Note.
Makino first described
S. filicaulis
without designating a specimen as holotype but mentioned four specimens "
Watanabe s.n.
, June 16, 1895;
Makino s.n.
, June 23, 1895;
Watanabe s.n.
, June 16, 1895;
Suzuki s.n.
, May 19, 1901" in the protologue. Yet following Arts. 9.6 and 40 Note 1 of the ICN (
Turland et al. 2018
), these specimens should be treated as syntypes. According to
Stafleu and Cowan (1981
and 1988), the original specimens were traced in GH, TI and MAK, but no specimens could be found in GH and TI mentioned in the protologue. Tropicos (
Tropicos 2020
) cited "Type-Protologue:
K. Watanabe s.n.
in TI", but related specimens were not found in TI. Fortunately, original specimens in TNS (TNS62378 digital image!) and MAK (MAK009391-MAK009392 digital images!, MAK010156 digital image!) were traced, with a description of the collecting location and date agreeing with the protologue. They could be confirmed as original specimens. Moreover, Makino might have described
S. filicaulis
based on one of these specimens because it has a label containing a message which means a new name. Hence, TNS62378 is designated here as the lectotype for its good preservation, the numerous flowers and fruits, and also greatly agreeing with the protologue according to Art. 9.3 and 9.4 of the ICN (
Turland et al. 2018
).