{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.07074340527577938, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0539568345323741, 'mean_word_length': 4.422077922077922, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Validation of Rubia urceolata X.F.Wang & C.H.Wang (Rubiaceae) from Central China

In a recent issue of Phytotaxa, Wang et al. (2018) described a new species of Rubia Linnaeus (1753: 109) from western Hubei, Central China and proposed the name as “R. urceolata X.F.Wang & C.H.Wang” based on the gathering WCHH17061 (WH) as its holotype. However, in a separate paragraph subtitled “Additional specimens examined (paratypes)”, other three gatherings (WCHH17064, LZHE17082 and WCHH17113, all deposited in WH), which collected at different localities and/or on separate dates from WCHH1761, were cited by mistake also as “holotype”. This practice made “R. urceolata X.F.Wang & C.H.Wang” invalid since more than one gathering was designated as holotype (here Art. 8.2 Note 1 does not apply and it is against Art. 40.7; Turland et al. 2018).