壮丽含笑 meaning “magnificent michelia”. However, this name has been misapplied by some Chinese researchers to Michelia lacei from Myanmar [see Note 1 below].

壮丽香木兰 meaning “magnificent fragrant magnolia”.

China – Yunnan Province • Lu-hsi (= Luxi, now Mangshi), Mong-ka Hsien (= Mong-ka County), alt. 1,550 m, 15 m tree, in forest, 20 Feb. 1934, fl, H.T. Tsai (Tsai Hse-tao) 56961. holotype: PE 00028344! PE 00934201! isotypes: A 00039050! BM 000574754! KUN n.v. IBK 00358207! IBSC 0053849 n.v. (NB: type specimens at the listed Chinese herbaria may be presently filed under subsequent misidentifications as Michelia lacei).

Specimen images below accessed 20 Mar. 2019; all CVH reaccessed with new URLs 20 Oct. 2022:

An undated identification label affixed by J.E. Dandy makes the determination of the isotype specimen of Michelia magnifica Hu held at the British Museum (described from a collection at 1,550 m at Luxi in western Yunnan as for the type above) as Michelia lacei W.W. Sm. (described in 1920 from a collection at 914 m near Maymyo, central Burma, now Myanmar, ca. 350 km from Luxi, Yunnan). Subsequently, Michelia magnifica Hu was placed as a synonym of Michelia lacei, without elaboration, by Nooteboom in Chen and Nooteboom (1993), and thereafter by the above-noted authors. However, Michelia magnifica may be differentiated from M. lacei by the various features compiled in Table 2, indicating these to be two clearly distinct species. Also, Michelia magnifica does not key out with the validating descriptions for M. pachycarpa Law & R.Z. Zhou, M. tignifera Dandy or M. uniflora Dandy, with which it shares synonymy under M. lacei in Chen & Nooteboom and Flora of China.

Evidently a genuine species, Michelia magnifica Hu is reinstated and transferred to Magnolia with a necessary new name. The replacement name Magnolia magnificentia is proposed for Michelia magnifica because its transfer to Magnolia without a change of name would create a later illegitimate homonym to the Cretaceous fossil taxon Magnolia magnifica Dawson of 1883 (ICN Art. 53.1 and Art. 53.1, Note 3: Turland et al. 2025).

The descriptions of Michelia lacei in both Magnolias of China (Liu et al. 2004: 279) and Flora of China (Xia et al. 2008: 83) are mostly copied from that given by H.H. Hu for Michelia magnifica and do not follow the validating description of W.W. Smith when naming Michelia lacei from Burma (Myanmar), as is evident in Table 3 in respect of Flora of China. The Chinese name mentioned in Magnolias of China and Flora of China means “magnificent michelia”, so it refers to Michelia magnifica, as this was its Chinese name before being made a synonym of M. lacei, which evidently from being native to Myanmar, did not previously require a Chinese name.

Michelia magnifica has not been found in the literature as occurring in any nature reserve in China. This species is cultivated at only three Chinese botanical gardens, including Kunming Botanical Garden and Guangxi Medicinal Botanical Garden to the northeast of Nanning (Lei and Huang 2017: 136). It was recorded that by 2002, Michelia magnifica had at that time been in cultivation for about 20 years without flowering (Zhang and Zuo 2002).

Michelia lacei was assessed by Chinese researchers using IUCN criteria as Critically Endangered, CR B1ab(ii, v) (Wang and Xie 2004: 328) and more recently as Endangered EN B1ab(i, iii); D (Qin et al. 2017: 725). In the interim, the conservation status of Magnolia lacei W.W.Sm.) Figlar, including Michelia magnifica as one of five Michelia species recorded as synonyms, was assessed by Rivers and Wheeler for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species on 25 November 2014 as “Endangered D version 3.1, population trend decreasing” and stating that “Magnolia lacei is known from less than five localities with an estimated 50–60 mature individuals in China, and less than 200 in Vietnam” (IUCN 2026), as had been previously mentioned a decade earlier (Rivers et al. 2016: 30).

In consideration of the above, Magnolia magnificentia would be Critically Endangered, as was noted for Michelia magnifica (He et al. 2016: 32), since it had been reported in 2014 that there were (coincidentally) only between 50 and 60 individual plants of Michelia magnifica known in the wild, occurring in a single protected area in the region of the type locality at Luxi, western Yunnan, China, as determined from an inventory undertaken more than a decade before (Yang and Yang 2014: 7, Table 4). With Michelia magnifica being just one of the five synonyms included on the IUCN Red List, this effectively leaves no plants for the other supposed synonymous taxa in China!

A low seed-setting rate and difficulty of seed germination in nature has been recorded for the “Critically Endangered” Michelia magnifica in Schedule 1 of a protection plan for plant species in Yunnan with extremely small wild populations (Yunnan Provincial Forestry Department 2009: 41). It had previously been noted (Li and Li 1999: 33), as being recorded at Level 3 on the Yunnan Key Protected Wild Plants List (Yunnan Environmental Protection Committee 1989). However, it was listed in two more recent papers as one of 62 wild plants in Yunnan with minimum (viable) populations and one of 14 of these with, at the time, no existing official level of protection (Zheng et al. 2013: 62, Table 1; He et al. 2016: 32).

In view of the findings of the various Chinese authorities mentioned above, an IUCN assessment of the present conservation status of Michelia magnifica in the wild at the original type locality in far-western Yunnan should be undertaken under its proposed new name of Magnolia magnificentia at the earliest opportunity. This should include determining whether this species also occurs in Wenshan Prefecture in southeastern Yunnan, from where it was reported 34 years ago (Anon 1992), although this is likely to prove to be Michelia pachycarpa, another of the Magnolia lacei synonymous taxa which occurs in that region.

A recently published paper notes how a comprehensive genomic analysis of Michelia lacei provided valuable insights into its genetic background, as well as highlighting the urgent need for both in situ and ex situ conservation strategies to ensure the long-term survival of this threatened plant species (Liu et al. 2024). When discussing the population structure and genetic diversity of M. lacei, these authors mention that while the species is also reported to occur in Vietnam and Myanmar, its Chinese populations are mainly found in southeastern and western Yunnan Province, with no population(s) having been found in the area between them. They note that leaf samples taken from 12 ex situ trees of M. lacei cultivated at Kunming Botanical Garden, were verified “as matching the descriptions in the Flora of China”. They also mention that the trees at Kunming Botanical Garden were propagated from seeds collected from wild trees at Baoshan, Longling County, western Yunnan, where they could no longer be found, despite several recent field investigations. They record that these ex situ trees exhibit genetic features that suggested limited gene flow with a relatively pure genetic background. At this point, the following should be brought to the reader’s attention:

While the 12 ex situ trees of “Michelia lacei” from which leaf samples were taken for comparative genetic studies were verified “as matching the descriptions in the Flora of China ”, it should be noted that the description of M. magnifica Hu largely replaces the description compiled under M. lacei W.W.Sm. in Flora of China, as is evident from Table 3. Therefore, these trees are not Michelia lacei, but are Michelia magnifica whose type specimens were collected in the same region of western Yunnan in 1934, where the species presently appear to be either extinct or on the verge of extinction! (NB: Michelia magnifica was the only one of these two species previously recorded for Kunming Botanical Garden – Hou and Liu 2006).

This would also explain why these Chinese authors (Liu et al. 2024) determined that the genetic features of these 12 ex situ trees at Kunming Botanical Garden were distinct from those derived from leaves collected from a total of 52 in situ trees growing in six populations in the wild in southeastern Yunnan, which “mainly consist of two genetic backgrounds, with genetic mixing between them”. The present authors consider that these 52 trees are likely to include Michelia pachycarpa which has also been placed in heterotypic synonymy under M. lacei, but is a distinct species to the western Yunnan Michelia magnifica, as is evident from the various differentiating features between these two species compiled in Table 4.

It is apparent from the reasonably comprehensive notes compiled previously, plus the relevant comparisons compiled in Table 2, that whatever number, if any, of the synonymised Michelia magnifica Hu and Michelia lacei W.W. Smith survive in the wild at their type localities or surrounding regions, that they are definitely not one and the same species! Since both were recorded as growing at Kunming Botanical Garden, Yunnan, where two plants labelled with their names were photographed by the present authors during a visit in April 2017 (Fig. 1A, B), it is strange that comparisons have not yet been made between their flowers and fruit, the former unavailable to the renowned Scottish botanist and plant taxonomist William Wright Smith when naming Michelia lacei in 1920 and the latter unavailable to Hu Hsien Hsu, the founder of modern plant taxonomy in China, when naming M. magnifica in 1940. However, as noted in the photo caption, these ex situ plants are possibly all M. magnifica sourced from western Yunnan. The “two genetic backgrounds” between the six wild populations of “M. lacei” at Pinbian [sic] (= Pingbian of Pingbian Miao Autonomous County), Malipo (= Malipo County), Bazhai (of Maguan County), Miechang (of Maguan County), Qincaitang (of Hekou County) and Jinping (of Jinping Miao, Yao and Dai Autonomous County) in southeastern Yunnan, referred to in the last line of the addendum previously (Liu et al. 2024: 3), would appear to indicate that these populations noted as comprising a total of only 52 individuals, are probably Michelia pachycarpa and possibly M. tignifera, the two synonymised taxa discussed next in this paper. M. pachycarpa is known to occur in at least some of these six localities and M. tignifera occurs in northern Vietnam and possibly in some of the six localities in southeastern Yunnan. The “genetic mixing” also mentioned by the above authors would suggest a possible hybrid, or hybrids, between them or with another closely related, reproductively compatible Michelia species occurring within pollinating distance that enables them to interbreed.

厚果含笑 meaning “thick-fruited michelia”.

厚果木兰 meaning “thick-fruited magnolia”.

China – Yunnan Province • Maguan County, in woods, alt. 1800 m, 15 Oct. 1983, fr, Zhou Ren-zhang 25. holotype: IBSC 0052310 n.v.

Paratypes: China – Yunnan Province • ibid, 15 May 1982, Law Yuh-wu & Zhou Ren-zhang 7035. IBSC n.v. • Jinping County, alt. 1,000 m, 29 Aug. 1951, Mao Pin-yi 516. IBSC 0053850 n.v. IBSC 0054339 n.v. KUN 41677 n.v. WUK 0244774 n.v.

The paratype Mao Pin-yi 516 appears without image at CVH under Michelia lacei and also M. pachycarpa with the barcodes listed above. The 1982 paratype Law & Zhou 7035 could not be located.

China – Yunnan Province • Jinping Miao, Yao and Dai Autonomous County, Zhamen, mountain forest, alt. 1,000 m, 15 m tree, 29 Aug. 1951, fr, Yu T.T. (Yu Te-tsun) 23640. PE 00145550! • Malipo County, Cizhuba, alt. 1,900 m, near limestone caves, 15 May 2002, immature fr, Shui Yu-min, Fang Rui-zheng & Chen Wen-hong 21415. PE 01974159! [presently labelled as Michelia lacei W.W. Smith] • Maguan County, Gulinqing, from Laochangbu to Jinchang River, lat. 22°44'21"N, long. 103°59'56 “ E, tree 20 m, in evergreen broad-leaved forests on south-facing slope, 10 Oct. 2002, Shui Yu-min, Chen Wen-hong & Sheng Jia-shu 31075. PE 01974143! [presently labelled as Michelia cavaleriei Finet & Gagnep. which grows to only 10 m (Liu et al. 2004: 229; Deng et al. 2015: 148)]. ibid. • tree 30 m, 10 Oct. 2002, fr, Shui Yu-min, Chen Wen-hong & Sheng Jia-shu 31033. PE 01974167! [presently labelled as Michelia coriacea Hung T. Chang & B.L. Chen, which also grows to only 10 m (Chen 1987: 89, Liu et al. 2004: 238)].

Specimen images below accessed 19 Nov. 2022:

China – Southeast Yunnan • unspecified location, 1,800 m, Oct. 1986, Chen Bao-liang 86S-051. SYS 00051206 n.v. SYS 00051208 n.v. SYS 00051209 n.v.

Specimen images of above not uploaded to CVH at 27 Jan. 2026.

Chen Bao-liang GL86-173 (SYS00051043 to SYS00051045) collected near Gulinqing, Maguan County, and Chen Bao-liang 87T-028 (SYS00051038 to SYS00051040) collected at ca. 1,790 m from Xiao Shan, Wenshan Prefecture, southeast Yunnan, while recorded as M. lacei at CVH, are probably the specimens of M. pachycarpa referred to by Nooteboom but have not been seen.

The holotype specimen Zhou Ren-zhang 25 for Michelia pachycarpa Law & R.Z. Zhou is presently filed as Manglietia chevalieri Dandy at IBSC (herbarium of South China Institute of Botany, barcode 0052310) according to the CVH website, where no specimen image has yet been posted.

An endnote by Nooteboom under Michelia lacei in Chen and Nooteboom (1993), mentions that the first author (Chen Bao-liang) collected material of M. pachycarpa with flowers and fruit from the type tree and that “there is no doubt that it is synonymous with Michelia lacei”, with no reason given for this mistaken conclusion, considering the differences between the fruit noted in Table 5 and that the flowers of the genuine M. lacei have never been described. It was subsequently listed in synonymy under M. lacei by the authors noted above. A record for M. lacei at CVH under Chen Bao-liang 87T-028, collected on 4 April 1987 at 1,790 m from Banzhai Hill, Yunnan possibly represents M. pachycarpa which was previously collected under Chen Bao-liang 86S-051 in October 1986 at 1,800 m from the Banzhai District near Gulin in Maguan County of southeastern Yunnan (see Note 3 below). However, no images for either specimen are posted to CVH to determine if this is the case. No flowers and no fruit are recorded in respect of both these specimens, as are also specimens Chen Bao-liang GI86-173, GS86-192 and GS-242, all collected during April 1986 in the vicinity of Gulin, Maguan County and recorded at CVH as M. lacei. A non-flowering, non-fruiting collection of M. pachycarpa made by Chen B.L. on 10 April 1986 (Chen Bao-liang GS86-102 at NHN/L), possibly in the vicinity of the type tree, which was later determined as M. lacei by Xia Nian-he and subsequently by Nooteboom, is 35 m tall, significantly taller than the medium-sized M. lacei from Burma as described by William Wright Smith. This specimen also has leaves to ca. 21 cm, too long to be M. lacei as it was later determined. Michelia pachycarpa retains its species status in Law (1996: 184, flowers recorded as unseen), Liu et al. (2004: 302) and Xing et al. (2009: 210).

An article from the Conclusions of the 3^rd Global Botanic Gardens Congress hosted by Wuhan Botanical Gardens, Hubei Province, China in April 2007 (Jiao et al. 2007), mentions a survey of Michelia pachycarpa occurring in a field near Bazhai [sic. = Banzhai] of Maguan County, where only two giant non-fruiting trees were found during the fruiting season, one of these shown at Fig. 1A in the article. These authors mention being advised by a local guide that there were about 50 trees of M. pachycarpa in the surrounding area at that time 19 years ago. It is probably from one of these trees that Chen Bao-liang collected the specimens in 1986 and 1987, as previously mentioned in Note 2.

During eight field surveys conducted in southeastern Yunnan from 2014 to 2016, only 10 mature individual trees supposedly of Michelia lacei were found: six in Maguan County, three in Malipo County and one in Jinping County. (Cai et al. 2017). Evidently these 10 trees were most likely Michelia pachycarpa but were identified as M. lacei under which it has been synonymised, meaning they that are considered the same species. However, the present authors believe that Michelia pachycarpa is undoubtedly a genuine species independent of Michelia lacei due to the fact that it is a large tree to 40 m tall and 1.3 m dbh as originally described (Law and Zhou 1987), compared with M. lacei which is a medium-sized tree (Smith 1920: 216). Other differences with Michelia lacei located in the literature are compiled in Table 5. The subsequent Table 6 provides a comparison with Michelia tignifera, another of the supposed synonyms of M. lacei.

Research has found that the essential oil of Michelia pachycarpa is rich in elemene and that it can be utilised in the production of national Class 2 anti-cancer elemene capsules (Li 2011). As mentioned in another of our papers (Callaghan and Png 2026a), locking numerous obviously genuine species in unsubstantiated synonymy results in their potential benefits to humanity, such as the medicinal properties that a number of other Magnoliaceae species are known to possess, never being assessed or realised.

Michelia pachycarpa is recorded in ex situ conservation at Zhongshan Arboretum in Guangdong Province from test seedlings planted in February 2006 that were received from Fairy Lake Botanical Garden, Shenzhen, also in Guangdong Province. (Xiu et al. 2013) and it is also recorded for Xiangpingshan Arboretum of Rare Tree Species in Xichou County, southeastern Yunnan (Liu et al. 2012: 94, Table 1, no. 44). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species records the conservation status of Magnolia lacei, including Michelia pachycarpa and other taxa in synonymy, as “Endangered D ver. 3.1 with a decreasing population trend” based on a November 2014 assessment and with its occurrence recorded for China (50–60 mature individuals) and Vietnam (less than 200 mature individuals) (IUCN 2026). Its basionym, Michelia lacei, in fact occurs (occurred?) in Myanmar where the type specimen was collected and has been noted for Thailand as well as the previously mentioned three countries (Xia et al. 2008: 83; Nguyễn et al. 2015: 135). However, no record of M. lacei or any of its supposed synonyms as listed in Flora of China is found in a review of the Magnoliaceae of Thailand, with M. lacei in that country described as a new species, Magnolia citrata (Chalermglin & Nooteboom, 2007: 563).

It is evident that Michelia pachycarpa would be at least as endangered as M. lacei, since it was reported to occur only in Maguan, Malipo and Jinping counties in southeastern Yunnan, where it was recorded early this century as endangered due to overcutting, general habitat destruction or competitive effects (Wang and Jiang 2001: 45). Therefore, M. pachycarpa listed for Xiaohei Shan Nature Reserve in Longling County, far-western Yunnan (Yu et al. 2006), would in fact be M. magnifica whose type was collected in the vicinity of Luxi by T.H. Tsai on 20 February 1934 between the months he was making collections at nearby Longling, e.g. Indigofera nigrescens Kurz ex King & Prain, 10 January 1934 and Primula malacoides Franch., 16 March 1934 (held at Harvard Herbaria). M. lacei reported for Fenshuiling Nature Reserve, Jinping County, southeastern Yunnan (Xu et al. 2002), is probably M. pachycarpa, of which its earliest known specimen was collected in this region. M. pachycarpa was noted by Li and Li (1999: 5) as being listed as a Level 3 provincial key protected plant on the Yunnan Key Protected Wild Plants List published in 1989. It is recorded at this protection level as occurring between 1,600 and 1,800 m in Wenshan Prefecture of southeastern Yunnan (Mu 2012: 20, Table 1), where it occurs within Gulinqing Provincial Nature Reserve of Maguan County (Zhang 2013: 97). M. pachycarpa is included in a list of wild woody plants of Yunnan recommended for priority conservation (Huang 2008: 60). M. pachycarpa had previously been assessed by Chinese authorities using IUCN criteria as Critically Endangered, CR B1ab(ii), near to their assessment of CR B1ab(ii, v) for M. lacei (Wang & Xie, 2004: 328), the latter having subsequently been downgraded to Endangered, EN B1ab(i, iii); D (Qin et al. 2017: 725).

In view of the determination of Magnolia pachycarpa (syn. Michelia pachycarpa) as a genuine species, and the fact that only 10 mature individuals were found in the 2014–2016 field surveys (Note 4), an IUCN evaluation of its current conservation status in the wild, independent from Magnolia lacei, needs to be undertaken as soon as possible. Also, to further substantiate them as independent species, a comparative DNA analysis could be undertaken using fresh material collected from trees of Michelia magnifica propagated from seed collected in 1987 and M. pachycarpa propagated from seed collected in 1996, both of which were recorded as growing in the Endangered Plants Area of Kunming Botanical Garden 20 years ago. Michelia magnifica was also recorded as growing from the 1987 seed in both the Magnolia and Rose Gardens of Kunming Botanical Garden (Hou and Liu 2006).

Giổi bắc kỳ meaning “northern Vietnamese michelia”.

Mộc lan bắc kỳ meaning “northern Vietnamese magnolia”.

Tonkin (= NORTHERN VIETNAM) – Lào-Kay Province • near Cha-pa (=Sapa), Ta-phing, alt. 1450 m, 10 m tree, 7 Aug. 1926, fr, Eugène Poilane 12864. holotype: P 00205380! isotypes: BM 000551388! K n.v. P 00205381! SYS 00051282 n.v.

Specimen images below accessed 20 Mar. 2019:

Although Dandy (1930) notes that Michelia tignifera is easily separated from the totally glabrous M. lacei W.W. Sm., it is listed, without providing any reason (or citing any prior source), as a synonym of this species by Nooteboom in Chen and Nooteboom (1993) and then by the authors noted above. However, Michelia tignifera may be readily differentiated from M. lacei by the morphological features of these two species shown in Table 7. Also, the distribution of these two taxa is geographically isolated, with Michelia tignifera occurring in northern Vietnam, where its type specimen was collected by the French botanist Eugène Poilane in 1926, and also reported from Maguan County in southeastern Yunnan (however, see Note 2), while M. lacei is probably only from northern Myanmar (Burma) and not confirmed from western Yunnan, since as mentioned previously, its description in the Chinese floras is mostly adapted from Michelia magnifica Hu, one of its listed synonyms which have all been determined in this paper to be independent species.

The reported occurrence of Michelia tignifera in southeastern Yunnan is possibly the result of misidentifications, since only one unposted specimen collected from an unspecified location in Yunnan in 1940 is recorded under this name 86 years later on the Chinese Virtual Herbarium (CVH) (2026) website as of 28 January 2026. If there are any other unposted specimens of M. tignifera currently listed at CVH under M. lacei, the unanswered question is where are the specimens of M. tignifera collected in Yunnan subsequent to its naming in 1940 and its sinking in synonymy under M. lacei 53 years later in 1993? (Six specimen images recorded at CVH at 15 February 2026 under the name M. lacei which were collected during these years are apparently M. pachycarpa).

Another fact that leads the present authors to the conclusion that Michelia lacei is not confirmed for Yunnan despite being noted to occur in Wenshan National Nature Reserve and Jinping Watershed National Nature Reserve of southeastern Yunnan (Lu and Shui 2002: 114; Liu et al. 2024: 12), is that while the fruit of Michelia lacei was described more than a century ago (Smith 1920: 216), both Magnolias of China and Flora of China (published in 2004 and 2008 respectively), record its fruit as unseen, nor is the fruit of M. lacei mentioned in the more recent Ex situ Cultivated Flora of China (Magnoliaceae), (Yang et al. 2016: 286). A photo of a large “ancient and rare tree” noted as M. lacei growing alongside a road in Bazhai town, Maguan County (Liu et al. 2024: 9), raises the question that if it were in fact this species, then why is its fruit still unknown to all the previously noted Chinese authors after all these years?

Michelia tignifera which fruits in August also does not key out with the original validating descriptions for M. pachycarpa Law & R.Z. Zhou which fruits in October (see other differences with this species at Table 6) or with M. uniflora Dandy, with which it shares synonymy under M. lacei W.W. Sm. in Chen and Nooteboom (1993) and in Flora of China. Therefore, Michelia tignifera is reinstated and transferred to Magnolia in accordance with the past reduction of the remaining genera of subfamily Magnolioideae to the genus Magnolia.

Michelia lacei, inclusive of synonyms recognised by Sima and Lu (2009: 60), is recorded by these authors as “endemic to China (Yunnan)”. However, the type specimens of Michelia lacei were collected in Burma (Myanmar), and two of their listed synonyms originated from outside China, including Michelia tignifera from Vietnam.

Michelia lacei was assessed by Chinese researchers utilising IUCN criteria as Critically Endangered, CR B1ab (ii, v) (Wang and Xie 2004: 328) and subsequently as Endangered EN B1ab(i, iii); D (Qin et al. 2017: 725). It is recorded as occurring at Ha Giang and Lào Cai Provinces in Vietnam with the status of Endangered EN B2ab(i-v), (Nguyễn et al. 2015: 135), but these records probably refer to its synonym M. tignifera, the type of which was collected at Sapa in Lào-Kay (Lào Cai) Province, northern Vietnam. Since the conservation status of Magnolia lacei when in possession of the four synonymous taxa again recognised as independent species in this paper is noted on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species from a November 2014 assessment as “Endangered D with a decreasing population trend” (IUCN 2026), Magnolia tignifera (syn. Michelia tignifera) and the other four associated species would in fact be at a higher level of endangerment once disengaged from each other.

An IUCN evaluation of the current status in the wild of all taxa in the “Magnolia (Michelia) lacei complex”, including the now independent Magnolia tignifera, should be undertaken as soon as possible.

Burma (= MYANMAR) – Southern Shan States • Bauzaing (Mawson), Feb. 1888, fl, Neville Manders s.n. holotype: K 000681490!

holotype (K): http://www.kew.org/herbcatimg/311163.jpg (accessed 20 Mar. 2019).

Michelia uniflora Dandy is noted as a synonym of Michelia lacei W.W. Sm. by Nooteboom in Chen and Nooteboom (1993), without any reason for doing this (or citing any prior source for this synonymy) and then by the authors listed above. On the available evidence presented here, the present authors consider Michelia uniflora to be an independent species to Michelia lacei and also M. tignifera, with which it is included in synonymy under M. lacei, due to their differentiating features compiled in Tables 8, 9.

One of the most convincing features substantiating the independence of Michelia lacei and M. uniflora is their height, which for M. lacei, originally described as a medium-sized tree, is recorded “to 15 metres” in Law (1996), Liu et al. (2004), Xia et al. (2008) and Yang et al. (2016), the first and third publications including respectively three and four synonymous taxa determined as independent species in the present paper. This contrasts with the statement of the collector of the type specimens of M. uniflora describing this Burmese tree as a “large flowering tree similar in size and shape to a mango”, implying that its height must be around 30 or more metres, as for the largest of these Asian fruit trees, Mangifera indica L., whose geographic range includes Burma (Myanmar).

The other conspicuous feature of Michelia uniflora is its strongly-scented flowers, described as “one to a branchlet” (Dandy 1927: 203), as alluded to in its name. While axillary, these are located, unusually for the genus Michelia, apparently terminal at the apex of the long shoots (as for the type specimen at Kew) “owing to the pushing aside of the terminal bud”. This is evidently also the situation for the flowers of some plants of Michelia amoena, plus five other species mentioned in the literature (Gong et al. 2003: 447), whereas the flowers of Michelia lacei are pseudoaxillary on short spur shoots or brachyblasts as for most Michelia species. Obviously a distinct species, Michelia uniflora Dandy is reinstated and transferred to Magnolia, with Michelia lacei having been transferred to Magnolia previously (Figlar 2000: 22).

Michelia lacei, inclusive of the synonyms recognised by Sima and Lu (2009: 60), is noted by these authors as “endemic to China (Yunnan)”, being also the only country recorded for M. lacei in Magnolias of China. However, as previously mentioned, the type specimen of Michelia lacei was collected in central Burma (now Myanmar) in 1912, and despite no subsequent sightings or recorded specimen collections in Myanmar for the past 114 years being located in the literature by the present authors, it is still included (as Magnolia lacei) in a recently published checklist of vascular plants of that country (Aung et al. 2025). Two of the listed synonyms of Michelia lacei in Sima & Lu also originated from outside China, including M. uniflora from Burma (Myanmar), with Dandy (1930: 214) mentioning both M. uniflora and M. lacei as being Burmese species.

Since the endemic Michelia uniflora was not included in Supplement 1 of An Updated Checklist of Vascular Plants of Myanmar, published in August of 2025 and listing 14,020 known plant species of that country (Aung et al. 2025), it is possibly now extinct. Even though it is apparently considered to be a synonym of Magnolia lacei by these Burmese authors, who cited the type specimen of Michelia uniflora at the Royal Botanic Gardens herbarium at Kew and listed it under Magnolia lacei, whose type specimen at the Royal Botanic Garden herbarium at Edinburgh they inexplicably did not cite, the fact that the only locality listed for M. lacei in their checklist is its type locality near Maymyo, leads to the conclusion that Michelia uniflora (renamed Magnolia uniflora in the present paper), is apparently now extinct or close to extinction in the wild. This is because the holotype (and only known) legitimate specimen of Michelia lacei (Magnolia lacei), was collected by J.H. Lace (no. 5928), 25 August 1912 in “Upper Burma, Thomdaung to Aui Sakan, near Maymyo” (Smith 1920), while the holotype (and only known) specimen of Michelia uniflora was collected by Neville Manders (without number) during February 1888 in “Burma, Southern Shan States, Bauzaing (Mawson)” (Dandy 1927). Since Burma is now known as Myanmar, and Magnolia lacei is not mentioned for the Southern Shan States in the east of that country in the 2025 Myanmar checklist, the unfortunate conclusion is that Michelia uniflora, which has been determined previously by the present authors as an independent species to Magnolia lacei, is apparently now extinct or precariously close to extinction in the wild, as may also be the situation of the latter species.

The conservation status of Magnolia lacei, including Michelia uniflora as a synonym, is noted from a November 2014 assessment for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as “Endangered D ver. 3.1, with a decreasing population trend”, with a total estimated wild population in China of only 50–60 adult specimens (IUCN 2026). Michelia lacei was previously assessed by Chinese researchers using IUCN criteria as Critically Endangered, CR B1ab(ii, v), in Wang and Xie (2004: 328) and more recently as Endangered EN B1ab(i, iii) D, in Qin et al. (2017: 725). No records concerning the conservation status in the wild of Michelia uniflora have been located in any publications. Since all the above assessments are based on misidentifications as a result of unsubstantiated synonymy, they are basically meaningless.

Since the conservation assessments mentioned above include four synonymous taxa again recognised as independent species in this paper, Magnolia uniflora (syn. Michelia uniflora), known to the authors only from a single 1888 collection from Burma (Myanmar), would probably be Critically Endangered if not altogether extinct. It is apparent that an IUCN evaluation of the current conservation status in the wild of all five species now in Magnolia and recognised as independent of each other, viz. Magnolia lacei, M. magnificentia, M. pachycarpa, M. tignifera and M. uniflora, should be undertaken without undue delay! Also, regional or country checklists of vascular plants should in future include details of the most recent sighting and/or collection of each included taxon to substantiate that they still even exist. Including Michelia lacei on the Myanmar checklist and listing its occurrence as for that of the type specimen collected at this locality 114 years ago, without providing recent evidence of its occurrence there or elsewhere in Myanmar, raises the question of whether this and similarly formatted checklists contain endemic species that no longer exist in their only known locality and are therefore possibly now extinct.