Gentiana was originally proposed by Tournefort in 1700. Linnaeus adopted this generic name in his “Genera Plantarum” published in 1737. He divided the genus into seven groups on the basis of different shapes of corolla and forms of floral appendages. In his “Species Plantarum” he reorganized them into three artificial ones.  Forty years later, Moench established a new genus, Gentianella under which he described G. tetrandra as the type of his new genus.  In the view of identity of Gentianella tetrandra with Gentiana campestris L., it is evident that Gentianella represents only some plants formerly included in Gentiana at Linnaeus time.  In 1796, Froelich’s monograph on Gentiana appeared.  In his work four sections were represented and one of them was Crossopetalum.  In 1845, Grisebach also published a monograph of  Gentianaceae and recorded fifteen sections of which Amarella and Imaicola are two of his seven proposed ones. In 1888, Huxley studied the floral structure of Gentianaceae  in relation with pollination mechanism and, accordingly, divided the family into two  main groups, one with epipetalous glands, the other with glands at the base of the ovary.  In each group, four types of flowers were found.  He concluded that Gentiana was a  complex genus on account of presence of four different types of flowers in this group,  and suggested that many species of the genus should be separated out to form some smaller  generic categories.  Six years after, Kusnezow in his monograph divided Gentiana into  two subgenera Eugentiana and Gentianella.  In his system, subgenus Eugentiana consists  of ten sections and the Gentianella, seven.  He contributed much to the systematic  treatment of Eugnetiana but little to that of Gentianella.  He maintained the genus  Gentiana in a broad sense.  With increased knowledge of this group in the last thirty years, a number of botanists were able to make a clearer delimitation of true Gentiana  and its allies and treated them in more natural way.  Moench’s genus Gentianella was  rerised.  In 1936, H. Smith separated Megacodon from Gentianella as a genus.  In the  present paper, the writer suggests a generic name Gentianopsis for the section Crossopetalum in the same Genus.

This new genus is characterized by (1) its large and somewhat flattened ellipsoidal   flower bud, (2) two dissimilar pairs of calyx lobes which are distichously imbricate in  aestivation, (3) four triangular, ciflated intracalyx membranes at the base of and  alternate with the calyx lobes, (4) distinct gynophore and (5) enlarged stigma. While  in typical Gentianella represented by section Amarella, the flower buds are small and terete, a laciniate corona is usually present, and the calyx-lobes are leafy, lanceolate, imbricate, and not provided with intracalyx membrane.

      Besides the morphological characters mentioned above, the anatomical structure of

 the floral parts is also a significant generic criterion.  In Gentianopsis, eight vascular

 bundles are present in calyx, representing four dorsals and four fused ventrals.  In each

 corolla-lobe there are five bundles.  In the body of ovary six bundles are present.  The

ovule bearing surface is extensive covering nearly to entire surface of the ovary wall with

 the exception of a narrow longitudinal zone along the dorsal bundle.  In Gentianella,

calyx bundles are three in each lobe, without fusion of the ventrals.  In each corolla-

lobe, the bundles are three instead of five as in Gentianopsis but the lateral ones branch

once dichotomously after entering the base of corolla. In the body of ovary only four

main bundles are present due to the fusion of smaller ventral ones.  The placentation

is confined to the region of the ventral bundles.

 

     Phylogenetically Gentianopsis and Gentianella may be regarded as closely reIated

and may represent branches of a common line with Gentianopsis standing at a lower

level, Gentianella being more advanced. In Gentianella the number of bundles in the

corolla segments and ovary wall are reduced by partial or complete fusion and the

distribution of ovules is confined only to the region of the ventral bundles.  However,

in the calyx of Gentianopsis there is fusion of ventral bundles, whereas the correspound-

ing bundles in the Gentianella remain separate.  The Gentianopsis-Gentianella line on

the one hand and the Gentiana line on the other may come again from a common

acestral stock.  Gentiana possesses only three bundles in each corolla-lobe.  A variety

of plicate between corolla lobes except in case of Gentiana lutea and intracalyx membrane

above the throat of calyx-tube are also the common structures in Gentiana.  Thus the

pollination mechanism is highly specialized in the genus.  As far as we know, in

Gentiana the glandular appendages usually exist at the base of ovary.  If those nectarial

processes are correctly interpreted as the representatives of staminodes, gentiana would,

undoubtedly, be derived from an ancestral  form with  hypogynous  diplostemonous

androecium, and bears no direct relationship to Gentianopsis or Gentianella in which the

glands are epipetalous.  It may be reasonable to conclude the Gentiana and Gentianopsis-

Gentianella line are two parallel derivatives from a common ancestor which has the

floral characters of two series of hypogynous stamens. Gentianopsis and Gentianella may

represent branches of a common line with Gentianopsis standing at a lower level,

Gentianella being more advanced. Their relations may be diagrammed below:

                                                      Gentianopsis

                                                            

                                                                 Gentianella

Common ancestor

                                                      Gentiana

 

     This new genus consists of fourteen species and two varieties in the world.  Onlyeight species and two varieties are represented in China. They are G. barbara, G. barbatavar. sinensis, G. grandis, G. scabromanginata, G. paludosa, G. nana, G. longistyla,G. lutea, G. contorta, and G. contorta var. Wui.     The species of present genus occur in the alpine regions of North Hemisphere.  InChina t,hey are distributed in Kokonor, Kansu, Shensi, Shansi, Chahar, Hopei, Manchuria,Hupeh, Szechuan, Sikang, Tibet, and Yunnan. G. Yabei (Takeda et Hara) is foundin Japan, G. detonsa (Bott&) in North Europe, G. ciliata (Linn.) in South Europe,G. crinita (Froel.) G. procera (Holm.) and G. degans (A. Nels) in North America.G. barbata is the most widespreading species and reported in Sibiria and China.G. contorta (Royle) is a common plant in Himalayan mountaineous range, China andNorth part of India.     The species and varieties cited in this paper are as follows:

          t.  Gentianopsis barbata (Froel.) comb. nov.

          la. Gentianopsis barbata (Froel.) var. sinensis, var. nov.

         2.  Gentian opsis grandis (H. Sm.) comb. nov.

         3.  Gentianopsis scabromarginata (H. Sm.) comb. nov.

         4.  Gcntianopsis paludosa (Munro) comb. nov.

         5.  Gentianopsis nana sp. nov.

         6.  Gentianopsis longistyla, sp. nov.

         7.  Gentianopsis lutea, sp. nov.