(129) Request for a binding decision on whether Allium peikingense J.T. Yang & X.J. He and Allium pekinense Prokh. ( Amaryllidaceae ) are sufficiently alike to be confused

(129) Allium pekinense Prokh. (1930) [Angiosp.: Lil. / Amaryllid.] Allium peikingense J.T. Yang & X.J. He (2025) [Angiosp.: Lil. / Amaryllid.] Prokhanov (in Trudy Prikl. Bot. 24: 181. 1930) published a new species of Allium, A. pekinense Prokh., based on specimens from what is now Beijing, China. This species was subsequently treated as a synonym of A. sativum L. (Sp. Pl.: 296. 1753) in later Chinese floras (e.g., Xu in FRPS Ed. Comm., Fl. Reipubl. Popul. Sin. 14: 268. 1980; Xu & Kamelin in Wu & Raven, Fl. China 24: 201. 2000). Recently, Yang & He (in Phytotaxa 720: 220. 2025) published another new species, A. peikingense J.T. Yang & X.J. He, based on specimens also collected from Beijing, China. In the genus Allium, the epithets pekinense and peikingense are both derived from Beijing City, China by different romanization methods and they differ only by two letters. He (in Phytotaxa 730: 235. 2025) considered them similar enough to cause confusion and proposed that they should be treated as homonyms, and he thus proposed the replacement name A. beijingense H. He to replace the later-published A. peikingense. When he proposed the new name Allium beijingense, He (l.c.) referred to the voted examples in Art. 53 and particularly Art. 53 *Ex. 14 of the Madrid Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 162. 2025). In that example, several epithets derived from the same geographical names are considered so similar that they are likely to be confused if they occur within the same genus or species. However, there is no rule requiring that names derived from the same geographical name in different orthographical forms be treated as homonyms. Furthermore, the epithet of the replacement name A. beijingense differs from peikingense by only two letters, and their pronunciations are also similar. Is it sufficiently likely also to be confused with peikingense? If so, A. beijingense and A. peikingense would have to be treated as orthographical variants under Art. 61.5 because they are based on the same type. One previous case of similar names derived from the same Chinese geographical name has been the subject of a request for a binding decision on homonymy. Clematis chekiangensis C. Pei (1936) and C. zhejiangensis R.J. Wang (1999) are derived from Zhejiang Province, China using two different methods of transcription. Yuan & al. (in Taxon 66: 1233. 2017) submitted a request for a binding decision on whether the names were sufficiently alike to be confused. The Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants (Applequist in Taxon 69: 396. 2020) did not make a decision because of concerns that the proposal would have broader effects. But the General Committee (Wilson in Taxon 71: 1316. 2022) voted that they were not sufficiently alike to be confused and should not be treated as homonyms. Applequist (l.c.) also provided several pairs of such names, e.g., Chimonobambusa sichuanensis (T.P. Yi) T.H. Wen and C. szechuanensis (Rendle) Keng f.; Cymbidium sichuanicum Z.J. Liu & S.C. Chen and C. szechuanicum Y.S. Wu & S.C. Chen; and Magnolia guangdongensis (Y.H. Yan, Q.W. Zeng & F.W. Xing) Noot. and M. kwangtungensis Merr. In these cases, the names have never been considered sufficiently similar to cause confusion and are therefore not treated as homonyms. Except for those epithets listed under Art. 53.4 *Ex. 14, A. peikingense and A. pekinense represent the first case of names being treated as homonyms by a Chinese author. However, in our opinion, given their different spellings and slightly different pronunciations, they are unlikely to cause confusion and therefore should not be treated as homonyms. Should the treatment of these names as homonyms be accepted, it would likely trigger a cascade of nomenclatural confusion involving numerous names derived from the same geographical origin but differing in orthography, thereby undermining nomenclatural stability and continuity. Therefore, we are requesting a binding decision under Art. 53.4 of the Madrid Code on whether the names Allium pekinense and A. peikingense are sufficiently similar to cause confusion and, consequently, should be treated as homonyms. We express our sincere gratitude to Professor Reinhard M. Fritsch (University of Osnabrück, Germany) for his valuable discussion. This work is supported by the Sichuan Science and Technology Program (Grant no. 2025ZNSFSC1129), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 32100180) and the Biotaxonomic Scientist Post Grant from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS-TAX-24-046).