Epicycas miquelii (Warb.) de Laub., in De Laub. & Adema, Blumea 43: 393 (1998).
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.
