(128) Request for a binding decision on whether Sehima Forssk. ( Poaceae ) and Schima Reinw. ex Blume ( Theaceae ) are sufficiently alike to be confused

(128) Sehima Forssk. (1775) [Angiosp.: Gram.] Schima Reinw. ex Blume (1823) [Angiosp.: The.] The genus Sehima was described by Pehr Forsskål (Fl. Aegypt.-Arab.: 178. 1775), with S. ischaemoides Forssk. as the only species. Globally, Sehima is an ecologically significant grassland genus, valued for high-quality fodder and lignocellulosic biomass (Roy & al. in Crop Pasture Sci. 74: 244–258. 2022) and it forms the dominant Sehima-Dichanthium grassland type in India, with further distribution across Africa, Pakistan, China and Australia. The genus is characterized by paired spikelets bearing two florets, of which the upper floret is sessile, hermaphrodite, and awned, with a geniculate awn. The genus Sehima belongs to tribe Andropogoneae of subfamily Panicoideae within the family Poaceae (Bor, Grasses Burma, Ceylon, India & Pakistan: 217–219. 1960). It comprises five perennial taxa distributed mainly in Africa and south-west Asia, extending eastwards into the Indian subcontinent, where species are typically found in seasonally dry grasslands, open savannas and rocky slopes. Molecular phylogenetic analyses of Andropogoneae support the recognition of Sehima as a distinct and monophyletic genus (Soreng & al. in J. Syst. Evol. 55: 259–290. 2017). Morphologically, Sehima is closely allied to Ischaemum but differs in possessing pedicellate, biflorous spikelets. The etymology of Sehima was reported by Forsskål as being from the Arabic name for the grass, Sæhim. The genus Schima is an ecologically and economically important woody member of the tea family (Theaceae). It was described by Carl Ludwig von Blume (Catalogus: 80. 1823), with S. excelsa Blume as the sole species name validly published in the protologue. The genus currently comprises about 17 taxa distributed across south and southeast Asia, from the eastern Himalaya and southern China through Malesia to the Philippines. Morphologically, Schima is characterized by woody capsules with a persistent columella and marginally winged seeds. Schima wallichii (DC.) Korth. is a dominant component of subtropical evergreen forests. Phylogenetic evidence supports Schima as a distinct and well-defined genus within Theaceae, closely allied to Gordonia and Franklinia (Shi & al. in Sci. Rep. 7: 4009. 2017). The etymology of the generic name was not indicated in the original publication, although Wittstein (Etym.-Bot. Handw.-Buch: 791. 1852) suggested that it was derived from a Javanese vernacular name for S. excelsa. Both Schima and Sehima are currently treated as accepted generic names in major online databases, including World Flora Online and the Plants of the World Online (accessed 2 Jan 2026). A binding decision is sought under Art. 53.4 to determine whether the generic names Schima Reinw. ex Blume and Sehima Forssk. are sufficiently alike to be confused and therefore should be treated as homonyms. Although not similar in derivation, the two names differ by only a single letter (“c” versus “e”) and are visually very close. This similarity has given rise to confusion in published sources, particularly in contexts involving transcription, indexing, or secondary citation, where the letters “c” and “e” are more readily interchanged. Although the similarity between Schima and Sehima is primarily typographic rather than etymological, Art. 53.2 of the ICN (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 162. 2025) provides that names may be treated as homonyms if they are likely to be confused “for any other reason” [than being applied to related taxa]. Instances of confusion between the two names are already to be found in early literature, e.g., Sehima inscalpta Hochst. (in Flora 27: 247. 1844) (as ‘inscalptum’) was miscited by Richard (Tent. Fl. Abyss. 2: 472. 1850) and by Walpers (in Ann. Bot. Syst. 3: 803. 1852) as being associated with ‘Schima’ and, moreover, that name was indexed by Walpers (l.c.: 1135) as being published by “Rnwrdt”, not “Forssk.”, and Wittstein (l.c.: 791) has “Schima REINW. (Theaceae)” and. “Schima FORSK. (Gramineae)”, but he also includes, correctly (Wittstein, l.c.: 806), “Sehima FORSK. (Gramineae)”. The Index to the plates and names in the fifth volume of Hooker's icones plantarum (Hooker's Icon. Pl. 35: [5]. 1950) errs in listing “Schima Forsk.” referring to plate 3494 in which there is discussion of “Sehima Forsk.” in the account of Kerriochloa siamensis. An extreme example is exhibited by a subsequent publication (Bloembergen in Reinwardtia 2: 133–183. 1952) that, although dealing with the genus Schima has a very large number of instances of the mis-spelling “Sehima”, but this should probably be discounted as no proof-reading seems to have been undertaken as not only do the mis-spellings ‘Schhna’ and ‘Sckima’ also occur but there are 10 mis-spellings of the author's own name in the 25 page headings on which it occurs. More typical is the confusion by Hashim (in Dzowela & al., Utiliz. Res. Results Anim. Feed Resources Africa: 410. 1990) in which “Schima ischaemoides” appears incorrectly but is correctly given (l.c.: 409–410) as “Sehima ischaemoides”. Search results in Google literature search engines further illustrate this problem: because “Schima” and “Sehima” are visually very similar. To exemplify this, searches were made on 18 February 2026 in Google Books and Google Scholar for the names of the two most common species of each genus but with the generic name mis-spelled in each case, i.e., as “Schima ischaemoides” and “Sehima wallichii” respectively. Searches in Google Books on “Sehima wallichii” and on “Schima ischaemoides” returned 11 and 5 distinct results, respectively. Searches in Google Scholar on “Sehima wallichii” and on “Schima ischaemoides” returned 11 and 1 results, respectively. It should be noted that a few additional results were false positives, owing to a misreading of the correct spelling by the search engine. Furthermore, an overwhelming number of usages of these names were properly retrieved; for example, Google Scholar returned 8000 results for “Schima wallichii” and 98 for “Sehima ischaemoides”. At the same time, the two genera are taxonomically distinct, belonging to different families (Schima in Theaceae; Sehima in Poaceae), differing markedly in morphology and life form, and occupying largely different ecological niches despite partial geographical overlap in south and southeast Asia. Nomenclatural stability would be best maintained by treating the two names as not confusable. If the decision is made to treat them as homonyms, Schima Reinw. ex Blume, as the later-published name, would be rendered illegitimate and would require replacement under the provisions of the Code. The author acknowledges the University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, for fellowship support (UGC Ref. No. 211610009488 / Joint CSIR-UGC JRF/SRF, June 2021) and thanks Drs. John McNeill and John H. Wiersema for helpful discussion and advice on this case. He is grateful to Mr. Subhasmit Bhattacharyya (Northern Regional Centre, Botanical Survey of India) for guidance and collegial support during the preparation of this contribution.