Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Artemisia aksaiensis Y. R. Ling in Bull. Bot. Res., Harbin 5 (2): 3. 1985. Type. China • Gansu, Aksai, G. L. Chang 1563 (holotype, PE, Fig. 6; isotype: LZU). Typification note. In the protologue, Ling (1985: 3) cited the type as “ G. L. Chang 1562, PE. ” However, examination of the specimen bearing the number 1562 at PE reveals that it belongs not to A. aksaiensis but to Stipa tianschanica. A second specimen at PE, numbered 1563, was collected at the same locality (Aksai, Gansu Province), on the same date (17 August 1963), by the Hexi Expedition Team (河西队), of which G. L. Chang (张国梁) was a member. This specimen agrees completely with the protologue in its morphological characters and bears an identification label by Y. R. Ling. The collector, locality, and date are identical for both specimens, which differ only in the final digit of the collection number. It is therefore evident that “ 1562 ” in the protologue is a typographical error for “ 1563. ” Under Art. 9.2 of the Madrid Code (Turland et al. 2025), such a typographical error does not invalidate the type designation; the intended holotype is specimen G. L. Chang 1563 (PE). The duplicate of this gathering is treated as an isotype of A. aksaiensis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
LIU et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: