Tricyrtis ravenii C. I Peng & Tiang, Bot. Stud.
Creators: name: Chen, Yu-Huan
name: Huang, Ting-Hsuan
name: Lu, Chang-Tse
name: Shen, Rong-Show
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Plantae
Tracheophyta
Liliopsida
Liliales
Liliaceae
Tricyrtis
Tricyrtis ravenii

description: 4. Tricyrtis ravenii C.I Peng & Tiang, Bot. Stud. 48: 358. 2007. (Fig. 7)
Type:— TAIWAN. Nantou Hsien: Yushan National Park, along trail from Tatachia saddle to Paiyun Lodge, 6 Sep 1991, Peng 14337 (holotype: HAST!) (Fig. 8)
Heterotypic synonym:
Tricyrtis formosana f. glandulosa T.Shimizu, Bot. Bull. Acad. Sin. 3: 37. 1962. Type:— TAIWAN. Ilan: Kamiyodani, 28 Sep 1930, Suzuki 6285 (holotype: TAI!) (Fig. 9).
Tricyrtis formosana var. glandosa (Shimizu) T.S.Liu & S.S.Ying, Fl. Taiwan 5: 79. 1978.
Tricyrtis formosana var. grandiflora S.S.Ying, Col. Illustr. Fl. Taiwan 3: 619. 1988. Type:— TAIWAN. Hualien County: 4 Apr 1988, Ying s.n. (holotype: NTUF, photo!). syn. nov.
Tricyrtis formosana var. glandulosa (Shimizu) T.S.Liu & S.S.Ying, Tanaka in Makinoa N. S. 10: 73. 2012.
Tricyrtis bilushenmulata S.S.Ying, New Taxa & New Names 4: 241–247. 2022 a. Type:— TAIWAN. Hualien: Xiulin, Bilushenmu, 29 Jul 2021, Ying s.n. (holotype: NTUF, photo!). syn. nov.
Tricyrtis uniflora S.S.Ying, New Taxa & New Names 4: 247–254. 2022 a. Type:— TAIWAN. Taichung: Hoping, Nanhutashan, 12 Aug 2021, Ying s.n. (holotype: NTUF, photo!). syn. nov.
Deciduous perennial herbs with 1–2 contractile roots, 0.15–0.2 cm wide, 1–2 stoloniform rhizome, 11.0–12.0 × 0.2– 0.3 cm and bulbs, 0.2–0.4 cm in diameter. Stems erect, 12.0–35.0 cm long; lower stem glabrous; upper stem pubescent with antrorse acute hairs. Leaves lanceolate and oblanceolate, decurrent and ochreate, sometimes purple spots, apex acuminate, entire, 7.5–8.5 × 2.5–3.0 cm, nearly glabrous or pubescent, especially on veins; leaves near inflorescence broadly lanceolate to elliptic, cordate at base. Inflorescence cyme; pedicels 1.0– 1.5 cm long, glandular; peduncles 4.0–5.0 cm long, glandular, pubescence. Flowers open for 2–4 days; outer tepals lanceolate, recurved distally, apex acuminate to acute, purple-white, big purple dots, with yellow speckles near the base, 25.0–28.0 × 10.0–11.0 mm; inner tepals oblanceolate, linear, linear-lanceolate, shortly recurved distally, almost straight proximally, purple-white, with big purple dots and yellow speckles near the base, 25.0–28.0 × 5.0–6.0 mm; spur shallowly bilobed, apex orbicular, glandular, 2.0–2.9 × 2.2–4.0 mm, midrib sometimes; stamens 6, filaments slender, same as or taller than tepals, yellow with red spots; anthers oblong, versatile, 3.0–4.0 mm long; ovary glabrous, glandular, green, 3-celled; style straight and simple; stigmas 3, bifurcate, yellow with red spots, branches with many transparent papillate. Capsule erect, glabrous, 2.5–3.0 cm long, septicidal dehiscence, base with no abscission. Seeds ovate-elliptic to lanceolate, light brown, 2.0– 2.5 mm long.
Phenology:— Flowering and fruiting July–December, deciduous (Fig. 7K), winter dormant (January–May), resprouting June (Figs. 7G–I).
Distribution and habitat:— Moist rocky slopes along roadsides or dry rocky mountain walls, 1200–2800 m.
Chromosome number:— 2 n = 26 (Kono et al., 2015).
Additional specimens examined:— TAIWAN. Taipei: Peitou, Hokuto, 1 Nov 1961, Kao 4281 (TAI); Tinpeitou, 12 Nov 1970, Cheng 1056 (TAI); Fushan–Happen, 2 Sep 1983, Tang 60 (TAI). Nantou: Jenai Hsiang, 17 Sep 2001, Wang & Li W 05272 (HAST); Hehuanhsi Trail, 29 Aug 2014, Chung 11760 (TAIF); Sungchuankang, 14 Sep 2014, Hsu 7247 (TAIF). Taichung: Lishan, Saramao, 1 Dec 1962, Feung & Kao 5014 (TAI). Chiayi: Yushan National Park, 8 Sep 1991, Peng 14413 (HAST); Mt. Yu Front Peak Entrance, 12 Aug 2011, Lu 22560 (TAIF). Kaohsiung: Tengchih, 8 Oct 1985, Huang & Yang 1868 (TAI); Kuaiku–Yakou, 11 Sep 2000, Yang 29900 (TAIF); Tzuen, 14 Oct 1992, Huang & Hsieh 4863 (TAI); Taoyuan Hsiang, 14 Jul 2008, Lu 16424 (HAST). Hualien: Lanshan, 26 Oct 1986, Peng 9940 (HAST); Hohuanshan, 15 Oct 1992, Hsieh 1003 (TAI); Taroko National Park, 14 Jul 1995, Chen & Hung 1135 (HAST); Taroko National Park, 2 Sep 2009, Huang 4160 (HAST). Ilan: Tatung Hsiang, 15 Sep 2010, Huang 4906 (HAST).
Notes:— This species was first proposed as a form of T. formosana by Shimizu (1962), T. formosana f. glandulosa. However, it was incorrectly written as “gladulosa” on p. 37 (Shimizu, 1962) and as “glandosa” in Fl. Taiwan (Liu & Ying, 1978: 79).
In Flora of Taiwan, T. formosana f. glandulosa was treated as a variety of T. formosana — T. formosana var. glandulosa. However, it was regarded as a synonym of T. formosana var. formosana in Flora of Taiwan (Ying, 2000). From our perspective, this required further investigation because T. formosana is evergreen, whereas T. formosana var. glandulosa exhibits winter dormancy. Moreover, T. formosana var. glandulosa favours higher elevations (1200–2800 m), the indumentum on the pedicels is glandular-pubescent (Figs. 7I, 9B), the purple dots on the tepals are broader and evenly distributed (Figs. 7C, D, 8F), the spur is larger and shallowly bilobed (Fig. 7E) and the dehiscent capsule is larger and erect (Fig. 7F). Tricyrtis formosana var. formosana grows at 100–1500 m, the indumentum on the pedicels is velutinous (Fig. 1F), dots on the tepals are smaller and unevenly distributed (Fig. 1H), the spur is smaller and deeply bilobed (Fig. 1G) and the dehiscent capsule is smaller and twisted (Fig. 1B).
We find it challenging to distinguish T. ravenii from T. formosana var. glandulosa. They both possess similar habits and dense glands on the pedicel. Habitats of T. ravenii and T. formosana var. glandulosa are similar in elevation, and both have identical morphological traits, including tepal dots, spurs and capsules. In accordance with morphological systematics, Tanaka (2012) asserted that T. formosana var. glandulosa and T. ravenii are the same species, thus keeping the treatment of T. formosana var. glandulosa. Nevertheless, the glandular pedicel (Figs 7I, 8B, 9B) and equal size of tepals in T. formosana var. glandulosa differ from those of T. formosana. Moreover, T. formosana var. glandulosa is a deciduous perennial (winter dormancy), but T. formosana is evergreen. Therefore, we conclude that treating T. formosana var. glandulosa as a species is more appropriate. According to the ICN (Chapter II, Section 3, Article 11.4), T. ravenii is the legitimate name of the taxon instead of T. formosana var. glandulosa.
Ying (1988) first delineated T. formosana var. grandiflora (1988: 619), predominantly differing by its larger flowers found in Chingshuishan Mountain, eastern Taiwan. Although we could not locate living plants from that region, and the image from Ying’s book matches T. ravenii in leaf shape, flower colour, spots and flower diameter. Furthermore, the observed flower deformation is reminiscent of T. ravenii under heat stress, suggesting potential measurement inaccuracies. Hence, we recognise T. formosana var. grandiflora as a synonym of T. ravenii.
Tricyrtis bilushenmulata (2022a: 241) and T. uniflora (2022a: 247) are described in Taiwan (Ying, 2022a) and appear to align with T. ravenii descriptions in terms of flower colour, spots and elevation (ca. 2300 m). The description of T. bilushenmulata closely mirrors that of T. ravenii. Concurrently, T. uniflora, described as a small herb with a solitary flower, also resembled T. ravenii in our field observations (Figs 7A,B). Excluding the solitary flower, its morphology is identical. We also observed that road-trimmed T. ravenii plants during the flowering season rapidly develop small shoots from the remaining stems with a flower. Consequently, we treat T. bilushenmulata and T. uniflora as synonyms of T. ravenii.
description: Published as part of Chen, Yu-Huan, Huang, Ting-Hsuan, Lu, Chang-Tse & Shen, Rong-Show, 2024, Taxonomic revision of Tricyrtis (Liliaceae) in Taiwan and a new species, Tricyrtis lingyunyanensis, pp. 231-248 in Phytotaxa 655 (3) on pages 242-245, DOI: 10.11646/phytotaxa.655.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/13217321