Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze, Um die Erde: 500. 1881.

≡ Thea sinensis L., Sp. Pl. 1: 515. 1753. ≡ Thea bohea L., Sp. Pl., ed. 2. 1: 734. 1762 ≡ Thea grandifolia Salisb., Prodr. Stirp. Chap. Allerton 370. 1796 ≡ Thea chinensis Sims, Bot. Mag. 25: t. 998. 1807 ≡ Camellia thea Link, Enum. Hort. Berol. Alt. 2: 73. 1822 – Lectotype (designated by Bartholomew in Jarvis et al. 1993: 93): “ Tsja ” in Kaempfer, Amoen. Exot. Fasc.: 606, f. 1–2. 1712 – Epitype (designated here): The s [ive] Tja, Linnaeus C. 152 (LINN, image! Fig. 1). — An image of the epitype is available at https://linnean.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_fdd28637-3ffd-48a8-bb4a-696bf73fd09b/

= Thea viridis L., Sp. Pl., ed. 2. 1: 735. 1762 – Neotype (designated here): The s [ive] Tja, Linnaeus C. 152 (LINN, image! Fig. 1).

Notes.

Linnaeus (1753) did not designate a type for T. sinensis. He subsequently abandoned the name and adopted T. bohea (Linnaeus 1762), an illegitimate replacement name for T. sinensis (Zhao et al. 2017). After a series of searches of original material in the herbaria listed above, we found that there was a specimen of T. bohea, Linnaeus C. 152, conserved at herbarium LINN (Fig. 1). This collection bears complete leaves and flowers, which is suitable for acting as the lectotype of T. sinensis. Nevertheless, Bartholomew designated an illustration as the lectotype for T. sinensis (Jarvis et al. 1993), and his lectotypification must be followed under Art. 9.19 of the ICN (also see Art. 9 Ex. 2 for lectotyping Linnaean names). The illustration (Kaempfer 1712) does not, however, clearly show the diagnostic character states, such as the indumenta of the leaf buds, sepals, and ovaries, for precise identification of C. sinensis. Therefore, Linnaean specimen of T. bohea, Linnaeus C. 152 at LINN (Fig. 1), is selected as an epitype of T. sinensis to avoid potential confusion (Art. 9.9 of the ICN).

Thea bohea and T. chinensis are illegitimate replacement names for T. sinensis (Zhao et al. 2017). Thea grandifolia and C. thea are also illegitimate replacement names for T. sinensis because T. bohea was the sole name cited in their synonymies (Salisbury 1796; Link 1822; Art. 52.2 [e] of the ICN). Linnaeus (1762) described T. viridis as “ floribus enneapetalis ” and recognized T. bohea as “ floribus hexapetalis ”. The number of petals usually varies within a single shrub of tea, so T. viridis was recognized as a heterotypic synonym of C. sinensis by previous taxonomists (e. g., Sealy 1958; Chang 1984; Ming 2000). The only citation under T. viridis, “ Hill. exot. t. 22 ”, is also provided under T. bohea (Linnaeus 1762), so it cannot serve as the type material. To avoid further confusion of the names, the epitype of C. sinensis, Linnaeus C. 152 at LINN (Fig. 1), is selected as the neotype of T. viridis regardless of the number of petals.

Camellia sinensis var. sinensis is native to the subtropical provinces and Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hainan, China. It can be distinguished from other infraspecific taxa by its pubescent leaf buds, acute, shortly attenuate or rounded leaf apex, abaxially glabrous sepals, and pubescent ovaries (Fig. 1; Zhao 2024). As an indigenous popular beverage plant, tea has been collected and planted for at least two millennia in the populous regions of China (Fang 1998). Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to identify a living specimen of tea in the forest as being genuinely wild or having escaped from cultivation (Zhao 2022, 2024).