Erratum clarifies typification and historical context of Phialacanthus griffithii specimens in India, correcting previous errors.
Tiwari, U.L. 2026. Typification and rediscovery of Phialacanthus griffithii Benth. & Hook.f. (Acanthaceae) in Arunachal Pradesh, India. Nordic Journal of Botany 2026: e05042. https://doi.org/10.1002/njb.05042 In the original publication, years associated with the historical specimens collected by W. Griffith were incorrectly implied to be collection dates. As Griffith conducted his expedition into Mishmi mountains in 1836, the years noted on the sheets (1861–1862 and 1862–1863) refer to the Kew distribution years rather than the date of field collections. The corrected sections are provided below: 1. Lectotypification (Page 2) The citation for the Lectotype and Paratype should read as follows: Lectotype (designated here): India, Arunachal Pradesh, Mishmi Hills (original), W. Griffith s.n., s.d (Kew distribution year 1861–1862), K000950125 (K) [image available at https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.specimen.k000950125]. Paratype: India, Arunachal Pradesh, Mishmi Hills, W. Griffith no. 20 (Kew distribution year 1862–1863), K000950124 (K). 2. Specimens examined (Page 2) The list of examined specimens is corrected to clarify the nature of the dates: Specimens examined: India: Arunachal Pradesh (Mishmi Hills), W. Griffith s.n., Kew distribution year 1861–62, K000950125 (K); Mishmi Hills W. Griffith no. 20, Kew distribution year 1862–63, K000950124 (K). This erratum is necessary to preclude chronological misinterpretation regarding the original collection period and to ensure the historical accuracy of the type material. I apologize for this error.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
U.L. Tiwari (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: