TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13 Patil & al.

• The identity of Zingiber neesanum

NOMENCLATURE

Fixing stray traditions in gingers: The identity and nomenclatural

history of Zingiber neesanum and other entwined names
Sameer Patil,1 Rajendra D. Shinde,2 Jana Leong-Škorničková3 & Rushabh Chaudhari2,4
1 Botanical Survey of India, Northern Regional Centre, 192 Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun – 248195, Uttarakhand, India
2 Blatter Herbarium (BLAT), St. Xavier’s College (Autonomous), Mumbai – 400001, Maharashtra, India
3 The Herbarium, Singapore Botanic Gardens, National Parks Board, 1 Cluny Road, Singapore – 259569
4 Naoroji Godrej Centre for Plant Research (NGCPR), Shirwal, Satara – 412801, Maharashtra, India
Address for correspondence: Rushabh Chaudhari, rushabhchaudhari@gmail.com
DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.12567

Abstract The identities of two historical names, Zingiber neesanum (≡ Alpinia neesana) and Z. macrostachyum are re-investigated.
Both have been considered to represent the same taxonomic entity by various workers in the past 160 years. Yet, based on traditional
usage, they were applied to two distinct taxa occurring in the Western Ghats (India), both superficially similar by having long-stalked
inflorescences, but much distinct in flower colour and overall morphology. Alpinia neesana was originally described only from fruit-
ing material, while Z. macrostachyum was described from flowering material of a species with white flowers. Dalzell’s presumption
that his taxon was identical to Graham’s, and unambiguous inclusion of A. neesana in his description made his name nomenclatur-
ally superfluous and illegitimate. After realising the illegitimacy of Dalzell’s name, a new combination was created in Zingiber for
A. neesana. The name Z. neesanum continued to be applied sensu Dalzell to the white-flowered species mainly in the central and
southern Western Ghats, but it was also applied to a yellow-flowered species in the northern Western Ghats, for which another name,
Z. diwakarianum, was proposed recently. Despite the absence of any original material relating to Graham’s or Dalzell’s descriptions,
re-collections from the type localities prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the yellow-flowered species is the true Z. neesanum,
making Z. diwakarianum a synonym, and that the existing name Z. anamalayanum has to be applied to the white-flowered species,
originally described by Dalzell as Z. macrostachyum. The significance of authentic primary data sources concerning botanical history
such as correspondence and manuscripts of collectors and botanists, and the importance of making these resources widely accessible
through digitisation are highlighted.
Keywords Alpinia neesana; Dalzell; Graham; Kew rule; typification; Western Ghats; Zingiber anamalayanum; Zingiber
diwakarianum; Zingiber macrostachyum; Zingiberaceae

■ INTRODUCTION
Zingiber Mill. (Miller, 1754) (Zingiberales: Zingiberaceae)
is a genus of rhizomatous herbs widely distributed in tropical to
subtemperate Asia with highest diversity in the monsoonal parts
of Asia (Kishor & Leong-Škorničková, 2013; Bai & al., 2020).
Several species are grown worldwide for their culinary, medi-
cinal, and ornamental values with Ginger of commerce or
Common ginger (Z. officinale Roscoe) being the best-known
and economically most important example. Slightly over 300
names have been published in Zingiber so far (Govaerts & al.,
2020), corresponding to 150–220 species (Kishor & Leong-
Škorničková, 2013; Bai & al., 2020), making it one of the larg-
est genera in Zingiberaceae. A detailed introduction to the genus
and the sectional classification currently followed are given in
Bai & al. (2015a) and not repeated here. No recent compre-
hensive revision of Zingiber in India exists, although the last
decade has seen a steady rise of newly described species as well
as new distributional records, increasing the total number of spe-
cies to c. 36 (Bhargava & Nair, 1979; Bhaumik & Pathak,
2008; Sabu & al., 2009, 2013; Kishor & Leong-Škorničková,
2013; Kumar & al., 2013, 2015; Thongam & Konsam, 2014;
Talukdar & al., 2015; Singh & Singh, 2016; Prabhukumar &
al., 2016; Mibang & Das, 2016; Odyuo & Roy, 2019; Odyuo
& al., 2019a,b; Thachat & al., 2020; Jayakrishnan & al.,
2021).
Despite the continuing description of new species, the
identities of many Zingiberaceae species described in early
history, including widely cultivated species, remain obscure
(e.g., Leong-Škorničková & al., 2008a,b; Droop & al., 2013;
Bai & al., 2020). The main reasons include scanty original de-
scriptions and missing or poorly preserved herbarium mate-
rial. As aptly pointed out by Turland (2019: 65), in the absence
of type specimens, mere tradition determines the application
of names, creating an unstable nomenclatural situation, as tra-
ditions may stray over time. Work on living flowering material
is critical in Zingiberaceae because the diagnostic characters,
especially those linked with flowers and rhizomes, do not pre-
serve well in dry specimens (Burtt & Smith, 1976; Williams,
2004; Škorničková & Sabu, 2005). Numerous synonyms
and new combinations, solely based on descriptions, or icons
and illustrations, have resulted in many errors and further

Article history: Received: 8 Mar 2021 | returned for (first) revision: 23 Apr 2021 | (last) revision received: 12 May 2021 | accepted: 14 May 2021
Associate Editor: Jefferson Prado | © 2021 International Association for Plant Taxonomy.

Version of Record 1
Patil & al. • The identity of Zingiber neesanum
aggravated an already ambiguous situation in many taxa con-
cerning their identity and nomenclature (Veldkamp, 2012).
Description of new species based on fruiting material must
also be strongly discouraged because this practice has led to
wrong generic placements in the past that can only be cor-
rected after re-collection of living material from the type local-
ities, e.g., Zingiber ellipticum (S.Q.Tong & Y.M.Xia) Q.G.
Wu & T.L.Wu (≡ Plagiostachys elliptica S.Q.Tong & Y.M.
Xia) (Wu & al., 1996).
Our taxonomic and nomenclatural studies of Zingiber in
the Western Ghats (India) have therefore not surprisingly re-
vealed that the identities of some early-described names from
this region remain unclear. Here we focus on re-investigating
the identity of an enigmatic species from the northern Western
Ghats described by Graham (1839) as Alpinia neesana
J.Graham. The description was based on fruiting material and
describes a species with an inflorescence that arises separately
from the leafy shoot and is two feet (c. 60 cm) tall or more.
In 1852, Dalzell described a Zingiber species with long-
stalked lateral inflorescences and white flowers with labellum
ornamented with purple lines (here called the white-flowered
species). He was convinced that it was the same as Graham’s
A. neesana, as he explicitly stated “This is also mentioned in
Graham’s Catalogue under No. 1455 as Alpinia Mesana from
the native name “Meesum;” neither had the flowers of this
been observed at the time of publication” (p. 342; note the
misspelling of neesana and mesana). Dalzell, most probably
exercising the flexibility of the informal Kew rule (Jackson,
1887; Stafleu, 1966; Stevens, 1991), named this species
Z. macrostachyum Dalzell. This treatment was reiterated in
Dalzell & Gibson (1861) and also followed by subsequent
workers (Horaninow, 1862; Baker, 1892; Schumann, 1904;
Cooke, 1907; Fischer, 1928) who treated Z. macrostachyum
as the correct name for A. neesana. Santapau (1953, 1967) also
used the name Z. macrostachyum but, contrary to previous
workers, described his plants as having cadmium-yellow
flowers on a scape up to 1 m in length. Particularly in his
work on floristics of Khandala (Santapau, 1953), he noted
that dried specimens of this and many other species of the
Zingiberaceae are most difficult to examine and that his
observations were based on a very large number of living
plants. He provided a detailed description of the plant he
studied from Khandala (Maharashtra) but expressed doubt
about the conspecific treatment of these two names. Rama-
moorthy (1976), who treated the Zingiberaceae in the Flora
of Hassan District (Karnataka), realised the superfluous and
illegitimate status of Z. macrostachyum (Art. 52.1, 52.2,
52.3 of the ICN, Turland & al. 2018) and proposed a new
combination Zingiber neesanum (J.Graham) Ramamoorthy
in Saldanha & Nicolson (1976). Thereafter, wide discrep-
ancies occurred in the application of Z. neesanum in re-
gional floristic works. In most of these publications, the
descriptions, specimens cited and associated photographs
do not match each other well. The numerous authors of sub-
sequent regional floristic works may be informally divided
into two main camps. While both groups agreed that the
2 Version of Record
TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13
species described by Graham as Alpinia neesana and by
Dalzell as Z. macrostachyum were conspecific and continued
to use the combination Zingiber neesanum, botanists particu-
larly from the northern Western Ghats applied it to the species
with cadmium-yellow flowers consistent with Santapau’s de-
scription of Z. macrostachyum (e.g., Bole & Almeida, 1986;
Kulkarni, 1988; Lakshminarasimhan, 1996: 84; Yadav &
Sardesai, 2002: pl. 44; Datar & Lakshminarasimhan, 2013:
pl. 25(f)). On the other hand, botanists mainly from the
central and southern Western Ghats applied it to a species
with white flowers, consistent with Dalzell’s description of
Z. macrostachyum (e.g., Bhat, 1993; Mohanan & Sivadasan,
2002; Sabu, 2003, 2006; Punekar & Lakshminarasimhan, 2011;
Singh, 2011; Pushpakaran & Gopalan, 2014). Several works
even avoided stating the flower colour altogether (e.g., Bole &
Almeida, 1986; Kothari & Moorthy, 1993).
Singh (2011) added to this already confusing situation
when he stated that Santapau (1953) erroneously applied the
name Zingiber macrostachyum to a species with cadmium-
yellow flowers, and coined for it a new name, Z. diwakarianum
R.Kr.Singh, while continuing to use Z. neesanum for the
white-flowered species, following Sabu (2003).
Here we re-investigate the identity, taxonomy, and nomen-
clatural history of two old names, Zingiber neesanum (≡ Alpi-
nia neesana) and Zingiber macrostachyum, and two recent
names, Z. diwakarianum and Z. anamalayanum Sujanapal
& Sasidh., to determine to how many and to which species
they correspond. To achieve that, we: (a) investigate the iden-
tity of the taxon described as A. neesana to confirm its generic
placement and establish its correct name; (b) investigate the
identity of Z. macrostachyum and determine whether or not
it is conspecific with A. neesana; (c) review descriptions of
Z. diwakarianum and Z. anamalayanum, and all morphologi-
cally similar species from Z. sect. Zingiber in the Indian sub-
continent to determine other possible names in existence
corresponding to these taxa; and (d) revise the synonymy and
typification for all names involved, and provide updated de-
scriptions and distributions of the recognised taxa.
■ MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study largely follows the methods outlined in previ-
ous studies dealing with the identity of early-described Zingi-
beraceae, all of which relied on a combination of exhaustive
herbarium and reference research combined with collection of
new flowering material from the type localities and nearby areas
(e.g., Leong-Škorničková & al., 2008a,b; Bai & al., 2020).
All relevant names were identified by an extensive search
of databases, namely IPNI (2020), Zingiberaceae Resource
Centre (Newman & al., 2021), World Checklist of Selected
Plant Families (Govaerts & al., 2020), and Tropicos (2021),
and literature pertaining to Zingiber, with particular focus on
the Indian subcontinent.
The working methods of the authors of names and collec-
tors of original material were investigated through Taxonomic
TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13
literature (Stafleu & Cowan, 1976–1988), biographies, and
other publications dealing specifically with Indian botanical
history (e.g., Burkill, 1954–1963; Noltie, 2002). Correspon-
dence was consulted using the Directors’ Correspondence
Project, Kew through JSTOR Global Plants (Global Plants,
2021). Original material, as well as all other specimens con-
nected to the respective names, were searched for and exam-
ined at the following herbaria: BLAT, BM, BSI, CAL,
CALI, DD, E, FRLH, K, L, MH, P, PDA and SUK. High-
resolution images of specimens were sourced from websites
or through the curators of the following herbaria: CGE,
HBG, JCB, LE, M, MEL and W. Living flowering material
collected from the type localities as well as other locations
within Western Ghat region was examined during 2000–2020.
The general descriptive terminology is based on Beentje
(2010), and the style and level of detail follow the recent
works of Bai & al. (2015a,b, 2016, 2018a,b, 2020).
A distribution map of taxa based on 95 data points deri-
ved from fieldwork and herbarium records was created using
QGIS v.2.18. Photoplates were created in Adobe Photoshop
v.22.2.0.
■ RESULTS
Search of original material of Alpinia neesana. —
Alpinia neesana was described by John Graham (*1805–†1839)
in A catalogue of the plants growing in Bombay and its vicinity
(Graham, 1839). Graham was a native of Dumfriesshire, Scotland
and arrived in India in 1828, where he held the post of “Deputy
postmaster general” until his death on 28 May 1839 at
Khandala, India (Preface in Graham, 1839). Graham briefly
compared A. neesana to the preceding species in his catalogue,
A. nimmonii J.Graham (≡ Zingiber nimmonii (J.Graham)
Dalzell), stating that it “Has much the appearance of the last,
only it is smaller and the leaves are of a darker green, with the
margins frequently reflected.” He also states that “The flowers
of neither species [i.e., A. nimmonii and A. neesana] have yet
been observed.” The descriptive part states: “The scape, or
culm, (for it is jointed, compressed and furnished with sheath-
ing leaves like the Gramineae,) rises at a little distance from
the stem to a height of 2 feet or more, and is terminated with
a closely imbricated spike, of dingy brown fleshy capsules,
which are hid in bracts of a lighter colour.” The last part
of the description gives the whereabouts of this species as
“The hills at Wargaum [Vadgaon]; the borders of Lanowlee
[Lonavala] grove, and below bushes and detached trees on
the undulating ground about Kandalla [Khandala]. The table
land of Mahableshwur [Mahabaleshwar]. (Dr. Murray.)”
(Graham, 1839: 207).
No specimens are cited in the protologue of Alpinia nee-
sana and none of the authors dealing with this name since
cited any type material. Sabu (2003) explicitly stated in his ac-
count of Zingiber neesanum: “Types not available”. Clues to
the existence and possible location of Graham’s herbarium
are scarce. Manudev & Nampy (2016) stated that there was no
Version of Record
Patil & al. • The identity of Zingiber neesanum
evidence that Graham maintained a herbarium at the time of his
work on the plants of Bombay and vicinity. Leong-Škorničková
& al. (2010), who dealt with typification of names relating to
Indian Curcuma, did not discount the possibility that Graham
had a herbarium but, despite extensive searches in 35 herbaria,
none was found and two binomials attributed to J. Graham
published in the same work as A. neesana were neotypified by
material newly collected from the type localities. An interesting
piece of correspondence between Graham and William Jack-
son Hooker (*1785–†1865) dated 6 June 1834 has, however,
revealed that J. Graham certainly maintained a herbarium,
which he transferred to a German baron Carl Hügel (Global
Plants, 2021: letter KDCAS1119, digital image!). This transfer
of his herbarium is confirmed by J. Nimmo (Global Plants,
2021: letter KDCAS1136, digital image!).
Carl (Karl) Alexander Anselm Freiherr [= baron] von
Hügel (*1794–†1870) was a German-born Austrian soldier,
traveller, and botanist. As stated by Burkill (1954: 874), “Von
Huegel was liberally supplied by the Bombay botanists with
collections which were purchased from him by the Vienna
Museum.” Hügel’s collections are held by W, with duplicates
in BR, CGE, CN (herbarium transferred to P), HBG, K, LE,
M, and MEL (Stafleu & Cowan, 1976–1988). We correspon-
ded extensively with these herbaria but failed to trace any
original material of Alpinia neesana that could be linked to
J. Graham.
Besides Graham, two more people are associated with the
protologue, namely Dr. James Murray and Joseph Nimmo.
It is evident from the protologue that the locality statement
“The table land of Mahableshwur. (Dr. Murray.)” was con-
tributed by Murray, most likely through personal communi-
cation. Dr. James Murray (*1802–†1855) was an Assistant
surgeon in Indian Medical Service and later Superintendent
of Mahabaleshwar from 1831 onwards (Parasnis, 1916).
Murray shared friendship with Graham and also collected
plants for him (Global Plants, 2021: letter KDCAS10318, dig-
ital image!). He also acted as one of the sources from whom
Graham received materials for his catalogue (Preface in
Graham, 1839). Murray took particular interest in the study of
the local climate as well as the flora of Mahabaleshwar and
seemed to rely on Graham as a source of knowledge in the bo-
tanical domain (Murray, 1837). Whether or not Murray
maintained a herbarium is uncertain, but if he did, the loca-
tion of this collection remains unknown.
Graham did not see his publication through the press ow-
ing to his untimely death in 1839 after which his work was com-
pleted by his contemporary Joseph Nimmo (*Unknown–†1854).
Graham supervised the printing of the first 200 pages, while
pages 201–254 were supervised by Nimmo (Graham, 1839).
Alpinia neesana was published on page 207, so we have also
investigated Nimmo. Nimmo and Graham were close associ-
ates particularly with regards to this publication as evidenced
from the preface notes as well as many sporadic additions pro-
vided by Nimmo in the descriptions throughout. These addi-
tions are exclusively marked by the annotation “N” (Global
Plants, 2021: letter KDCAS10367, digital image!). No such
3
Patil & al. • The identity of Zingiber neesanum TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13

annotation exists in the protologue of A. neesana. However, a
letter from Nimmo to W.J. Hooker has revealed that Nimmo
sent a few plants via parcel (whether living or in the form of
an herbarium is ambiguous) to Hooker in 1834, and that some
of these plants were collected at Khandala (one of the locali-
ties mentioned in the protologue of A. neesana) (Global
Plants, 2021: letter KDCAS1138, digital image!). A slim
chance therefore existed that this parcel might have con-
tained material of A. neesana from or with a link to Graham.
Hooker’s herbarium was purchased by K in 1867 (Stafleu &
Cowan, 1976–1988). No herbarium specimen of A. neesana
attributed to Nimmo or Graham was located in K.
As our extensive search did not locate any original mate-
rial, and the protologue does not contain an illustration, a neo-
type designation is necessary.
Identity and generic placement of Alpinia neesana. —
With no original material extant, the best way to understand
the identity of Alpinia neesana, as well as to gather new mate-
rial for neotypification, was through comprehensive field-
work in the localities stated in the protologue. All localities
(Vadgaon, Khandala, Lonavala, and Mahabaleshwar) were
visited repeatedly at different seasons to search for a ginger
species fitting the protologue. Our findings conclude that
the only species with separate inflorescences composed of
long peduncles (reaching up to 1 m) terminating in an
imbricately bracteate spike, matching the description of
A. neesana, is a locally common species with cadmium-
yellow flowers, as described in detail by Santapau under
the name Zingiber macrostachyum (Santapau, 1953, 1957,
1967) (see Fig. 1). The presence of a pulvinus, beak-shaped
anther crest, and also the fact that the plant regularly enters
dormancy during the dry periods of the year unambiguously
place this species in Zingiber, and the erect inflorescence fur-
ther places it in Zingiber sect. Zingiber. The correct name to be
applied to this taxon is Z. neesanum (J.Graham) Ramamoorthy
(Art 7.3 of the ICN, Turland & al., 2018), regardless of Rama-
moorthy’s description, which merely follows Dalzell in featur-
ing a species with white flowers. No white-flowered species
fitting Graham’s description could be found in any of the local-
ities cited in the protologue of Z. neesanum, suggesting that
Dalzell’s taxon is a distinct entity. As already stated in the intro-
duction, Ramamoorthy correctly recognised the illegitimacy
of Z. macrostachyum, but did not realise that Dalzell’s and
his descriptions refer to another taxon than Graham’s, which
needs a name. Singh (2011) correctly recognised the heteroge-
neous application of Z. neesanum to two distinct taxa, but erred
in interpreting the identity of white-flowered ginger as Z. neesa-
num. He described the cadmium-yellow-flowered ginger as
Z. diwakarianum, which has to be treated as a heterotypic
synonym of Z. neesanum.
Zingiber neesanum (J.Graham) Ramamoorthy in Saldanha
& Nicolson, Fl. Hassan Dist.: 769. 1976 ≡ Alpinia nee-
sana J.Graham, Cat. Pl. Bombay: 207. 1839 ≡ Zingiber
macrostachyum Dalzell in Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard.
Misc. 4: 342. 1852, nom. superfl. & illeg. – Neotype
(designated here): INDIA. Maharashtra, Pune District,
Khandala, on the way to St. Mary’s villa, 13 Jul 2019,
R. Chaudhari 1609 (BLAT!; isoneotype: MH barcode
MH309948!). — [Fig. 1]
= Zingiber diwakarianum R.Kr.Singh in Indian J. Forest.
34(2): 245. 2011 – Holotype: INDIA, Maharashtra, Satara
Dist., Mahabaleshwar, 15 Jul 2008, R.K. Singh 184173A
(CAL barcode CAL0000003998 [digital image!]; isotypes:
BSI barcodes BSI0000000363 [R.K. Singh 184173B]!
& BSI0000000364 [R.K. Singh 184173C]!), syn. nov.
Notes. – Colour photographs of this species were pub-
lished by Yadav & Sardesai (2002: pl. 44, top right), Datar
& Lakshminarasimhan (2013: pl. 25f), and Lakshminarasim-
han & al. (2019: pls. 20C, 21A) under the correct name Zingi-
ber neesanum, though the descriptions and the specimens cited
do not unequivocally correspond to this species. A historical
colour painting published in Noltie (2002: 157, pl. 90, left ele-
ment, identified in the text as Z. cylindricum Thwaites), an un-
published line drawing attributed to J.E. Stocks at K (SGCL
50) and an illustration in Lakshminarasimhan (1996: 84) based
on K. Hemadri 99746 (BSI) also illustrate this taxon.
Zingiber neesanum is endemic to the northern Western
Ghats and is presently known to occur only in eight districts
of Maharashtra (Ahmednagar, Kolhapur, Pune, Sangli, Satara,
Sindhudurg, Ratnagiri, Thane; see Fig. 2). It occurs in patches
along forest edges, in shady or open areas on slopes, and among
bushes in semi-evergreen to evergreen forests, between 200 and
1200 m altitude. Flowering occurs from June to August, fol-
lowed by fruiting, which lasts till December. A detailed descrip-
tion and a complete list of specimens examined are provided in
Appendix 1.
Identity of Zingiber macrostachyum Dalzell and its
correct name. — Although Zingiber macrostachyum is an il-
legitimate name, it is important to investigate its identity and
provide a correct name for this white-flowered taxon, to which
most workers have erroneously applied the name Z. neesanum.
Nicol Alexander Dalzell (*1817–†1878) was a Scottish
botanist and forester, who held the post of the conservator of
forests in Bombay between 1841 and 1870 (Stafleu &

Fig. 1. Zingiber neesanum (J.Graham) Ramamoorthy, A, Habit in early monsoonal season; B, Leafy shoot in late monsoonal season; C & D, In-
florescences with flowers in side and front view; E, Plant in early fruiting stage; F, Detail of ligules (lateral view); G, Infructescence (c. 40 cm long);
H, Dehisced capsules; I, Cross-section of rhizome; J, Young fruit and mature seeds (with and without aril; scale 5 mm); K, Flower dissection, from
the bottom left: bract, bracteole, corolla lobes, labellum in side view, floral tube with ovary, calyx and anther attached; upper left: two labella show-
ing variation in shape; upper right: stamen in front and back view and overy with epigynous gland (scale 10 mm). — Photographs: R. Chaudhari
from neotype locality in Khandala.

4 Version of Record
TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13 Patil & al. • The identity of Zingiber neesanum

Fig. 1. Caption on page 4.

Version of Record 5
Patil & al. • The identity of Zingiber neesanum
Cowan, 1976–1988). He described Zingiber macrostachyum
based on plants from Ram Ghat (Ramghat), the present region
of Maharashtra-Goa state border, and near the Central West-
ern Ghats. The Latin description provided corresponds to a
plant with red pubescent stem, lanceolate acuminate leaves
dark green above, paler and pubescent beneath, inflorescence
with a long peduncle arising separately from the rhizome,
spike consisting of obovate rusty red bracts with acute apex,
white corolla, labellum 3-lobed with round and emarginate
midlobe marked with diverging/fan-like (flabellatim) purple
lines, obovate red pubescent capsules, dark purple seeds alto-
gether hidden by white fimbriate aril, flowering spikes rusty
red, one and a half feet long, fruiting ones much longer and
bright red.
No specimens are cited in the protologue of Zingiber
macrostachyum. Dalzell’s collections are known to be depos-
ited at CAL, DD, K, and W. No specimens were found by us
in CAL and DD, and the curators at K and W also confirmed
that there are no specimens attributed to Dalzell in their
collections in connection with this name. A set of 42 water-
colour drawings of plants with links to N.A. Dalzell exists at
BM (Stafleu & Cowan, 1976–1988; Noltie, 2002), but these
do not include any Zingiberaceae species (M. Nandikar
& S. Bramhadande, pers. comm.).
Fig. 2. Distribution of Zingiber neesanum and Z. anamalayanum based on 95 points derived from fieldwork and herbarium data.
6 Version of Record
TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13
Fieldwork carried out in the type locality Ramghat and
the nearby region has resulted in a collection of a ginger
closely fitting the description of Zingiber macrostachyum
(Fig. 3), which is clearly distinct from the species we have
identified as Z. neesanum.
Of 36 Zingiber species currently known to occur in India,
only 11 belong to the nominal Z. sect. Zingiber, of which we
have shown Z. diwakarianum to be synonymous with Z. neesa-
num. Of the remaining nine species, only three bear some resem-
blance to the species described by Dalzell as Z. macrostachyum
by having fusiform spikes composed of bracts with acute apices.
They are Z. purpureum Roscoe, Z. cylindricum, and Z. anama-
layanum. The identity of Z. purpureum (often misidentified in
the last 20 years as Z. montanum (J.Koenig) Link ex A.Dietr.)
has been elaborated in detail by Bai & al. (2020). This species
can be distinguished by its bright yellow and strongly aromatic
rhizome and pale yellow flowers with no prominent red or pur-
ple striation, although a few purple spots rarely occur at the
very base of the labellum in some populations, but are micro-
scopic and obscured by the anther. Zingiber cylindricum was
described originally from Sri Lanka. Sharma & al. (1984) listed
this species as occurring in Karnataka without any details, but
this occurrence was deemed doubtful by Bhat (1993), and we
also have no proof that this species occurs in India. The distinct
TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13 Patil & al. • The identity of Zingiber neesanum

Fig. 3. Caption on page 8.

Version of Record 7
Patil & al. • The identity of Zingiber neesanum
feature of this species is closed leaf-sheaths, a character that
only rarely occurs in the genus and is sufficient alone to elimi-
nate this name from further consideration. This only leaves
Z. anamalayanum, a species described from high-altitude grass-
lands (c. 1430–1600 m) of the southern Western Ghats that
shares many characteristics with the species described by Dal-
zell as Z. macrostachyum, to be considered as the potential
correct name.
Sujanapal & Sasidharan (2010), in the original descrip-
tion of Zingiber anamalayanum, noted its close morpholo-
gical affinities to Z. cylindricum, Z. montanum, Z. neesanum
(a name that they applied to the white-flowered species sensu
Z. macrostachyum Dalzell), and Z. zerumbet (L.) Sm., and
provided a comparative table with 72 morphological charac-
ters, to distinguish Z. anamalayanum from these species.
They also converted these characters into binary matrices and
performed UPGMA and PCoA to support the recognition of
the new taxon. Unfortunately, the authors did not state the ori-
gin of the data pertaining to these characters for any of the
four comparative taxa in their table 1. It is clear that intraspe-
cific variation among these species has not been adequately
considered. In the discussion, the authors pointed out that
Z. anamalayanum could be distinguished from Z. neesanum
by the broad, coriaceous, sericeous leaves, the thick cylin-
drical spike, the free lateral lobes, and the highly wrinkled
midlobe of the labellum. We are aware that plants of
Z. anamalayanum are at first glance robust and with the
characters as highlighted by Sujanapal & Sasidharan (2010).
However, based on our field observations over many years in
various habitats of the central and southern Western Ghats,
we believe that the white-flowered species, which sets seeds
freely, is very widespread and highly variable in terms of the
height of the plant, size and shape of the leaves, ligules and
overall robustness. The inflorescences are also highly variable
with spike length ranging from 5 to 30 cm and peduncles
from a few to 50 cm, being shorter during the flowering phase
and slightly extending during fruiting. Plants growing at lower
altitudes are more slender, with narrower leaf blades and with
smaller spikes and shorter (rarely with almost negligible)
peduncles, whereas those growing at higher altitudes and in
more open habitats are increasingly robust with elongated
spikes supported by long peduncles. The colour of the flowers
ranges from white to cream-white with the margins of the la-
bellum sometimes approaching pale yellow, while the fine or-
namentation on the labellum ranges from pink-red, blood red
to dark purple and may be limited to the central part of the la-
bellum, or extend almost to the margins. The shape of the
labellum and position and degree of connation of the lateral
staminodes to the labellum also somewhat vary (Fig. 4). The
plants we have observed and collected in the type locality of
Fig. 3. Zingiber anamalayanum Sujanapal & Sasidh., A, Habit; B, Young infructescence; C, Flower, semi-front view; D, Indehised capsule within
bracts; E, Flower in bract, side view; F, Rhizome and immature root tubers; G, Flower dissection, from left: bract, bracteole, floral tube with ovary,
calyx and stamen attached, corolla lobes, labellum; right bottom: seeds with and without aril (scale 10 mm). — Photographs: A–D, R. Chaudhari;
E–G, Sushant More from Ram Ghat.
8 Version of Record
TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13
Z. macrostachyum (Fig. 3) exhibit characters more or less in
the middle of the range of the variation, and all measurements
largely or partially overlap with Z. anamalayanum. We have
failed to find any discernible discontinuity in any of the char-
acters that may warrant recognition of distinct specific or even
subspecific units across the distribution range (Fig. 2). We are
therefore of the opinion that the name Z. anamalayanum is the
earliest validly published name for the white-flowered species.
Future molecular-based studies will be undertaken to assess
the broad species concept applied here.
Zingiber anamalayanum Sujanapal & Sasidh. in Nordic
J. Bot. 28: 289–293. 2010 – Holotype: INDIA. Kerala,
Palakkad District, Nelliyampathy, Minampara 1450 m,
16 Aug 2008, P. Sujanapal & N. Sasidharan KFRI30829
(MH barcode MH00001411 [digital image!]; isotypes:
CALI, KFRI, L not located). — [Figs. 3, 4]
Notes. – Many authors have treated Zingiber anamalaya-
num under the name Z. macrostachyum. This includes the
original description of Dalzell (1852), who thought that his
white-flowered species was Graham’s Alpinia neesana, as well
as those who followed his description (Dalzell & Gibson,
1861; Baker, 1892; Cooke, 1907; Fischer, 1928). Subsequently,
all authors who followed Ramamoorthy’s (1976) treatment
provided descriptions and/or photographs/illustrations of
Z. anamalayanum under the incorrect name Z. neesanum
(Saldanha & Dhawan, 1984: pl. 13; Manilal & al., 1988;
Bhat, 2003; Sabu, 2003, 2006: 235, fig. 61 & pl. 17B & C.;
Punekar & Lakshminarasimhan, 2011: pl. 112a & b; Datar
& Lakshminarasimhan, 2013; Nayar & al., 2014). A photo-
graph of Z. anamalayanum was also published by Yadav
& Sardesai (2002: pl. 44, bottom left) under the name
Z. purpureum and by Lakshminarasimhan & al. (2019: fig.
20B, flowering plant under the name Z. montanum and fig.
21B, fruiting plant under the name Z. neesanum).
Zingiber anamalayanum is a widespread species occur-
ring in many districts across five states of India: Maharashtra
(Kolhapur), Goa (North Goa, South Goa), Karnataka (Belagavi,
Chamarajanagar, Chikkamagaluru, Dakshin Kannada, Hassan,
Kodagu, Mysore, Shimoga, Udupi, Uttara Kannada), Kerala
(Idukki, Kannur, Kollam, Kottayam, Palghat, Pathanamthitta,
Thiruvananthapuram, Thrissur, Wayanad), and Tamil Nadu
(Coimbatore, Nilgiri, Tirunelveli) (Fig. 2). It occurs infre-
quently in fragmented patches along forest edges and in the
undergrowth of dense shady areas rich with humus in semi-
evergreen to evergreen forests, at 50 to 1600 m elevation.
Flowering occurs between June and August, followed by fruiting
till December. Detailed descriptions covering the morpholo-
gical variation and a complete list of specimens examined are
provided in Appendix 2.
TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13
■ CONCLUSION
If Graham had described flowers of Alpinia neesana or
Dalzell had simply described his Zingiber macrostachyum
without attempting to judge whether it was identical with Gra-
ham’s A. neesana, much chaos might not have occurred. Due
to the lack of nomenclatural types, subsequent workers carried
forward locally established but taxonomically heterogeneous
traditions in the application of these historical names of two dis-
tinct species that look superficially similar at the fruiting stage.
Almost 160 years after this confusion arose, we show that
the species first described by Graham from the northern
Western Ghats as Alpinia neesana J.Graham is a species with
cadmium-yellow flowers to which the correct name Zingiber
neesanum (J.Graham) Ramamoorthy must be applied and that
the recently coined but superfluous name Z. diwakarianum
R.Kr.Singh has to be treated as a heterotypic synonym of it.
The designation of a neotype collected in the flowering stage
from the type locality of Z. neesanum will provide taxonomic
clarity and stability for future studies. We also show that
Z. macrostachyum Dalzell, a species with white flowers de-
scribed by Dalzell from a region with close proximity to the
Fig. 4. Flower shape and colour
variation documented from various
localities of Zingiber anamalaya-
num Sujanapal & Sasidh. A, Kerala,
Minampara, the type locality of
Z. anamalayanum; B, Maharashtra,
Ram Ghat, the locality connected to
Dalzell’s description of Z. macro-
stachyum; C, Karnataka, Pushpa-
giri Wildlife Sanctuary; D, Kerala,
cultivated at Calicut Botanic Gar-
den. — Photographs: A, P. Suja-
napal; B, S. More; C, S. Patil;
D, J. Leong-Škorničková.
Version of Record
Patil & al. • The identity of Zingiber neesanum
central Western Ghats, and a name that is superfluous and il-
legitimate, is not, contrary to wide belief, conspecific with
Z. neesanum. We clarify that the correct name for this widely
distributed and highly variable species is Z. anamalayanum
Sujanapal & Sasidh. The results of herbarium studies and field-
work show that Z. neesanum occurs in the northern Western
Ghats, whereas Z. anamalayanum occurs in the central and
southern Western Ghats. The distribution of the two species is
confirmed to overlap in the southern region of the northern
Western Ghats in Kolhapur District, and most likely also in the
adjacent District of Sindhudurg (both districts in Maharashtra).
Based on observations, this overlap may further extend to Goa
and the northern region of the central Western Ghats, in particu-
lar to Belagavi and North Kanara districts (Karnataka).
The historic information uncovered during our extensive
search for any information relating to herbarium collections
of botanists such as J. Graham and J. Nimmo highlights the
significance of authentic primary data sources such as the
“Directors’ Correspondence Project” at Kew, as well as the
paramount importance of making such rich repositories more
widely accessible through digitisation, allowing botanists
across the globe to tap its vast potential.
9
Patil & al. • The identity of Zingiber neesanum
■ AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
SP, RDS, RC and JL-Š designed the present study; SP, RC and JL-Š
drafted the manuscript and figures; SP, RC and JL-Š conducted fieldwork
for this study. All authors have read, commented and approved the final
manuscript. — SP, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0598-2114, sameerpatil.
c@gmail.com; RDS, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9315-9883, rajendra.
shinde@xaviers.edu; JL-Š, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4490-3490,
jana_skornickova@nparks.gov.sg; RC, https://orcid.org/0000-00
03-0278-6599
■ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to the curators and other staff members of the fol-
lowing herbaria for facilitating access to specimens in their care or
providing digital images of the specimens as well additional informa-
tion on some of the collections: BLAT (Mr. Praveen Kale), BM
(Dr. Ranee Prakash, Dr. Norbert Holstein), BSI (Dr. J. Jayanti,
Dr. Priyanka Ingle, Mr. Dinesh Shirodkar), CAL (Dr. Mahua Pal,
Mr. Anand Kumar, Mr. K. Karthigeyan), CALI (Dr. Jayakrishna T.),
CGE (Dr. Lauren M. Gardiner), DD (Mr. P.K. Verma), FRLH
(Dr. Ravikumar K.), HBG (Mr. Matthias Schultz), JCB (Dr. Sankara
Rao, Mr. Mayur Bhagwat), K (Ms. Alison Moore, Ms. Julia Buckley,
Ms. Wiebke Hillebrecht), LE (Ms. Larisa Orlova), M (Dr. Hajo Esser),
MEL (Ms. Pine Milne, Mr. Wayne Gebert), MH (Dr. Ravi Kiran A.), P
(Dr. Thomas Haevermans), PDA (Dr. Cyril Wijesundara), SUK
(Dr. Manoj Lekhak, Dr. Sharad Kambale) and W (Dr. Christian Bräuch-
ler). We also thank Dr. John McNeill and Dr. Kanchi Gandhi for no-
menclatural comments, Dr. Mark Newman for language revision of this
manuscript, Dr. M. Sabu for discussions on Zingiber in South India and
for supervising JL-Š during her research stay at Calicut University;
Dr. Mayur Nandikar & Ms. Sneha Bramhadande for sharing their exper-
tise on N.A. Dalzell’s plant illustrations at BM and other valuable sug-
gestions to this manuscript; Mr. Sushant More for the help during the
fieldwork and photography, Dr. Sujanapal for providing photos of
Zinbiber anamalayanum from the type locality. RC is indebted to Rajdeo
Singh, Maniruddin Dhabak, Sadanand Gupta and Shahid Nawaz for
their continual support. The authors are thankful to the Director, Bota-
nical Survey of India, Kolkata; the authorities of St. Xavier’s College
(Autonomous), Mumbai; Blatter Herbarium (BLAT); Naoroji Godrej
Centre for Plant Research (NGCPR), Shirwal, Satara for the continual
encouragement and providing research facilities. The research of RC is
supported by the Research Assistant fellowship (2019–20) at BLAT by
the Bombay St. Xavier’s college society trust (Trust Regn. No. F-2164
(BOM)). The research of JL-Š is supported by the National Parks Board,
Singapore. Her long-term stay at the Calicut University, Kerala, India
(2000–2005), was supported by fellowships from the Indian Council
of Cultural Relationships and the Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sport of the Czech Republic. The authorities of the Ministry of Envi-
ronment and Forests, Government of India, and the Botanical Survey
of India are thanked for granting her collecting permits and permits to
access Indian herbaria.
■ LITERATURE CITED
Bai, L., Leong-Škorničková, J. & Xia, N.H. 2015a. Taxonomic stud-
ies on Zingiber (Zingiberaceae) in China I: Zingiber kerrii and the
synonymy of Z. meghaiense and Z. stipitatum. Gard. Bull. Sin-
gapore 67: 129–142. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/
53153415#page/135/mode/1up
Bai, L., Leong-Škorničková, J. & Xia, N.H. 2015b. Taxonomic stud-
ies on Zingiber (Zingiberaceae) in China II: Zingiber tenuifolium
(Zingiberaceae), a new species from Yunnan, China. Phytotaxa
227: 92–98. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.227.1.10
10 Version of Record
TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13
Bai, L., Leong-Škorničková, J., Xia, N.H. & Ye, Y.S. 2016. Taxo-
nomic studies on Zingiber (Zingiberaceae) in China III:
Z. ventricosum, a new species from Yunnan, and notes on three
closely related species. Phytotaxa 261: 101–120. https://doi.org/
10.11646/phytotaxa.261.2.1
Bai, L., Leong-Škorničková, J., Li, D. & Xia, N. 2018a. Taxonomic
studies on Zingiber (Zingiberaceae) in China IV: Z. pauciflorum
sp. nov. from Yunnan. Nordic J. Bot. 36: njb-01534. https://doi.
org/10.1111/njb.01534
Bai, L., Leong-Škorničková, J., Xia, N.H. & Li, D. 2018b. Taxonomic
studies on Zingiber (Zingiberaceae) in China VI: Z. leucochilum,
a new species with running rhizome from Sichuan. Nordic J. Bot.
36: e01840. https://doi.org/10.1111/njb.01840
Bai, L., Maslin, B.R., Triboun, P., Xia, N. & Leong-Škorničková, J.
2020. Unravelling the identity and nomenclatural history of Zingi-
ber montanum, and establishing Z. purpureum as the correct name
for Cassumunar ginger. Taxon 68: 1334–1349. https://doi.org/10.
1002/tax.12160
Baker, J.G. 1892 (“1894”). Scitamineae. Pp. 198–264 in: Hooker, J.D.
(ed.), The flora of British India, vol. 6. London: L. Reeve & Co.
https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.678
Beentje, H. 2010. The Kew plant glossary: An illustrated dictionary of
plant terms. Richmond: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Bhargava, N. & Nair, N.G. 1979. Notes on Zingiber squarrosum
Roxb. – A poorly known Burmese species new to the Indian flora.
Bull. Bot. Surv. India 21: 175–177.
Bhat, K.G. 1993. Studies on Zingiberaceae of Karnataka. Pp. 39–102
in: Gupta, B.K. (ed.), Higher plants of Indian subcontinent,
vol. 4. Additional Series of Indian Journal of Forestry 7.
Dehradun: Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh.
Bhat, K.G. 2003. Flora of Udupi. Udupi: Indian Naturalist.
Bhaumik, M. & Pathak, M.K. 2008. Notes on distribution of Zingiber
squarrosum Roxb. (Zingiberaceae). Bull. Bot. Surv. India. 50:
152–155.
Bole, P.V. & Almeida, M.R. 1986. Material for the Flora of Mahaba-
leshwar - 7. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 83: 570–602.
Burkill, I.H. 1954–1963. Chapters on the history of botany in India.
J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 51 (1954): 846–878; 54 (1956): 42–86;
58[3] (1961): 678–706; 59[2] (1962): 335–359; 59[3] (1962):
747–777; 60[1] (1963): 49–83; 60[2] (1963): 356–370.
Burtt, B.L. & Smith, R.M. 1976. Notes on the collection of Zingiber-
aceae. Fl. Males. Bull. 29: 2599–2601.
Cooke, T. 1907. The flora of the Presidency of Bombay, vol. 2. London:
Taylor and Francis.
Dalzell, N.A. 1852. Contribution to the botany of Western India.
Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew Gard. Misc. 4: 341–347.
Dalzell, N.A. & Gibson, A. 1861. The Bombay flora; or, Short descrip-
tions of all the indigenous plants hitherto discovered in or near the
Bombay presidency; Together with a supplement of introduced
and naturalised species. Bombay: printed at the Education
Society’s Press. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.33061
Datar, M.N. & Lakshminarasimhan, P. 2013. Flora of Bhagwan
Mahavir (Molem) National Park and adjoinings, Goa. Kolkata:
Botanical Survey of India.
Droop, J., Kaewsri, W., Lamxay, V., Poulsen, A. & Newman, M.
2013. Identity and lectotypification of Amomum compactum and
Amomum kepulaga (Zingiberaceae). Taxon 62: 1287–1294.
https://doi.org/10.12705/626.8
Fischer, C.E.C. 1928. Zingiberaceae. Pp. 1478–1493 in: Gamble, J.S.
(ed.), Flora of the Presidency of Madras, vol. 3. London: Adlard
& Son.
Global Plants 2021. Global Plants on Jstor. [Collection] Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew: Archives: Directors’ Correspondence. https://
plants.jstor.org/collection/DIRCOR (accessed 25 Jan 2021).
Govaerts, R., Newman, M. & Lock, J.M. 2020. World Checklist of
Zingiberaceae. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
http://wcsp.science.kew.org/ (accessed 16 Mar 2020).
TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13
Graham, J. 1839. A catalogue of the plants growing in Bombay and its
vicinity: Spontaneous, cultivated or introduced, as far as they have
been ascertained. Bombay: printed […] at the Government Press.
https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.45206
Horaninow, P.F. 1862. Prodromus monographiae Scitaminearum.
Petropoli [St. Petersburg]: typis Academiae Caesareae Scien-
tiarum. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.44562
IPNI 2020. The International Plant Names Index. http://www.ipni.org.
The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Harvard University Herbaria
& Libraries and Australian National Botanic Gardens (accessed
10 Dec 2020).
Jackson, B.D. 1887. The new index of plant names. J. Bot. 25: 66–151.
Jayakrishnan, T., Joe, A., Hareesh, V.S. & Sabu, M. 2021. Two new
Zingiber (Zingiberaceae) species from Arunachal Pradesh, North-
eastern India. Taiwania 66(1): 101–112. https://doi.org/10.6165/
tai.2021.66.101
Kishor, R. & Leong-Škorničková, J. 2013. Zingiber kangleipakense
(Zingiberaceae): A new species from Manipur, India. Gard. Bull.
Singapore 65: 39–46.
Kothari, M.J. & Moorthy, S. 1993. Flora of Raigad District, Maha-
rashtra State. Calcutta: Botanical Survey of India.
Kulkarni, B.G. 1988. Flora of Sindhudurg. Calcutta: Botanical Survey
of India.
Kumar, R., Mood, J., Singh, S.K. & Sinha, B.K. 2013. A new species
of Zingiber (Zingiberaceae) from Northeast India. Phytotaxa
77: 61–64. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.77.4.2
Kumar, R., Singh, S.K., Sharma, S. & Triboun, P. 2015. Two new
Zingiber (Zingiberaceae) species from Northeast India. Phytotaxa
233: 80–84. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.233.1.6
Lakshminarasimhan, P. 1996. Zingiberaceae. Pp. 83–87 in: Sharma,
B.D., Karthikeyan, S. & Singh, N.P. (eds.), Flora of Maharash-
tra State: Monocotyledons. Calcutta: Botanical Survey of India.
Lakshminarasimhan, P., Dash, S.S., Singh, P., Singh, N.P., Rao,
M.K.V. & Rao, P.S.N. 2019. Flora of Karnataka, vol. 3, Mono-
cotyledons. Kolkata Botanical Survey of India.
Leong-Škorničková, J., Šída, O., Sabu, M. & Marhold, K. 2008a.
Taxonomic and nomenclatural puzzles in Indian Curcuma: The
identity and nomenclatural history of C. zedoaria (Christm.) Ros-
coe and C. zerumbet Roxb. (Zingiberaceae). Taxon 57: 949–962.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.573023
Leong-Škorničková, J., Šída, O., Wijesundara, D.S.A. & Mar-
hold, K. 2008b. On the identity of turmeric: The typification
of C. longa L. (Zingiberaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 157: 37–46.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2008.00788.x
Leong-Škorničková, J., Šída, O. & Marhold, K. 2010. Back to types!
Towards stability of names in Indian Curcuma L. (Zingiberaceae).
Taxon 59: 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.591025
Manilal, K.S., Sabu, T., Sathish Kumar, C. & Suresh, R. 1988. Flora
of Silent Valley. Calicut: Calicut University.
Manudev, M.K. & Nampy, S. 2016. Neotypification of Arisaema mur-
rayi (J.Graham) Hook. (Araceae). Taiwania 61: 58–60. https://doi.
org/10.6165/tai.2016.61.58
Mibang, T. & Das, A.K. 2016. Zingiber sianginensis (Zingiberaceae):
A new species from Arunachal Pradesh, India. Pleione 10:
169–173.
Miller, P. 1754. The gardeners dictionary, 4th ed., vol. 3. London:
printed for the author. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.79061
Mohanan, N. & Sivadasan, M. 2002. Flora of Agasthyamala. Dehra
Dun: Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh.
Murray, J. 1837. Observations on the climate of the Mahabaleshwar
hills. Trans. Med. Soc. Bombay 1: 79–154.
Nayar, T.S., Sibi, M. & Rasiya Beegam, A. 2014. Flowering plants of
the Western Ghats, India, vol. 2. Thiruvananthapuram: Jawaharlal
Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute.
Newman, M., Leong-Škorničková, J. & Pullen, M. 2021. Zingibera-
ceae Resource Centre. Online database available from https://
padme.rbge.org.uk/ZRC/ (accessed 1 Feb. 2021).
Version of Record
Patil & al. • The identity of Zingiber neesanum
Noltie, H.J. 2002. The Dapuri drawings: Alexander Gibson and the
Bombay Botanic Gardens. Woodbridge: Antique Collectors’ Club.
Odyuo, N. & Roy, D.K. 2019. Zingiber flavofusiforme (Zingiberaceae:
Section Dymczewizia) – A new record to India from Assam. Bull.
Arunachal Forest Res. 34: 21–24.
Odyuo, N., Roy, D.K. & Mao, A.A. 2019a. Zingiber dimapurensis
(Zingiberaceae), a new species from Nagaland, India. NeBIO
10: 59–65.
Odyuo, N., Roy, D.K., Lyngwa, C. & Mao, A.A. 2019b. Zingiber
perenense, a new species in Zingiber section Cryptanthium
(Zingiberaceae) from Nagaland, India. Thailand Nat. Hist.
Mus. J. 13: 1–10.
Parasnis, D.B. 1916. Mahabaleshwar. Bombay: Lakshmi Art Printing
Works. https://archive.org/details/mahabaleshwar00para
Prabhukumar, K.M., Joe, A. & Balachandran, I. 2016. Zingiber
sabuanum (Zingiberaceae): A new species from Kerala, India.
Phytotaxa 247: 92–96.
Punekar, S.A. & Lakshminarasimhan, P. 2011. Flora of Anshi National
Park, Western Ghats-Karnataka. Pune: Biosphere Publications.
Pushpakaran, B. & Gopalan, R. 2014. Zingiber neesanum (J. Graham)
Ramamoorthy in C.J. Saldanha and D.H. Nicolson (Zingiberaceae)
– A new record for Tamil Nadu, India. Zoo’s Print 29(3): 23–24.
Ramamoorthy, T.P. 1976. Zingiberaceae. Pp. 768–769 in: Sal-
danha, C.J. & Nicolson, D.H. (eds.), Flora of Hassan District,
Karnataka, India. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution
and National Science Foundation.
Sabu, M. 2003. Revision of the genus Zingiber in South India. Fol.
Malaysiana 4: 25–52.
Sabu, M. 2006. Zingiberaceae and Costaceae of South India. Calicut:
Indian Association for Angiosperm Taxonomy.
Sabu, M., Thomas, V.P. & Shameer, M.C. 2009. Zingiber parishii
(Zingiberaceae): A new record for India from Andaman & Nicobar
Islands. Acta Bot. Hung. 51: 363–366. https://doi.org/10.1556/
abot.51.2009.3-4.12
Sabu, M., Sreejith, P.E., Joe, A. & Pradeep, A.K. 2013. Zingiber
neotruncatum (Zingiberaceae): A new distributional record for
India. Rheedea 23: 46–49.
Saldanha, C.J. & Dhawan, J. 1984. Plants of India. New Delhi:
Oxford & IBH Publishing.
Saldanha, C.J. & Nicolson, D.H. (eds.) 1976. Flora of Hassan Dis-
trict, Karnataka, India. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institu-
tion and National Science Foundation.
Santapau, H. 1953. Records of the Botanical Survey of India, vol. 16
(1), The Flora of Khandala on the Western Ghats of India.
Calcutta: Government of India Press.
Santapau, H. 1957. The Flora of Purandhar; or An enumeration of all the
phanerogamic plants discovered in Purandhar during the years
1944–1956. New Delhi & Calcutta: Oxford Book and Stationery Co.
Santapau, H. 1967. Records of the Botanical Survey of India, vol. 16
(1), The flora of Khandala on the Western Ghats of India, 3rd
ed. (rev.). Calcutta: Government of India Press.
Schumann, K. 1904. Zingiberaceae. Pp. 1–458 in: Engler, A. (ed.), Das
Pflanzenreich, IV. 46 (Heft 20). Leipzig: Engelmann.
Sharma, B.D., Singh, N.P., Raghavan, R.S. & Deshpande, U.R. 1984.
Flora of Karnataka: Analysis. Howrah: Botanical Survey of India.
Singh, R.Kr. 2011. Zingiber diwakarianum (Zingiberaceae) – A new
species from North Western Ghats, India. Indian J. Forest. 34:
245–248.
Singh, L. & Singh, P. 2016. Zingiber pseudosquarrosum sp. nov.
(Zingiberaceae) from Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India.
Nordic J. Bot. 34: 421–427.
Škorničková, J. & Sabu, M. 2005. Curcuma roscoeana Wall.
(Zingiberaceae) in India. Gard. Bull. Singapore. 57: 187–197.
Stafleu, F.A. 1966. The Index Kewensis. Taxon 15: 270–274.
Stafleu, F.A. & Cowan, R.S. 1976–1988. Taxonomic literature: A selec-
tive guide to botanical publications and collections with dates, com-
mentaries and types, 2nd ed., vols. 1–7. Regnum Vegetabile 94, 98,
11
Patil & al. • The identity of Zingiber neesanum TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13

105, 110, 112, 115, 116. Utrecht & Antwerp: Bohn, Scheltema
& Holkema; etc.
Stevens, P.F. 1991. George Bentham and the Kew Rule. Pp. 157–168
in: Hawksworth, D.L. (ed.), Improving the stability of names:
Needs and options; Proceedings of an international symposium,
Kew, 20–23 February, 1991. Königstein: Koeltz Scientific Books.
Sujanapal, P. & Sasidharan, N. 2010. Zingiber anamalayanum
sp. nov. (Zingiberaceae) from India. Nordic J. Bot. 28: 288–293.
Talukdar, A.D., Verma, D., Roy, D.K. & Choudhury, M.D. 2015. A
new species of Zingiber (Zingiberaceae-Zingibereae) from North-
east India. J. Jap. Bot. 90: 298–303.
Thachat, J., Punekar, S.A., Vadakkoot, S.H. & Sabu, M. 2020. Redis-
covery of Globba andersonii and three new synonymies in Indian
Zingiberaceae. Bot. Lett. 167: 373–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23818107.2020.1770626
Thongam, B. & Konsam, B. 2014. A new species of Zingiber
(Zingiberaceae) from Nagaland, India. Phytotaxa 178: 221–224.
https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.178.3.9
Tropicos 2021. Tropicos.org. St. Louis, Missouri: Missouri Botanical
Garden. http://www.tropicos.org (accessed 1 Feb 2021).
Turland, N.J., Wiersema, J.H., Barrie, F.R., Greuter, W.,
Hawksworth, D.L., Herendeen, P.S., Knapp, S., Kusber, W.-H.,
Li, D.-Z., Marhold, K., May, T.W., McNeill, J., Monro, A.M.,
Prado, J., Price, M.J. & Smith, G.F. (eds.) 2018. Interna-
tional Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants
(Shenzhen Code) adopted by the Nineteenth International
Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China, July 2017. Regnum Ve-
getabile 159. Glashütten: Koeltz Botanical Books. https://doi.
org/10.12705/Code.2018.
Turland, N. 2019. The Code decoded: A user’s guide to the Interna-
tional Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants, 2nd ed.
Bulgaria: Pensoft Publishers.
Veldkamp, J.F. 2012. Alpinia costatum or A. cardamomum-medium
(Zingiberaceae), an enigmatic species from Bangladesh. Rheedea
22: 1–4.
Williams, K.J. 2004. A tale of two globbas: The complex nomencla-
tural history of Hura siamensium J. Koenig and Globba versicolor
Sm. (Zingiberaceae). Taxon 53: 1027–1032. https://doi.org/10.
2307/4135569
Wu, Q.G., Liao, J.P. & Wu, T.L. 1996. A new combination of
the genus Zingiber – Z. ellipticum (S.Q. Tong & Y.M. Xia)
Q.G. Wu & T.L. Wu and the systematic evidence. Acta Phytotax.
Sin. 34: 415–420.
Yadav, S.R. & Sardesai, M.M. 2002. Flora of Kolhapur District.
Kolhapur: Shivaji University.

Appendix 1. Zingiber neesanum (J.Graham) Ramamoorthy: description and complete list of specimens examined.
Description: Perennial rhizomatous herb, 1–2 m tall. Rhizome fleshy, composed of units upright and parallel to pseudostem (along with previous year rhizomes/
units), single unit ovoid to barrel-shaped, 2.5–6 × 0.5–2.5 cm, terete in transverse section, light brown externally, pale to dark sulphur-yellow internally, aro-
matic; roots numerous, 5–30 cm long, fleshy, tuberous; tubers fusiform, 3–4 × 1.2–1.8 cm, yellow internally. Leafy shoots 1–2 per plant, erect, 0.8–2 m long,
composed of 10–25 leaves (leaf-blades aggregated on upper 2/3 of pseudostem), basal 1/3 enclosed in bladeless reddish-purplish to greenish pubescent sheaths
with hyaline densely pubescent margin; ligules bilobed, lobes 2–6 mm long, obtuse at apex, membranous, pubescent to sericeous; petiole 3–4 mm long (con-
sisting of pulvinus only), sparsely pubescent; lamina narrowly elliptic to narrowly oblong, 7–38 × 5.5–8.5 cm, smooth (not plicate), mid to dark green and gla-
brous adaxially, abaxially paler green and with sparse silky hairs (especially on midrib and lateral veins), base subacute to cuneate, apex acute to acuminate,
margins undulate. Inflorescences 1–2 per plant, radical, erect; peduncle 20–90 cm long, covered with mostly bladeless sheaths (rarely one to a few leaf vestiges
of more or less developed leaves appear), sheaths green sometimes with reddish or purplish tinge, puberulent, 8–8.5 cm long; spike cylindrical, tapering to a
narrow apex; 5–50 cm long, fertile bracts each subtending one flower, ovate to obovate with acute and distinctly recurved apex, 3.5–4 × 1.5–2.5 cm, chartaceous,
green to yellow-orange with more or less prominent red to purple tinge and yellow-green to yellow apex (turning dark orange-red in fruiting stage), minutely
pubescent externally, glabrous internally, margin hyaline, sericeous; bracteoles ovate, 2.5–3.5 × 1–1.5 cm, yellowish-green to orange, sometimes with reddish
tinge, minutely pubescent externally, glabrous internally. Flower exserted from the bracts, 5–7 cm long; calyx tubular, 10–15 mm long, unilaterally split to
1/3–1/2 of the total calyx length, apex with 2–3 teeth, hyaline, semi-translucent white to pale yellow, pubescent externally and glabrous internally; floral tube
22–28 mm long, yellow (lighter at base, darker distally), dorsal corolla lobe ovate to elliptic, 25–33 × 5–13 mm, acute and slightly hooded at apex, cadmium-
yellow with 10–13 translucent veins; lateral corolla lobes narrowly ovate, slightly oblique with acute and slightly hooded apex, 25–30 × 5–7 mm, cadmium-
yellow with 5–6 translucent veins; labellum always shorter than lateral corolla lobes, 16–17 × 3–5 mm, apex deeply cleaved forming two narrow lobes each mea-
suring 10 × 1.5–2 mm, cadmium-yellow to orange usually with red-maroon blotches (rarely plain), each lobe 3-nerved (nerves visible only in dry material); lat-
eral staminodes irregularly ovate with bluntly acute apex, connate to labellum in basal 2/3–4/5 turning upwards nearly enclosing the anther, 10–14 × 3–4 mm,
cadmium-yellow to orange, glabrous. Stamen 13 mm long (with anther crest unmanipulated); filament c. 3 × 2 mm, cadmium-yellow to orange, glabrous; anther
c. 5.5 mm (excluding anther crest), connective tissue cadmium-yellow to orange, glabrous; anther thecae c. 5 mm long, cream-white, dehiscing throughout entire
length; pollen cream-white; anther crest bluntly triangular with minutely dentate apex, 3–3.5 m long, cadmium-yellow to orange. Style filiform, yellowish-white,
glabrous; stigma narrowly funnel-shaped, c. 1.5 × 1 mm, yellowish-white, ostiole ciliate. Ovary cylindric, slightly swollen in the middle, trilocular, 3–4 × 2–
2.5 mm, yellow-green, densely pubescent; epigynous glands 2, 2 mm long, cream-white, apices blunt. Fruit septifragal capsule; ovoid to ellipsoid, bluntly tri-
gonous, c. 1.5 × 1.2 cm, 3-valved, externally yellowish with more or less rich red tinge, valves internally dark pink to bright pink-red; seeds in clusters of 5–
12 in each locule, more or less globose, 3.5–4 × 3 mm, pale brown to purplish brown (mature; white with reddish tinge when young); aril laciniate, white to
cream-white (turns yellow in dried material). Specimens examined: Maharashtra. Ahmednagar Dist.: Harishchandragad, Pimparicha uran, 28 Sep 1970,
B.M. Wadhwa 127841 (BSI); Ratangarh, 2 Oct 1970, B.M. Wadhwa 128043A (BSI). Kolhapur Dist.: Amba Ghat, 5 Jul 1984, M.K. Mistry 949 (BLAT); Panhala,
15 Aug 2002, S.P. Gaikwad SPG-219 (SUK). Pune Dist.: Singhar, 31 Jul 1902, L.D. Garade 55 (BSI); Purandhar, 22 Sep 1902, R.K. Bhide 1015 (BSI); Khan-
dala, 25 Jun 1903, L.D. Garade s.n. (BSI); Katraj Ghat, 29 Jul 1909, S.V. Shevade s.n. (BSI); Khandala, 29 Jul 1916, collector unknown [Blatt. Herb.] 25943
(BLAT); Khandala, Jun 1917, collector unknown [Blatt. Herb.] 27936 & [Blatt. Herb.] 27974 (BLAT); St. Xavier’s ravine, Khandala, Oct 1918, collector un-
known [Blatt. Herb.] 28200 (BLAT); Khandala, 3 Aug 1908, collector unknown [Blatt. Herb.] 25955 (BLAT); Khandala, St. Xavier’s villa, 4–5 Jul 1942,
H. Santapau 574 (BLAT); ibidem, 15 Jun 1943, H. Santapau 2215 & 2216 (BLAT); ibidem, 4 Aug 1944, H. Santapau 4632 (BLAT); ibidem, 14 Jun 1946,
H. Santapau 9149 (BLAT); ibidem, 15 Jun 1946, H. Santapau 9148 (BLAT); ibidem, 16 Jun 1946, H. Santapau 9150 (BLAT); Khandala, Convo. House, 1 Oct
1944, H. Santapau 4998 (BLAT); Khandala, Battery Hill Plateau, 19 Aug 1945, H. Santapau 6992 (BLAT); Sinhagad, 26 Jun 1956, Puri & Party 2784 (BSI);
ibidem, 9 Aug 1956, G.S. Puri 5683 (BSI); ibidem, 1956, R.M. Patil 7823 (BSI); Bhimashankar road, Poona, 8 Oct 1962, K.P. Janarshanan 81676 (BSI); Sin-
hagad site, Haveli Taluka, 13 Jun 1963, M.Y. Ansari 87379 (BSI); ibidem, 29 Aug 1963, M.Y. Ansari 87813 (BSI); Purandar, on the way to Vajragad near
N.C.C. camp, 19 Jul 1963, R.S. Rolla 88632 (BSI); Durga Killa Plateau, 19 miles west of Junnar, 26 Jun 1964, K. Hemadri 94354 (BSI); Lonavala, Hill slopes
near Bushi village, 27 Jun 1964, B.V. Reddi 97959A (BSI); ibidem, 28 Jun 1964, B.V. Reddi 97959B (BSI); near Ambavane village, 26 Jul 1964, B.V. Reddi 99307
(BSI); Ambavane, forest near rest house, 6 Sep 1964, B.V. Reddi 99015 (BSI); Donaje, Sinhagad hill range, 7 Aug 1964, M.Y. Ansari 97552 (BSI); Ganesh caves,
4 miles north of Junnar, 17 Aug 1964, K. Hemadri 99746 (BSI); Junnar, Ralegaon hill, 23 Sep 1965, K. Hemadri 107285 (BSI); Khandala, on the way to
St. Mary’s villa, 13 Jul 2019, R. Chaudhari 1609 (BLAT, MH); ibidem, 13 Jul 2019, Khandala, Kune Plateau, 18 Aug 2019, R. Chaudhari 1610 (BLAT).

12 Version of Record
TAXON 00 (00) • 1–13 Patil & al. • The identity of Zingiber neesanum

Appendix 1. Continued.
Sangli Dist.: Shirala, 5 Oct 2019, Shahid Nawaz S200 (BLAT). Satara Dist.: Near Nakinda village, Mahabaleshwar, 18 Jul 1959, P.V. Bole 1985 (BLAT); to
Kate’s point, Mahabaleshwar, 1 Aug 1958, P.V. Bole 1691 (BLAT); Koyana, Kumbharli Ghat, 4 Aug 1979, R.K. Kochhar 158504 (BSI); ibidem, 1 Sep 1978,
R.K. Kochhar 152571 (BSI); Koyana, Shirshingi, 7 Sep 1978, R.K. Kochhar 153674 & 154114 (BSI); Kas, Aug 91, M.P. Bachulkar-Cholekar MPB 5131
(SUK). Sindhudurg Dist.: Phonda Ghat, 18 Aug 1965, B.G. Kulkarni 105573 (BSI); ibidem, 4 Oct [year unknown], B.G. Kulkarni 121445 (BSI). Ratnagiri
Dist.: On the way to Mandangad Fort, approx. 300 m [altitude], 6 Jul 1983, M.K. Mistry 24 (BLAT); Shirgaori-Shindi village path, 16 Aug 1983, M.K. Mistry
208 (BLAT); Chiplun, Parshuram temple, 17 Aug 1983, M.K. Mistry 208A (BLAT); above Murshi village, near Amba Ghat, 27 Oct 1983, M.K. Mistry 515
(BLAT); Amba Ghat, 5 Jul 1984, M.K. Mistry 949 (BLAT); near top of Gothane, s.d., M.K. Mistry 949X (BLAT); Gothane Plateau, 9 Aug 2008, M.M. Lekhak
MML-116 (SUK). Thane Dist.: Washala Range, Vinchu cha nal, 20 Sep 1968, K.V. Billore 116785 (BSI); Washala Range, Ajoba Parvat, 17 Oct 1967, K.V.
Billore 111933 (BSI); Exact location uncertain: Malabar, Concan, Stocks & Law [Herb. Stocks] 15? (K [K000815661]); Malabar, Concan, Stocks & Law [Herb.
Stocks] 15 (K [K001222301]); Concan, Stocks & Law [Mr. Law] s.n. (K [K000815662]); Malabar, Concan, Stocks & Law 16 (P [P00451126]).

Appendix 2. Zingiber anamalayanum Sujanapal & Sasidh.: description and complete list of specimens examined.
Description: Perennial rhizomatous herb, 0.5–1.5 m tall. Rhizome composed of units upright and parallel to pseudostem, single unit 5–2.5 × 0.5–1 cm, light
brown externally, cream-white to pale yellow internally; roots numerous, 5–17 cm long, tuberous; tubers fusiform to narrowly fusiform (globular when young),
2.5–3.5 × 1–1.5 cm, cream-white to pale yellow internally. Leafy shoots 1–2 per plant, erect to slightly arching, 0.5–2 m long, composed of 16–20 leaves (leaf-
blades aggregated on upper 2/3 of pseudostem), basal 1/3 enclosed in bladeless reddish-purplish to greenish pubescent sheaths; hyaline margin of leaf sheaths
densely pubescent; ligules bilobed, lobes 1–13 mm long, obtuse at apex, pubescent; petiole to 3 mm long (consisting of pulvinus only), lamina narrowly elliptic
to elliptic-oblong, 7.2–30 × 2.9–8 cm, smooth (not plicate), dark green and glabrous adaxially, pale green with prominent lateral veins and pubescent abaxially
(sometimes glabrous with pubescence confined to midrib), base rounded to subacute, apex acute to acuminate, margins slightly undulate. Inflorescences 1–2 per
plant, radical, erect; peduncle (5–)10–40 cm, covered with bladeless sheaths c. 2.7–5 cm long (rarely one to a few leaf vestiges of more or less developed leaves
appear), dull green to maroon, puberulent; spike narrowly fusiform to fusiform, 8–30 cm long; fertile bracts each subtending one flower, elliptic to obovate with
rounded, obtuse or acute apex (never recurved), 2.9–4.5 × 1.8–3 cm, coriaceous, dull olive green with brown to maroon-red tinge to completely maroon-reddish,
puberulent externally, glabrous internally (turn rusty brown-red to bright to dark crimson red in fruiting stage), margin hyaline, glabrous; bracteoles narrowly
elliptic to obovate, 3–3.7 × 1.6–2.5 cm, pale green at base with maroon tinge at apex, puberulent externally, glabrous internally. Flower exserted from the bracts,
4–6.2 cm long; calyx tubular, 13–25 mm long, hyaline, semi-translucent white, glabrous externally and internally; floral tube 24–35 mm long, white; dorsal co-
rolla lobe ovate to elliptic, 25–30 × 10–16 mm, white to cream-white with c. 10 translucent veins; lateral corolla lobes ovate to elliptic, slightly oblique with acute
and hooded apex, 13–22 × 5–8 mm, white to cream-white with c. 4 translucent veins; labellum shorter to or longer than lateral corolla lobes, broadly obovate
with emarginate apex, 18–27 × 11–26(–30) mm (excluding staminodes), white to cream-white; central part more or covered with pink-red, maroon or dark pur-
ple blotches (pattern spreading from base to apex and towards margins), margins crisp without any blotches; lateral staminodes elliptic to narrowly obovate,
8–17 × 6–8 mm, obtuse at apex, connate to adnate to posterior part of labellum in basal 1/2–4/5, white to cream-white, glabrous. Stamen 20–30 mm long (with
anther crest unmanipulated); filament negligible, to 1 mm long, white to cream-white, glabrous; anther 10–13 mm (excluding anther crest), connective tissue
white to cream-white, sometimes with pink-red to purple stripes dorsally, glabrous; anther thecae 9–12 mm long, cream-white, dehiscing along entire length;
pollen cream-white, anther crest 13–14 mm long, white to cream-white. Style filiform, white, glabrous; stigma slightly thicker than style, narrowly cylindric
to narrowly funnel-shaped, recurved, ostiole ciliate. Ovary cylindric to ellipsoid, 3–5 × 2–4 mm, trilocular, cream-white to greenish, minutely to densely
pubescent; epigynous glands two, 3–5 mm long, cream-white. Fruit septifragal capsule, broadly ovoid to ellipsoid, 14–20 × 11–14 mm, 3-valved, externally
green to dull green with reddish tinge to dark red or maroon, sparsely puberulous to glabrescent, valves internally red to dark red; seeds 6–12 in each locule,
ovoid, 4–5 × 3 mm, dark purple (immature) to black (mature), surface with fingerprint-like striations; aril laciniate, white (turns yellow in dried material).
Specimens examined: Maharashtra. Kolhapur Dist.: Waghotre to Patane road, Ram Ghat, 26 Aug 2019, R. Chaudhari 1611 (BLAT, BSI, CAL, SING);
Amba, Jul 94, M.P. Bachulkar s.n. (SUK); Gaganbawada, s.d., Priti D. Mahekar SUK 398 (SUK). Goa. North Goa Dist.: Nagargao, 5 Oct 1964, R.S. Raghavan
103263A (BSI); South Goa Dist.: Molem–Belgaum rd 1769′ [1769 feet; ca. 540 m altitude], 17 Aug 1970, N.P. Singh 124203 (BSI); Nandran, Molem N.P.,
19 Oct 2002, M.N. Datar 186917 (BSI); Karnataka. Belagavi Dist.: Jamboti, s.d., Arun N. Chandore ANC 1065 (SUK); Jamboti, 10 Aug 2008, Arun
N. Chandore ANC 745 (SUK). Chamarajanagar Dist.: Biligiriranga Hills, 1300 m, Jun 1938, Edward Barnes 1882 (K [K001222300]); Chikkamagaluru
Dist.: Malabar, Bababoodan Hill, Stocks & Law [Mr. Law] 15? (K [K001222305]); Bababudan Hills, 26 Jun 1978, C.J. Saldanha KFP1721 (CAL); Canara
& Mysore, Stocks & Law [Mr. Law] 15? (K [K001222309]). Hassan Dist.: Achihalli [Achanahalli], 16 Oct 1969, C.J. Saldanha 17937 (E [E00389839]); ibi-
dem, C.J. Saldanha 17937 (JCB); Kodagu Dist.: Sampaje Ghat, 27 Aug 1985, K.G. Bhat 1947 (BSI); ibidem 1948 (BSI); Mundrote, 22 Dec 1996, R.D. Kshir-
sagar 176155 (BSI); Kote betta, Pushpagiri WLS, 12°31′49″N, 75°45′42″E, 1400 m, 18 Jun 2017, Sameer Patil 207320 (BSI); ibidem, 12°32′20″N, 75°46′
37″E, 1270 m, 19 Aug 2018, Sameer Patil 206767 (BSI). Shimoga Dist.: Someshwar Ghat 59th mile, 29 Oct 1960, R.S. Raghavan 67912 (BSI); Barakana near
Agumbe, 16 Oct 1962, R.S. Raghavan 83269 (BSI); Hulical Ghat, 9 Oct 1962, R.S. Raghavan 83103 (BSI). Udupi Dist.: Udupi, 29 Aug 1976, K.G. Bhat 291
(BSI). Uttara Kannada Dist.: Shauli, 20 May 1890, W.A. Talbot s.n. (BSI); Tutty hully on Kali naddi, s.d., Ritchie 719 (K [K001222302]); Karwar, Jun 1918,
T.R. Bell 4092 (K [K001222306]); ibidem, Jun 1918, T.R. Bell 4092 (K [K001222307]); Devimane, Kotagal, 400 m, 9 Dec 1994, K.V. Devar 7633 (FRLH).
Kerala. Idukki Dist.: 13 km from Kulemavu, 23 May 1984, M. Sabu 37328 (CALI); Pindimedu – Pooyamkutty, 50 m, 7 Jul 1988, P. Bhargavan 87401 (CAL,
MH); Neriyumangalam, 750 m, 6 Aug 2002, Prasanth Kumar M.G. 86384 (CALI). Kannur Dist.: on the way to Panoth, 278 m, 13 Nov 1978, V.S. Rama-
chandran 58713 (CAL, MH); Nedumpayil, 550 m, 14 Aug 1979, V.S. Ramachandran 63940 (MH). Kollam Dist.: Thenmala, s.d., (det. Sabu, M., 2003) 37372
(CALI). Kottayam Dist.: Pulluparai – Peermade, 500 m, 24 Sep 1964, K. Vivekananthan 21368 (MH); Vaguman, 1100 m, 17 Jun 2002, Prasanth Kumar M.G.
86360 (CALI); between Theekoy and Erattupetta, 17 Oct 1976, J.K. Manglay 6764 (CALI). Kozhikode Dist.: Kannoth, 8 Dec 1913, collector unknown 9481
(MH). Palakkad Dist.: Perambicolam [Parambikulam], 1050 m, Nov 1909, A. Meebold 73/12467 (K [K001222304]). Palghat Dist.: Silent Valley, 25 Apr 1980,
V.J. Nair 67300 (CAL). Pathanamthitta Distr.: Angamoozhy forest, 250 m, 19 Aug 1988, R. Chandrasekaran 89210 (MH). Thiruvananthapuram Dist.: Kottur
R.F., 200 m, 26 Sep 1973, J. Joseph 41986 (MH); Ponmudi, 1100 m, 16 Aug 1980, M. Mohanan 69228 (MH). Thrissur Dist.: Athirapally, Charpa, 300 m, 2 Jul
1994, N. Sasidharan 618A & 618B (FRLH). Wayanad Dist.: Thirunelly, s.d., [M. Sabu] 37351 (CALI). Tamil Nadu. Coimbatore Dist.: Topslip, Ulandy,
775 m, 4 Sep 1994, V.S. Ramachandran 17602 (FRLH). Nilgiri Dist.: Agnibetta, Mudumalai Tiger Reserve, 10 Jun 2012, B. Pushpakaran 449 (Karpagam
University Herbarium). Tirunelveli Dist.: Mundomurlii, 26 Aug 1913, Calder & Ramaswami 183 (CAL, DD); Karippanthode, 28 Aug 1913, M. Rama Rao
1512 (CAL); Palaumi, 10 Sep 1913, M. Rama Rao 1751 (K [K001222303]). Exact location uncertain: Canara & Mysore, Herb. Ind. Or. Hook. f. & Thomson,
Stocks & Law [Mr. Law] 15? (K [K001222309]).

Version of Record 13