The Cycad Pages
Cycas miquelii

No type was cited, and distribution was cited only as "Süd-China". However, Warburg refers to specimens in Miquel's herbarium, from a plant cultivated in the Amsterdam botanic garden that had been brought in from the Bogor botanic garden and said to be from South China. Miquel had incorrectly determined and illustrated these as C. inermis (Miquel, 1851). These would appear to be the basis for C. miquelii, and hence acceptable as types. These specimens are clearly a somewhat aberrant C. revoluta lacking petiolar spines, and C. miquelii must thus fall into the synonymy of C. revoluta. This name was subsequently overlooked by both Pilger (1926) and Schuster (1931), although Schuster managed to cull names from a myriad of trivial sources. Neotypification by de Laubenfels and Adema (1998) is based on a specimen of a quite different species from southern Thailand (C. clivicola, which see). This is redundant when the above is taken as the type. It is also in conflict with the protolog in that it is not from southern China. The name has also been quite widely misapplied in southern China and northern Vietnam to occurrences of C. sexseminifera (Wang 1996, Chen & Stevenson 2000). Although described in 1900 by German botanist O. Warburg, this name was not understood from the beginning. No type was cited, and distribution was cited only as "Süd-China". Warburg types were held by B, and were destroyed in WW2. Other Warburg collections were distributed to A, L, E, FGH, H, K, P, but no replicates have been so far located.

The Cycad Pages

© 1998-2012 Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney
Written and maintained by Ken Hill 1998-2010
Maintained by Leonie Stanberg and Dennis Stevenson 2010-2012
This site is currently not being maintained