcate, 6–
20 × 0.5–2.5 cm, distichous, long acuminate and with
2 or 3 unequal setae at apex. Inflorescences subumbel-
late, 1.0–1.5 cm long, with 2–3 sheaths, 3 or
8A. BHATTACHARJEE ET AL.
Figure 3. Gastrochilus distichus (Lindl.) Kuntze: a–b. Habit, c–d. Flower, e. Sepals, petals, labellum (side view) including portion of
pedicellate ovary, f. Labellum (front view), g. Column (side view) including pedicellate ovary, h. Pollinarium, i. Anther. [a, d–i:
A. Bhattacharjee 46057 (CAL); b, c: K. Lal 1614 (BSD)].
BOTANY LETTERS 9
Figure 4. Gastrochilus distichus (Lindl.) Kuntze: Herbarium specimens showing variations in stem length, thickness of stem,
arrangement of flowers, leaf shape and size. a. J.D. Hooker 206 (K, K000873754, syntype), b. F. Ludlow, G. Sherriff & J.H. Hicks 20512
(BM, BM000539354), c. D.H. Nicolson 3348 (BM, BM000539352), d. P.W. Mackinnon s.n. (CAL, CAL0000087319), e. N.C. Deori 50908
(CAL, CAL0000087368), f. W. Griffith 5211 (P, P00361092), g. M. Bhaumik 2497 (CAL, CAL0000087410), h. S. Kurz s.n. (CAL,
CAL0000087317), i. B.P. Uniyal & S. Singh 90588 (BSD). [a. © Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; b, c. ©
Natural History Museum, London; d, e, g, h, i. © Director, Botanical Survey of India; Kolkata; f. © Museum National d’Histoire
Naturelle, Paris].
10 A. BHATTACHARJEE ET AL.
4-flowered; floral bracts ovate, c. 2 mm long, acute at
apex. Flowers 1.6–2.2 cm long, sepals and petals yellow
with irregular, medium to large purplish-red or
brownish-purple spots; labellum with yellow central
cushion spotted with large purplish-red or brownish-
purple spots and with whitish peripheral part having
a few purplish spots; papillae white; pedicel and ovary
0.9–1.5 cm long. Sepals subsimilar, oblong-obovate to
oblong-oblanceolate, 5–8 × 2.5–3.5 mm, obtuse at
apex, lateral sepals slightly narrower. Petals obliquely
oblong-spathulate to oblanceolate, 5–6.5 × 2.0–2.4 cm,
obtuse at apex. Labellum attached firmly with column;
hypochile subcupular, 3.5–5.0 × 2.5–4.0 mm, exter-
nally with a prominent central ridge and 2 less promi-
nent lateral ridges, rim raising above blade of epichile
with a frontal notch and nearly vertical front edges,
rounded at apex; epichile suborbicular, 2.2–3.0 × 4–
6 mm, width of blade of epichile more than width of
hypochile, adaxially finely papillate near the border of
central cushion, margin irregularly and densely
fimbriate-papillate rounded at apex. Column c. 3 mm
long, pale yellow or white with large purplish mark-
ings. Anthers 2.0–2.5 × 2.0–2.8 mm; pollinarium 2.5–
3.0 mm long; pollinia 2, subglobose to broadly ovate-
orbicular, c. 1 × 0.8 mm, slightly oblique, porate; stipe
linear, 1.2–1.5 mm long, hyaline; viscidium oblong-
elliptic, 0.7–0.9 × 0.4–0.6 mm.
Phenology
– August–January (flowering and fruiting).
Habitat
– On tree trunks in forests at 900–1800 m elevation.
Distribution
INDIA: Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Sikkim,
West Bengal; China.
Etymology
– The specific epithet is derived from the Latin linearis
(narrow) and -folius (leaved) referring the shape of the
leaves of the species.
Specimens examined
INDIA: Arunachal Pradesh, Upper Siang District,
Cooging Sweat, 1800 m, 6.9.2009, M. Bhaumik
13217 (ARUN, CAL); West Kameng District, Sessa,
23.9.1979, S.N. Hegde 2526 (OHT); Bampo, 23.8.1980,
S.N. Hegde 1813 (OHT); Khellong, 24.8.1980, S.N.
Hegde 3170 (OHT); Doimara R.F., Diging Nallah,
6.1.1997, A.N. Rao 30063 (OHT); Doimara R.F.,
27.9.1997, A.N. Rao 30369 (OHT); Sessa Orchid
Sanctuary, 1650 m, 11.1.2015, flowered at Botanical
Survey of India, Sikkim Himalayan Regional Centre,
Gangtok campus during September 2015, D.K.
Agrawala 37884 (BHSC). Sikkim, Nepal frontier, c.
1219 m, August 1894, R. Pantling 356 [AMES
photo (holotype of G. linearifolius); BM – photo,
CAL, DD, K – photo (isotypes of G. linearifolius)].
Note
Gogoi and Rinya (2020) reported Gastrochilus
changjiangensis Q.Liu & M.Z.Huang from Ziro valley,
Lower Subansiri District of Arunachal Pradesh as
a new record to India. However, Gogoi & Rinya’s
collection is nothing but Gastrochilus linearifolius Z.
H.Tsi & Garay (Figure 5), a species also reported from
Arunachal Pradesh, India. Gogoi & Rinya’s plant pos-
sesses linear-lanceolate, narrowly acuminate leaves,
flowers having a subcupular hypochile externally
with a prominent central ridge and 2 less prominent
lateral ridges, and an epichile with shortly lacerate-
fringed margins, which are characteristic features of
Gastrochilus linearifolius. Apart from India,
Gastrochilus linearifolius is also reported from China.
It should be noted that King and Pantling (1898)
Saccolabium intermedium” [ Gastrochilus interme-
dius (Griff. ex Lindl.) Kuntze] is actually Gastrochilus
linearifolius which is very close to G. intermedius, but
differs in having a subcupular hypochile (vs. hemi-
spherical in G. intermedius), densely fimbriate–papil-
late epichile margins (vs. erose or shortly lacerate-
fringed margins in G. intermedius) and epichile adaxi-
ally finely papillate near the border of central cushion
(vs. epichile without any hair or papillae on entire
adaxial surface in G. intermedius).
The collecting locality of the holotype and iso-
types is wrongly typed in the protologue of
Gastrochilus linearifolius which is to be corrected
from ‘Sikkim, Khasia, Pantling 356ʹ to ‘Sikkim
Himalaya, Nepal frontier, 4000 ft, Pantling 356ʹ,
because “Khasia” is not situated in Sikkim but in
Meghalaya and it (Khasia) is also not written in
the label-data of the types. Pearce and Cribb
(2002) mentioned the CAL-specimen as holotype,
but in the protologue of Gastrochilus linearifolius
the AMES-specimen is cited as “type” which is
correctable to “holotype” as per Article 9.10 of
ICN (Turland et al. 2018). However, interestingly,
one of the authors, Tsi Zhanhuo (Z.H. Tsi) wrote
“type!” on his determinavit slip pasted on the
K-specimen, but he did not write “type” on his
determinavit slip pasted on the AMES-specimen.
Paul Ormerod marked the AMES-specimen as
“ISOTYPE”. In the present treatment we have
considered the AMES-specimen as holotype (Art.
9.1, 9.10 of ICN) according to the protologue
because only effectively published statements
regarding types and typification are effective (Art.
7.10 of ICN). Though the specimens Pantling 356
preserved at BM and DD are not cited in the
protologue, they (along with other duplicates, if
any) are the isotypes of Gastrochilus linearifolius
BOTANY LETTERS 11
Figure 5. Gastrochilus linearifolius Z.H. Tsi & Garay: a. Habit, b. Inflorescence, c. Flower, d. Sepals and petals, e.g. Labellum,
h. Labellum (side view) with column and pedicel plus ovary, i. Column (front view) with pollinarium, j. Pollinarium showing
pollinia, stipe and viscidium, k. Anther. (D.K. Agrawala 37884, BHSC).
12 A. BHATTACHARJEE ET AL.
according to Article 9.5 of ICN (Turland et al.
2018)
Acknowledgments
The Director, Botanical Survey of India (BSI), Kolkata, and
Head of offices of our respective Units/Regional Centres
provided the research facilities and encouragements. The
Department of Environment and Forest of Arunachal
Pradesh, Forest Environment and Wildlife Management
Department of Sikkim and Uttarakhand Forest
Department for provided the necessary permission to survey
and the Curators/ Scientist-in-charges of ARUN, ASSAM,
BSD, CAL, DD, LLOYD, MH and OHT provided the per-
mission to consult their herbaria. The authorities of AMES,
BM, K, LINN and P are acknowledged for facilitating the
digital images/photographs of the specimens on the websites
of their herbaria. The Curator of LINN helped in clearing
some doubts (through Ms Andrea Deneau, Digital Assets
Manager of LINN) on the LINN-specimen. Dr John
McNeill, Honorary Associate, Royal Botanic Garden,
Edinburgh and Director Emeritus, Royal Ontario
Museum, Toronto, is thankfully acknowledged for clarifying
some doubts on the original material of Gastrochilus linear-
ifolius. The three anonymous reviewers are thankfully
acknowledged for their useful comments.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
author(s).
Funding
The work was supported by Botanical Survey of India,
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Government of India.
Author contributions
Avishek Bhattacharjee designed research, collected and
studied specimens, prepared description and photo-plates,
wrote the manuscript.
Dinesh Kumar Agrawala collected and studied specimens,
prepared description and photo-plates, shared opinion,
refined the manuscript.
Jeewan Singh Jalal and Chaya Deori shared opinion,
refined the manuscript.
ORCiD
Avishek Bhattacharjee, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4574-
3804
Dinesh Kumar Agrawala, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
8524-114X
References
Chase, MW, KM Cameron, JV Freudenstein, AM Pridgeon,
G Salazar, C Van Den Berg, A Schuiteman. 2015. An
updated classification of Orchidaceae. Botanical Journal
of the Linnean Society. 177(2):151–174. doi:10.1111/
boj.12234.
Das, AP, S Chanda. 1988. Two new taxa of the family
Orchidaceae from Darjeeling Hills, West Bengal (India).
J Econ Taxon Bot. 12:401–404. (publ. 1989).
Gogoi, K, K Rinya. 2020. Gastrochilus changjiangensis
Q. Liu & M.Z. Huang (Orchidaceae: Epidendroideae:
Vandeae: Aeridinae) - a new record for India.
Pleione. 14(1):153–157. doi:10.26679/
Pleione.14.1.2020.153-157.
Govaerts, R, P Bernet, K Kratochvil, G Gerlach, G Carr,
P Alrich, AM Pridgeon, J Pfahl, MA Campacci,
DH Baptista, et al. 2021. World Checklist of
Orchidaceae. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew. Published on the Internet; [accessed 2021 May 29];
11:30 GMT. http://wcsp.science.kew.org/ .
King, G, R Pantling. 1898. The Orchids of Sikkim Himalaya.
Ann Roy Bot Gard Calcutta. 8:1–342, tt. 1–448.
Kumar, P, SW Gale, A Kocyan, GA Fischer, GA Romero-
González, L Averyanov, R Borosova, A Schuiteman,
A Bhattacharjee, J Li, et al. 2014. Gastrochilus kadooriei
(Orchidaceae), a new species from Hong Kong, with
notes on allied taxa in section Microphyllae found in the
region. Phytotaxa. 164(2):91–103. doi:10.11646/
phytotaxa.164.2.3.
Liu, Q, S-S Zhou, R Li, Y-H Tan, M Zyaw, X-K Xing,
J-Y Gao. 2020. Notes on the genus Gastrochilus
(Orchidaceae) in Myanmar. PhytoKeys. 138:113–123.
doi:10.3897/phytokeys.138.38781.
Mehra, PN, RN Sehgal. 1978. In: Love, A. (editor), IOPB
chromosome number reports LXI. Taxon. 27
(4):388–391.
Mehra, PN, SP Vij. 1970. In: Love, A. (editor). IOPB chro-
mosome number reports XXV. Taxon. 19(1):102–113.
Pearce, N, PJ Cribb. 2002. The Orchids of Bhutan.
Edinburgh: Royal Botanic Garden and Thimpu: Royal
Government of Bhutan.
Seidenfaden, G. 1988. Orchid genera in Thailand XIV:
fifty-nine vandoid genera. Opera Botanica. 95:1–398.
Singh, SK, DK Agrawala, JS Jalal, SS Dash, AA Mao, P Singh.
2019. Orchids of India: a pictorial guide. Kolkata:
Botanical Survey of India.
Smith, JE. 1818. ‘11. A. calceolare’. In A Rees, editor. The
cyclopaedia; or, universal dictionary of arts, sciences and
literature. London: Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees,
Orme & Brown and others.
Tsi, ZH. 1996. A preliminary revision of Gastrochilus
(Orchidaceae). Guihaia. 16:123–154.
Turland, NJ, JH Wiersema, FR Barrie, W Greuter,
DL Hawksworth, PS Herendeen, S Knapp, WH Kusber,
D-Z Li, K Marhold, et al., editors. 2018. International
Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants
(Shenzhen Code) adopted by the Nineteenth
International Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China,
July 2017. Glashütten: Koeltz Botanical Books. (Regnum
Vegetabile 159).
BOTANY LETTERS 13
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Myanmar is known for its high species richness of genus Gastrochilus ; however, most of them lack proper information for taxonomic revision. During four years of field investigation in Myanmar, two new distributional records were encountered, namely, G. arunachalensis and G. corymbosus and one species, i.e. G. pechei was rediscovered after its original description. The three species were not easy to interpret from the available original descriptions and types due to severely shrunk or poorly preserved specimens. Therefore, we hereby present more detailed illustrations and updated descriptions for these species, based on freshly collected materials.
Article
Full-text available
A new species, Gastrochilus kadooriei, is described from Hong Kong. Notes are presented on its distribution, ecology and conservation status, and its distinguishing features are compared with those of allied taxa. Gastrochilus jeitouensis is reduced to the synonymy of G. distichus, and a lectotype is assigned for G. pseudodistichus. Gastrochilus fuscopunctatus is reinstated as an accepted species. Dichotomous keys to this taxonomically difficult group of morphologically similar species are presented.
Article
Since the last classification of Orchidaceae in 2003, there has been major progress in the determination of relationships, and we present here a revised classification including a list of all 736 currently recognized genera. A number of generic changes have occurred in Orchideae (Orchidoideae), but the majority of changes have occurred in Epidendroideae. In the latter, almost all of the problematic placements recognized in the previous classification 11 years ago have now been resolved. In Epidendroideae, we have recognized three new tribes (relative to the last classification): Thaieae (monogeneric) for Thaia, which was previously considered to be the only taxon incertae sedis; Xerorchideae (monogeneric) for Xerorchis; and Wullschlaegelieae for achlorophyllous Wullschlaegelia, which had tentatively been placed in Calypsoeae. Another genus, Devogelia, takes the place of Thaia as incertae sedis in Epidendroideae. Gastrodieae are clearly placed among the tribes in the neottioid grade, with Neottieae sister to the remainder of Epidendroideae. Arethuseae are sister to the rest of the higher Epidendroideae, which is unsurprising given their mostly soft pollinia. Tribal relationships within Epidendroideae have been much clarified by analyses of multiple plastid DNA regions and the low-copy nuclear gene Xdh. Four major clades within the remainder of Epidendroideae are recognized: Vandeae/Podochileae/Collabieae, Cymbidieae, Malaxideae and Epidendreae, the last now including Calypsoinae (previously recognized as a tribe on its own) and Agrostophyllinae s.s. Agrostophyllinae and Collabiinae were unplaced subtribes in the 2003 classification. The former are now split between two subtribes, Agrostophyllinae s.s. and Adrorhizinae, the first now included in Epidendreae and the second in Vandeae. Collabiinae, also probably related to Vandeae, are now elevated to a tribe along with Podochileae. Malaxis and relatives are placed in Malaxidinae and included with Dendrobiinae in Malaxideae. The increased resolution and content of larger clades, recognized here as tribes, do not support the ‘phylads’ in Epidendroideae proposed 22 years ago by Dressler. © 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 177, 151–174.
Assam, Bongaigaon District, Zulna bridge, Kakoi reserve forest
  • Chayang District
  • Tajo
District, Chayang Tajo, 20.3.1998, A.N. Rao 30519 (OHT). Assam, Bongaigaon District, Zulna bridge, Kakoi reserve forest, 12.2.2011, D.K. Roy 121356 (ASSAM), Assam (erstwhile; precise locality not mentioned), April 1893, Dr. King's collector s.n. (CAL, BM -photo);
Nanda et al. s.n. (Herbarium of the Centre for Orchid Gene Conservation of the Eastern Himalayan Region, Hengbung
  • Tamenglong Manipur
Manipur, Tamenglong, 28.03.2012, Nanda et al. s.n. (Herbarium of the Centre for Orchid Gene Conservation of the Eastern Himalayan Region, Hengbung, not in "Index Herbariorum" and here abbreviated as COGCEHR);
Kishor et al. 00433 (COGCEHR)
  • Kamjong
Kamjong, 26.3.11, Kishor et al. 00433 (COGCEHR). Meghalaya, East Khasi Hills District, Khasia Hills, 7.4.1894, G.A. Gammie 470 (CAL);
  • Sundai
Sundai, May 1899, Dr. Prain's collector 217 (CAL);
Pantling s.n. (CAL). Mizoram, Langlei District
  • Jowai
Jowai, March 1897, Pantling s.n. (CAL). Mizoram, Langlei District, c. 914 m, 9.4.1899, A.T. Gage 174 (CAL).