|
Main |
Family List (MO) |
Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments |
Guidelines |
Checklist |
Citing |
Editors
The Cutting Edge
Volume XVIII, Number 2, April 2011
News and Notes |
Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature |
Season's Pick | Annotate your copy
Acuña C., R. H. 2010.
A new species of Zamia (Zamiaceae) from Costa Rica. Brenesia 73-74: 29–33.
It isn't every day that a new sp. of Zamia turns up...or is it? We've noticed in passing that folks who work on cycads tend to predicate sp. determinations on the minutest of differences between individual specimens. Whether the present case falls into that category remains to be seen, but we have our suspicions. Zamia gomeziana R. H. Acuña (honoring the late Luis Diego Gómez, and described in an issue dedicated to his memory) is based on a single specimen, G. Herrera & Chacón 2865, from 1350 m elevation on Fila Matama (on the Atlantic slope of the Cordillera de Talamanca). This is a specimen that we have known of for many years (though we cannot presently locate it), so the author brings nothing new to the table. It was, in fact, cited in Mary Merello's (MO) Manual treatment of Zamiaceae as comprising the only record of Zamia fairchildiana L. D. Gómez from the Atlantic slope, but not otherwise remarked upon. The present author distinguishes this specimen from the last-mentioned sp. on the basis of its proportionately narrower leaflets and female strobili with a longer peduncle and a shorter sterile apex. The peduncle character does seem persuasive, especially in the context of a tabular comparison with Z. fairchildiana and Z. pseudomonticola L. D. Gómez ex D. W. Stev. (which we also don't buy as a distinct sp.). There the author indicates a megastrobilar peduncle length of 11 cm for the proposed new sp., vs. just 5.83 cm (with a standard deviation of 1.26 cm) for Z. fairchildiana (and even shorter for "Z. pseudomonticola"). However, we were able to neutralize this evidence within a few minutes by discovering a specimen at MO from the Pacific slope of Costa Rica (Grayum & Hammel 5651) with a megastrobilar peduncle measuring 10 cm. We expect that the author saw only limited material of Z. fairchildiana, and did not take into account that collectors may often cut peduncles well above the base. As the author himself acknowledges, his hypothesis requires testing with additional samples from the region of the type locality of Z. gomeziana. A short bus ride might well serve his purposes, as two additional Zamia collections from Fila Matama, not seen by the author, already exist at INB, a rich herbarium that is inexplicably shunned by many botanists based in the immediate San José area. Illustrated with photographic images of the type specimen.
—— & L. D. Gómez. 2009. Selección de un lectotipo para Zamia fairchildiana L. D. Gómez (Zamiaceae). Brenesia 71-72: 65.
The original holotype specimen for the name in the title "se encuentra desaparecido" (wonderful expression!) in the CR herbarium. The lectotype here designated is a sterile specimen, but as it was the only other element cited in the protologue, the authors had no choice.
Alvarado, J. F. 2010. A mi muy querido y recordado Luis Diego Gómez Pignataro. Brenesia 73-74: 25.
The most recent issue of the journal Brenesia is fittingly dedicated to the memory of its founder, Luis Diego Gómez. This brief remembrance was written by a former employee at the Jardín Botánico Wilson, helmed by Luis for many years. For additional contributions in a similar vein, see under Gómez-Laurito, Monje-Nájera, Morales, and Morera, this column.
Baumbach, N. 2011. Maxillaria endresii und der Lankester-Garten in Cartago, Costa Rica. Orchidee (Hamburg) 62: 47–51.
This covers all bases: a brief historical and geographical sketch of the region specified in the title, plus another revisitation of the taxonomic mayhem recently wrought at the expense of poor old Maxillaria (see under Whitten & Blanco, this column). Oh, and did we mention, there are lots of color photos?
Blanco, M. A. & N. H. Williams. 2010. (1976) Proposal to conserve the name Lockhartia oerstedii against Oncidium mirabile (L. mirabilis) (Orchidaceae). Taxon 59: 1894.
The authors have concluded that the type of Oncidium mirabile Rchf. f., comprising a single flower, is conspecific with Lockhartia oerstedii Rchb. f., the name of which is well established (although the sp., which occurs in Costa Rica, is of trifling importance). Although Oncidium mirabile has priority over L. oerstedii by a mere four weeks, the latter name would be replaced by Lockhartia mirabilis (Rchb. f.) Rchb. f. were this proposal to be rejected
Bogarín, D. & F. Pupulin. 2010. The genus Campylocentrum (Orchidaceae: Angraecinae) in Costa Rica: a revision. Harvard Pap. Bot. 15: 353–414.
Nine spp. of Campylocentrum are accepted for Costa Rica by these authors, vs. seven in Robert L. Dressler’s (JBL) Manual treatment of the genus (2003). One of the additions is a new sp., Campylocentrum generalense Bogarín & Pupulin, known only from the type specimen collected by the first author at 600 m elevation in the northern Valle de General. It is most similar to C. pachyrrhizum (Rchb. f.) Rolfe, discussed as a hypothetical in the Manual, in having flattened roots and lacking leaves. The other outright addition to the flora is Campylocentrum tenellum Todzia, previously considered endemic to Panama but here reported for the first time from Costa Rica, at 600–1400 m elevation on the Caribbean slope of the Cordillera Central and the northern Cordillera de Talamanca (where it has been found exclusively by the authors and their colleagues). It is most similar to C. brenesii Schltr., from which it differs by its proportionately narrower leaves with the sheaths distinctly lacerate (vs. entire). The only other noteworthy innovation in this paper is the authors’ resurrection of the name Campylocentrum multiflorum Schltr. from synonymy under C. fasciola (Lindl.) Cogn., where it resided in the Manual and various other works. The name C. multiflorum is here applied to the sp. of the Pacific lowlands that was called Campylocentrum tyrridion Garay & Dunst. in the Manual; the latter name may be a synonym of C. multiflorum or may pertain to a distinct sp., but in the latter case, it “should best be applied” to the Venezuelan entity represented by the type. Should two spp. indeed be involved, as these authors provisionally accept, then C. multiflorum would evidently be a Costa Rican endemic, as no specimens are cited from elsewhere. The name Campylocentrum dressleri H. Dietr. & M. A. Díaz, assigned to synonymy under C. tyrridion in the Manual, is regarded by these authors as a good sp. (though not occurring in Costa Rica). Features detailed genus and sp. descriptions, a dichotomous (but non-indented) key to spp., full synonymy and typology, distribution and phenology summaries, comprehensive specimen citations, discussions, distribution maps, and an index to exsiccatae (which reveals that exceedingly few collections other than those of the authors and their core group were examined). The generous and richly illustrated introductory section discusses morphological features, taxonomic history (in considerable depth), and phylogeny. Each sp. is depicted in at least one composite line drawing, uniformly excellent and mainly by the first author.
Bohs, L. 2011. A new species and combination in Central American Solanaceae. Novon 21: 23–27.
Solanum sotobosquense Bohs sp. nov. is known by just three collections from Costa Rica (all from the Atlantic slope of the Cordillera de Talamanca at 1500–2000 m elevation) and several others from western Panama (Prov. Chiriquí). The new sp. is characterized by its relatively large leaves, recalling those of S. rovirosanum Donn. Sm., from which it differs in having shorter, more sparingly branched inflorescences and longer fruiting pedicels. Molecular evidence suggests that the resemblance to S. rovirosanum is superficial, and that S. sotobosquense may be more closely related to spp. such as Solanum arboreum Dunal, S. ramonense C. V. Morton & Standl., and S. roblense Bitter. The epithet of the new sp. seeks to simultaneously record the preferred habitat ("sotobosque" being the Spanish word for "understory") and honor INBio's Armando Soto, a fellow Solanaceae specialist who accompanied the author in the field. The new combination of the title is Cuatresia cuneata (Standl.) Bohs, based on Lycianthes cuneata Standl. and applying to the sp. that has long been known as Witheringia cuneata (Standl.) Hunz. Illustrated with a superb composite line drawing of the new sp., as well as photos of both living and herbarium material.
Bovini, M. G. 2010. A new combination in the genus Talipariti (Malvaceae)/Uma nova combinação no gênero Talipariti (Malvaceae). Rodriguésia 61(Sup.): S19–S21.
This was inevitable: revisiting the age-old Hibiscus pernambucensis Arruda/H. tiliaceus L. controversy, the author becomes the umpteenth person to decide that these are separate spp. (rather than subspp., as in the Manual and elsewhere), going so far as to provide a lengthy tabular comparison in support of his view. The twist this time around is that, by tremendous good fortune, the name H. pernambucensis has never been combined in Talipariti. The author is happy to oblige with Talipariti pernambucense (Arruda) Bovini, which at best will endure until all of this material is dumped back into Hibiscus.
Brummitt, R. K. 2011. Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 62. Taxon 60: 226–232.
Conservation with conserved types is recommended for Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh. (Myrtaceae) and Prunus serotina Ehrh. (Rosaceae), both applying to spp. sparingly cultivated (and in the latter case perhaps escaped) in Costa Rica. Also, a suggestion by B. Klitgaard (K) that the name Dipteryx oleifera Benth. (Fabaceae) be considered invalid is rejected by the Committee, which recommends by a 14-3 vote "that the name should be treated as validly published." This may be seen as a blow to Manual co-PI Nelson Zamora (INB), who clung to tenaciously D. panamensis (Pittier) Record & Mell in his recently published Fabaceae treatment.
Chase, M. W. & W. M. Whitten. 2011. Further taxonomic transfers in Oncidiinae (Orchidaceae). Phytotaxa 20: 26–32.
In response to overwhelming molecular evidence, the authors formally lump the genera Ada and Mesospinidium into Brassia, and Pachyphyllum into Fernandezia (to mention only those names of significance to Costa Rica floristics). All the indicated new combinations are validated in the name of "M. W. Chase." These are straightforward for most of the affected taxa in Costa Rica, however, Brassia filiana M. W. Chase, a nomen novum, is coined to replace Mesospinidium warscewiczii Rchb. f. (blocked by Brassia warscewiczii Rchb. f.). Nothing is required for Ada chlorops (Endres & Rchb. f.) N. H. Williams, the basionym of which is Brassia chlorops Endres & Rchb. f.
Christenhusz, M. J. M. 2010. Nomenclatural corrections in Mesoamerican Plantaginaceae and a new species of Tetranema from Honduras. Phytotaxa 14: 56–60.
There are no direct repercussions here for Costa Rican floristics, but a key (non-indented) is included to all five spp. of Tetranema accepted by the author. Also, lectotypes are newly designated for six names, including four that have been used in Costa Rica: Angelonia angustifolia Benth., Bacopa monnierioides (Cham.) B. L. Rob., Schistophragma mexicanum Benth. ex D. Dietr., and Veronica plebeia R. Br.
Christenson, E. 2011. Miscellaneous orchid notes. Richardiana 11: 76–83.
This brief article, surely one of the last by its departed author (see under "News and Notes"), features two tidbits of potential interest to us. First, Cattleya skinneri Bateman var. alba Rchb. f. is rechristened as Guarianthe skinneri f. alba (Rchb. f.) Christenson, comb. et stat. nov.; this taxon was not mentioned under any name in the Manual, nor was its existence implied, so we cannot be certain that it occurs in Costa Rica. And second, the recently described Mormolyca fumea Bogarín & Pupulin [see under the last-mentioned authors in this column, The Cutting Edge 17(2), Apr. 2010] is consigned to synonymy under Maxillaria aureoglobula Christenson (following to the author's "traditional circumscription of the genus Maxillaria"), which was based on Colombian material. This would be called Mormolyca aureoglobula (Christenson) M. A. Blanco by other recent workers [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 15(2): 3–4, Apr. 2008].
Condit, R., R. Pérez & N. Daguerre. 2011. Trees of Panama and Costa Rica. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. 494 pp.
This attractive and profusely illustrated field guide highlights 493 spp. of trees (with 438 being illustrated), of an estimated total of nearly 3000 tree spp. known from the two featured countries (“trees” being defined as self-supporting woody plants that can grow taller than 2 m). If the names in the by-line are unfamiliar to some of our readers, it is because all three of the authors are based in Panama (and two are Panamanian). That being the case (and by the authors' own admission), this work is inevitably biased toward Panama, and is expected to be most useful in the vicinity of the Panama Canal. Tellingly, it includes no tree spp. that are known from Costa Rica but not Panama. However, because about 72% of the 2321 tree spp. recorded from Panama also occur in Costa Rica, workers in the latter country will also find this book useful. The sp. entries are ordered alphabetically by family, with up-to-date nomenclature generally according to APG III. Most sp. entries include a brief, non-technical description, a distribution summary, and identification hints, as well as a distribution map for Costa Rica and Panama (provided for all 481 native spp.). The illustrations comprise one or more color photos of living material. The introductory section of the book briefly addresses topics such as diversity in Central America, geography, climate and life-zones, and identification of plant families. At the end of the book are found a short glossary of technical terms, a tabular compilation of leaf traits of regional tree families, brief characterizations of tree families occurring in Costa Rica and Panama but omitted from the book, and a combined index to common and scientific names. Of course, an unavoidable problem with guides to common tropical trees is that the omitted spp., though perhaps rare to uncommon individually, may collectively comprise a significant fraction of any local flora. With that caveat, this handsome volume should prove to be a valuable addition to the library of field biologists and nature enthusiasts working in Costa Rica, not to mention Panama. Our brief acquaintance with the book has yet to reveal any misidentifications.
Cornejo, X. & H. H. Iltis. 2010. Lectotypification and a new combination in
Cynophalla (Capparaceae)/Lectotipificaciones y una nueva combinación en Cynophalla. Rodriguésia 61: 153–155.
The genus names Cynophalla (DC.) J. Presl and Uterveria Bertol. are lectotypified, and the latter synonymized under the former. The combination Cynophalla amplissima (Lam.) Iltis & Cornejo is validated for a widespread sp., occurring in Costa Rica, that has heretofore been called Capparis amplissima Lam.
Cribb, P. 2010. The orchid collections and illustrations of Consul Friederich C. Lehmann. Lankesteriana 10(2-3): 1–217.
Here is everything you ever wanted to know about Friedrich (the way it is spelled throughout this work, except in the title and running head) Carl Lehmann, from his birth in 1850 to his premature death in 1903, lovingly compiled from "Kew's incomparable archives" and richly illustrated in both black-and-white and color with portraits, maps, and orchid plates. Actually, the narrative portion of the volume is rather short, comprising just 39 pages; the rest is devoted to a detailed, tabular itinerary, an exposition of Lehmann's many orchid illustrations (with annotations), and brief biographies of significant contemporaries. Lehmann was based in Popayán, Colombia, and collected mainly in that country and adjacent Ecuador. His role in Costa Rican floristics was quite limited: he was in the country just once, from December 1881 to March 1882. This we learned from the itinerary, which does provide a few place-names, but we were unable to locate other significant details relevant to Lehmann's Costa Rican travels elsewhere in the volume. Therefore, although it is a joy to behold, this work will probably be of little interest to our readers, except those with a predilection for orchids. Most of Lehmann's illustrations are evidently published here for the first time, so this may prove to be a treasure trove in that regard. For a bit more on Lehmann (whose sudden renaissance is beginning to rival that of A. R. Endrés), see this column under Sauvêtre in The Cutting Edge 17(4), Oct. 2010.
Denham, S. S. & S. S. Aliscioni. 2010. Species delimitation in the Sporobolus aeneus complex (Zoysieae, Chloridoideae, Poaceae) using the phylogenetic species concept. Taxon 59: 1765–1782.
As far as we can tell, application of the phylogenetic species concept to the complex of the title has had no consequences for Costa Rican floristics, as Sporobolus cubensis Hitchc. remains our only representative. We cite this mainly because it includes a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to the spp. (five in all) and vars. comprising the complex, as well as synonymy and typology, formal descriptions, and useful distributional data.
Dudek, M. & D. L. Szlachetko. 2010. New combinations in subtribe Elleanthinae (Orchidaceae, Epidendroideae). Richardiana 11: 1–12.
Fifteen new combinations are validated in this paper because they "appeared to be necessary" on the basis of "a revision of herbarium material of Elleanthus species." Well, at least the authors state their rationale explicitly. The agenda here is (as usual, with the second author) the subdivision of a generally accepted generic concept, in this case Elleanthus, out of which four smaller genera are carved: Adeneleuterophora Barb. Rodr., Elleanthus s. str., Epilyna Schltr., and Evelyna Poepp. & Endl. The new combinations, all in the names of "Dudek & Szlach.," involve only the first (nine) and last (six) of these. The Costa Rican spp. receiving new combinations are all in Adeneleuterophora: Elleanthus ligularis Dressler & Bogarín [i.e., E. sp. A of the Manual; see The Cutting Edge 15(2): 5, Apr. 2008], E. poiformis Schltr., E. stolonifer Barringer, and E. tillandsioides Barringer [with a name in Adeneleuterophora already available for E. graminifolius (Barb. Rodr.) Løjtnant]. Just one Costa Rican sp. is assigned to Epilyna, that being Elleanthus jimenezii (Schltr.) C. Schweinf. (based on Epilyna jimenezii Schltr.); however, it entrains as a synonym Elleanthus muscicola Schltr., which was accepted as distinct in the Manual (so we lose a sp., according to these authors). Finally, Evelyna also includes but a single Costa Rican sp., that being the one called Elleanthus cynarocephalus (Rchb. f.) Rchb. f. in the Manual; but the latter name is here synonymized under Evelyna capitata Poepp. & Endl. [i.e., Elleanthus capitatus (Poepp. & Endl.) Rchb. f., cited as a "sensu" synonym in the Manual]. This is all very interesting, but we are not inclined to accept any of it at face value.
Ferrufino-Acosta, L. 2010. Taxonomic revision of the genus Smilax (Smilacaceae) in Central America and the Caribbean Islands. Willdenowia 40: 227–280.
Smilax, a difficult genus of dioecious vines and lianas, had not been revised taxonomically for the Central American region since 1936 (though it was treated floristically in 1994 for Flora mesoamericana). This account accepts 29 spp. for the region specified in the title, including nine attributed explicitly to Costa Rica. The Costa Rican total represents a reduction from the 12 spp. that were accepted for the country in the 2003 Manual treatment of Smilacaceae by Francisco Morales (INB), and the 13 vouchered for Costa Rica in Flora mesoamericana (Vol. 6). A previous article involving this same author [see The Cutting Edge 13(2): 5, Apr. 2006], dealing strictly with Costa Rican Smilax, synonymized four names that had been used for accepted spp. in both the Manual and Flora mesoamericana: Smilax angustiflora A. DC. and S. candelariae A. DC. (both under S. mollis Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd., costing Costa Rica two endemic spp.), S. kunthii Killip & C. V. Morton (under S. domingensis Willd., the overall range of which was extended accordingly), and S. luculenta Killip & C. V. Morton (under S. spinosa Mill.). These synonymies are upheld in the present work, but two other names that have heretofore been used for Costa Rican material must be changed for reasons of priority: Smilax panamensis Morong yields to S. febrifuga Kunth (and its range is thereby extended southward to Bolivia and Venezuela, French Guiana, and Brazil), and S. vanilliodora F. W. Apt gives way to S. officinalis Kunth. The following six names have remained unchanged through all of this (though the associated taxonomic concepts may have been altered), and still apply to Costa Rican material: Smilax aristolochiifolia Mill., S. domingensis, S. mollis, S. spinosa, S. spissa Killip & C. V. Morton, and S. subpubescens A. DC. It is worth noting, however, that S. aristolochiifolia, though attributed to Costa Rica in its distribution summary, is not mapped in that country, nor are any Costa Rican specimens cited (we noted numerous such discrepancies between the distribution summaries, maps, and exsciccatae, reflecting an inattention to detail that often does not augur well for taxonomic investigation). By now, anyone keeping score will have realized that one more Costa Rican Smilax sp. is needed to attain the new country total of nine alluded to previously. That role is filled by S. fluminensis Steud., here reported for the first time from both Costa Rica and Panama (it ranges in South America to Bolivia and Venezuela, Suriname, Brazil, Paraguay, and northern Argentina). The only Costa Rican specimen cited is Davidse 24516, from 1800–1900 m elevation on the Pacific slope of the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca. The author states that Smilax fluminensis has been confused with S. febrifuga (i.e., the former S. panamensis) in southern Central America, but provides no clues on how they may be distinguished (in fact, the information available in the keys and descriptions is contradictory and ultimately useless).
Some additional miscellaneous details are worth mentioning, as follows. The enigmatic name Smilax bernhardii F. W. Apt, discussed under the genus heading in the Manual, is lectotypified and synonymized under S. officinalis (and numerous other perfunctory lecto- and neotypifications are effected as well). The names Smilax regelii Killip & C. V. Morton and S. velutina Killip & C. V. Morton, synonymized in the Manual (under S. vanilliodora and S. mollis, respectively), are accepted here, vindicating Flora mesoamericana in this regard; however, neither occurs in Costa Rica (though S. regelii comes close, in southeastern Nicaragua). On the other hand, Smilax chiriquensis C. V. Morton, S. engleriana F. W. Apt, and S. hirsutior (Killip & C. V. Morton) C. V. Morton all exemplify the reverse scenario: they were accepted in Flora mesoamericana, but synonymized in the Manual (under S. vanilliodora, S. domingensis, and S. mollis, respectively), a stance that is maintained in this revision. We question the author’s assignment of Smilax ornata Lem. (1865) to synonymy under S. regelii (1936); should not the reverse be true? Perhaps the author has mistakenly assumed that S. regelii, a nomen novum, assumes the priority of its replaced name, S. grandifolia Regel (1856). And finally: the elevation of the Panamanian Smilax spinosa var. compta Killip & C. V. Morton to sp. rank (it is evidently not even closely related to S. spinosa and assigned to a different sp. group) means that Costa Rican material of S. spinosa will no longer have to be qualified as belonging to the autonymic var.
This frill-packed yet economical article provides technical descriptions at all levels, full synonymy and typology, separate, dichotomous (though non-indented) sp. keys for flowering and fruiting specimens, distribution summaries, brief discussions, selected specimen citations, distribution maps, a section on excluded taxa, and an index to scientific names. Most unfortunately, there is no index to exsiccatae. The sp. entries are partitioned into nine informal “groups,” within which they are ordered alphabetically. The “groups” themselves are briefly described, but not keyed. The very short introductory part addresses taxonomic history, phenology, uses, and infrageneric relationships. Eleven spp. are illustrated with excellent composite line drawings.
Giraldo-Cañas, D. 2008. Sistemática del género Axonopus (Poaceae: Panicoideae: Paniceae) y revisión de las especies de la serie Barbigeri. Bibliot. José Jerónimo Triana 17: 1–211.
This contribution continues the author's effective publication (and presumably refinement) of his 2003 Universidad de La Plata doctoral dissertation, a revision of the important grass genus Axonopus. Two of the four sections have already been dispatched [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 9(1): 5, Jan. 2002]; the present work marks the initial assault on a third section (the autonymic one), taking on one of its five series. Axonopus ser. Barbigeri comprises 21 spp. (nearly a third of the total for sect. Axonopus), and is largely confined to South America. Just one sp. reaches Costa Rica (and Central America), that being Axonopus scoparius (Flüggé) Kuhlm., here circumscribed to include A. micay García-Barr., accepted as distinct in both the Manual and Flora mesoamericana; although the indicated synonymy is flagged as "Syn. nov.," it was revealed by the author in a previous paper [see this column in The Cutting Edge 16(4), Oct. 2009]. Includes dichotomous (though non-indented) keys to the sections of Axonopus, the series of sect. Axonopus, and the spp. of ser. Barbigeri, synonymy, typology, and extensive descriptions at all levels (including an amended one of the genus), distribution summaries, brief discussions, specimen citations, a section on unresolved names (a disturbing number of these), and indices to exsiccatae and scientific names. The lengthy and well-illustrated introductory portion addresses taxonomic history, relationships, uses, pollination and dispersal, biogeography and ecology, karyology, and multifarious aspects of morphology and anatomy. Many of the spp. (including A. scoparius) are depicted in composite line drawings.
Gómez-Laurito, J. 2010. Remembranza. Brenesia 73-74: 21–24.
What better way for a hard-core field botanist like Jorge Gómez-Laurito (USJ) to commemorate his colleague and cousin, Luis Diego Gómez, than with a passionate account of their more fantastical shared discoveries? And even this condensed list is pretty darned impressive: Drosera sp. (Droseraceae; family new to Costa Rica), Passiflora tica Gómez-Laur. & L. D. Gómez (Passifloraceae; arobrescent sp., new to science), Prosopanche costaricensis L. D. Gómez & Gómez-Laur. (Hydnoraceae; sp. new to science, and family to North America), and Ticodendron incognitum Gómez-Laur. & L. D. Gómez (Ticodendraceae; sp., genus, and family new to science), just to name the most obvious examples. Features two pages of illustrations, including both plants and notes.
——. 2010. Una nueva Eugenia L. (Myrtaceae) del Caribe costarricense. Brenesia 73-74: 26–28.
Euphorbia ludoviciana Gómez-Laur. sp. nov. is endemic to the Atlantic lowlands of Costa Rica, on the Llanura de Tortuguero and in the Baja Talamanca region. It is compared with Eugenia sanjuanensis P. E. Sánchez, not previously known from Costa Rica and just briefly mentioned in the Manual genus discussion for Eugenia (though it has recently been found in the Golfo Dulce region, according to a note said to be in this same issue, but to which we do not currently have access). Plants of the new sp. are similar in stature to E. sanjuanensis (ca. 3 m), but differ by their smaller leaves, on longer petioles, and larger flowers and fruits. The sp. epithet derives from a latinization of the first name of Luis Diego Gómez, memorialized in this issue of Brenesia. Illustrated with images from herbarium material.
Grayum, M. H. & Q. Jiménez Madrigal. 2011. A new combination in Gordonia (Theaceae). Phytoneuron 2011-10: 1–3.
In our last issue (see under Turner, this column), we used our review of an article published in the journal Phytoneuron as a soapbox to declaim some of “the pitfalls of Internet-first publication.” But now that we have actually tried it, damned if we don’t like it! “Wee leaflets” like this one may indeed tax the cataloguing resources of the world’s botanical libraries, as we suggested—but come to think of it, that ain’t our problem! Internet publication serves the immediate interests of taxonomists extremely well. Call us hypocrites if you like, but now we are converts, and there is no zeal like that of the newly converted. We have the facts and we’re voting “yes”!
The new combination referred to in the title, Gordonia brenesii (Standl.) Q. Jiménez, is based on Laplacea brenesii Standl. (1937), a name that was assigned to synonymy under L. grandis Brandegee (1915) in the most recent revision of the group in question (J. Arnold Arbor. 31: 405–429. 1950). When Laplacea was synonymized with Gordonia in 1980 (Gard. Bull. Singapore 33: 303–311), the nomen novum Gordonia brandegeei H. Keng was created to replace L. grandis, the epithet of which was preoccupied in Gordonia. Since that time, the name G. brandegeei has been used unquestioningly for this sp., even though the synonymy of L. brenesii has never been challenged and the latter name has clear priority. Here that synonymy is confirmed and formalized, and Gordonia brenesii (comb. nov.) is anointed as the correct name for the sp.
Guimarães, L. A. C. & R. S. Secco. 2010. As espécies de Croton L. sect. Cyclostigma Griseb. e Croton L. sect. Luntia (Raf.) G. L. Webster subsect. Matourenses G. L. Webster (Euphorbiaceae s.s.) ocorrentes na Amazônia brasileira/Species of Croton L. sect. Cyclostigma Griseb. and Croton L. sect. Luntia (Raf.) G. L. Webster subsect. Matourenses G. L. Webster (Euphorbiaceae s.s.) occuring [sic] within Brazilian Amazon. Acta Amazon. 40: 471–488.
Here we learn (belatedly, it would seem) that Croton lanjouwensis Jabl., used as an accepted name in the recent Manual Euphorbiaceae treatment by José González (LSCR), should instead be regarded as a synonym of C. matourensis Aubl. See under "Annotate Your Copy" for more on the former name.
Hammel, B. E. & M. H. Grayum. 2011. Aegiphila brenesii, a new name for the long-lost (right before our eyes) Clerodendrum costaricense (Lamiaceae). Novon 21: 44–46.
We had long revered Clerodendrum costaricense Standl. as one of the most intriguing mystery spp. in the Costa Rican flora, a scandent Clerodendrum known only from the rather scanty type specimen. While in the course of editing the Manual Verbenaceae treatment by Ricardo Rueda (HULE), curiosity finally got the better of co-PI Barry Hammel, who undertook the pilgrimage to the type locality at La Peña de Alfaro Ruiz (now Zarcero). In typical fashion, Barry encountered the relevant material almost immediately, and the mystery was resolved: it turns out that Clerodendrum costaricense is actually an Aegiphila sp. (as certain clues in the protologue ought to have suggested to us); not only that, it represents an entity of which we already had numerous specimens on hand ("right before our eyes"), most of which had previously been determined as A. quararibeana Rueda, but was tentatively distinguished in the Manual discussion for that sp. as possibly being distinct. Now we have gone the full nine yards and christened it as a distinct sp. of Aegiphila, endemic to Costa Rica, differing from A. quararibeana by its glabrous, glossy branchlets, larger inflorescences, and restriction to higher elevations (1100–1700+ m, vs. 0–800 m). The nomen novum Aegiphila brenesii Hammel, honoring the first collector, reflects the preexistence of both A. costaricensis Moldenke and A. standleyi Moldenke.
Hefler, S. M. 2010. Novidades taxonômicas em espécies de Cyperus subg. Cyperus (Cyperaceae)/Taxonomic novelties in species of Cyperus subgen. Cyperus (Cyperaceae). Rodriguésia 61(Sup.): S07–S14.
The South American Cyperus aggregatus (Willd.) Endl. var. gigas (Lindm.) Guagl. is dissolved back into the parent sp., obviating the need to qualify Costa Rican material as belonging to the autonymic var. This suits us just fine, since vars. were ignored altogether for this sp. in Jorge Gómez-Laurito’s (2003) Manual treatment of Cyperaceae. That is the most we can squeeze from this paper.
Henderson, A. 2011. A revision of Geonoma (Arecaceae). Phytotaxa 17: 1–271
The author's revision of Geonoma, a large, ecologically important, and taxonomically difficult group of mainly understory palms restricted to the Neotropics, has been ongoing for a number of years now, and we were able to follow some of his progress on his Web site (now apparently disabled). Therefore, not everything that follows comes as a complete surprise. This final, published manifestation accepts 68 spp. for the genus (in line with most recent estimates), as circumscribed by the author's morphometric techniques and according to the Phylogenetic Species Concept, as well as 90 subspp. Such liberal use of the subsp. category is perhaps appropriate for some of the more notoriously intractable sp. complexes in this genus (especially involving the montane elements). Numerous "morphotypes" (defined as "groups of similar specimens with no formal taxonomic status") are also discerned. Twelve new spp. are described, though none of these is from Costa Rica; however, some of the 33 new subspp. and 41 new combinations validated in this work do pertain to Costa Rican taxa. The changes for Costa Rican floristics, relative to Manual co-PI Mike Grayum's 2003 Manual treatment of Arecaceae, are not extreme, and seem for the most part quite reasonable. Fifteen spp. were attributed to the country in the last-mentioned work, versus 14 in this new revision. The loss involves Geonoma procumbens H. Wendl. ex Spruce, here demoted to subsp. rank as G. cuneata H. Wendl. ex Spruce subsp. procumbens (H. Wendl. ex Spruce) A. J. Hend. (comb. nov.). There are no substantive changes for any of the following spp.: Geonoma brenesii Grayum, G. epetiolata H. E. Moore (depicted in color on the cover), G. monospatha de Nevers, G. scoparia Grayum & de Nevers, and G. talamancana Grayum (though the last of these is said to barely enter Panama, which would cost us an endemic). Costa Rican populations of Geonoma interrupta (Ruiz & Pav.) Mart. must now be qualified as belonging to G. i. subsp. magnifica (Linden & H. Wendl.) A. J. Hend. (comb. nov.), and those of G. longevaginata H. Wendl. ex Spruce (here spelled 'longivaginata', for no apparent reason) to the autonymic subsp. The taxa previously known in Costa Rica as Geonoma edulis H. Wendl. ex Spruce and G. hoffmanniana H. Wendl. ex Spruce become G. undata Klotzsch subsp. edulis (H. Wendl. ex Spruce) A. J. Hend. (comb. nov.) and G. orbignyana Mart. subsp. hoffmanniana (H. Wendl. ex Spruce) A. J. Hend. (comb. nov.), respectively; these adjustments are consistent with the author's (with Glora Galeano and Rodrigo Bernal) Field guide to the palms of the Americas (1995), as already remarked upon in the Manual. Costa Rican material denoted in the Manual as Geonoma oxycarpa Mart. is now to be called G. pinnatifrons Willd., with two subspp. occurring in the country: G. p. subsp. binervia (Oerst.) A. J. Hend. (comb. nov.) and G. p. subsp. mexicana (Liebm. ex Mart.) A. J. Hend. (comb. nov.). And finally, more than one subsp. is recognized in Costa Rica for each of the following four spp.: Geonoma congesta H. Wendl. ex Spruce, with the widespread autonymic subsp. and G. c. subsp. osensis A. J. Hend. (subsp. nov.), the latter endemic to Costa Rica in the Pacific lowlands; Geonoma cuneata, with (in addition to the previously mentioned G. c. subsp. procumbens) the widespread autonymic subsp. and G. c. subsp. guanacastensis A. J. Hend. (subsp. nov.), the latter restricted to the Cordilleras de Guanacaste and de Tilarán; Geonoma deversa (Poit.) Kunth, with the widespread autonymic subsp. as well as G. d. subsp. peninsularis A. J. Hend. (subsp. nov.), the latter endemic to Costa Rica in the Golfo Dulce region; and Geonoma ferruginea H. Wendl. ex Spruce, with the autonymic subsp. and G. f. subsp. microspadix (H. Wendl. ex Spruce) A. J. Hend. (comb. nov.), both endemic to Costa Rica, where the former is widespread and the latter restricted to the region about the Río Sarapiquí valley. Some of these infraspecific distinctions were anticipated by observations in the Manual (i.e., those involving G. congesta and G. pinnatifrons), but the others come as a revelation.
This handsome work features full synonymy and typology and technical descriptions at all ranks, a dichotomous (though, lamentably, non-indented) key to spp. (and similar, nested keys to subspp.), distribution summaries, discussions of varying length, distribution maps, a lengthy enumeration of excluded names, a useful atlas of black-and-white type photos for all the new taxa, and an index to exsiccatae. Unfortunately, however, there are no exsiccatae citations associated with the taxon entries, nor is there an index to scientific names, deficiencies that may hamper the implementation of the author's concepts at some herbaria. We also do not like the frequent reliance on geographic characters as the sole elements of principal key couplets; while this practice may facilitate identification (and certainly key-writing), we feel it is incumbent upon taxonomic revisions to rigorously characterize all accepted taxa on a morphological basis. On the other side of the ledger, we do appreciate the strictly alphabetical sequencing of all taxa.
The introductory part of this revision is especially concerned with the morphometric analyses, as well as cladistic analyses based on the same characters, but also delves into taxonomic history, distribution, and morphology. Four pages of selected black-and-white photos included in the last-mentioned section comprise, together with the cover and type photos, the only depictions of plants in the volume.
Kenfack, D. 2011. Resurrection in Carapa (Meliaceae): a reassessment of morphological variation and species boundaries using multivariate methods in a phylogenetic context. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 165: 186–221.
The author (a former MO student) presents hard morphological evidence that (among other things) "Carapa nicaraguensis should no longer be considered as a synonym of C. guianensis," as indeed it was not, in his (2007) Manual account of the genus.
Kennedy, H. 2011. Three new Costa Rican species of Calathea (Marantaceae) from montane wet forests. Novon 21: 49–57.
This unanticipated windfall of novelties from Manual Marantaceae contributor Helen Kennedy (UCR) actually adds just one sp. to the Costa Rican total for Calathea, because two of the new spp. were treated in full in Manual Vol. 2 (2003) under provisional names. These are Calathea recurvata H. Kenn. sp. nov., corresponding to Calathea sp. A of the Manual, and C. verruculosa H. Kenn. sp. nov., which corresponds to Calathea sp. B. The information relevant to these two spp. does not appear to have changed materially from that presented in the Manual, except that C. recurvata is now portrayed as a Costa Rican endemic (C. sp. A having been attributed also to "O Pan." in the Manual). We gain another endemic in Calathea tarrazuensis H. Kenn. sp. nov., based on six specimens from ca. 800–1500 m elevation on the Pacific slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca (all but one from the Cantón de Tarrazú). This new sp. is deemed most closely related to Calathea lasiostachya Donn. Sm. (under which it was presumably subsumed in the Manual), but differs by its "proportionately wider and shorter inflorescences...with fewer bracts...and the cream-white versus yellow to pink or purplish flowers," and also by occurring at generally higher elevations. In the Manual sp. key for Calathea, material of C. tarrazuensis willcome out roughly to C. retroflexa H. Kenn., from which it differs in leaf-blade coloration and proportions, as well as "the straight versus reflexed inflorescence rachis, and the appressed tomentose versus glabrous bracts." All three new spp. are depicted in black-and-white photos of living material taken by the author in the field.
Manning, S. 2010. Discovering New World orchids. S. Manning, Cheshire, UK. 669 pp.
This lavish, privately published tome is self-indulgent to the hilt, and all the better for it. Covering all the bases from Ruiz and Pavón to Dressler and Luer, the author’s lifetime of profound research on the lives and travels of just about everyone responsible for collecting and/or describing New World Orchidaceae is presented in mind-boggling detail, complete with excerpts from original sources, portraits (often more than one of the same individual), maps, and the expected color photos of orchids. This is not the kind of book one would want to read from cover to cover, but look up just about anyone who has ever had an orchid sp. named in his or her honor and you will find a treasure trove of absorbing information. Costa Rica per se does not garner a great deal of attention, but a section of nearly 20 pages is allotted to the once-myserious A. R. Endrés (indeed, an entire chapter is devoted to “shadowy figures”), and a fine portrait of the similarly neglected Guillermo Acosta is provided. Many of the names featured in this book will be well-known to workers on families other than Orchidaceae, who will thus also be well advised to consult this rich source. Although some light editing would surely have helped (we happened to notice, for example, that the same photo of Hans von Türckheim appears twice in the volume), this is one case where the botanical community is well served by the excesses of a “vanity” publication. This could well have been a disaster (and perhaps should have been), but the author has succeeded admirably in presenting the full range and depth of his considerable scholarship in an accessible and attractive format. Features a miscellany of appendices, an index to illustrations, and a general index.
McDill, J. R. & B. B. Simpson. 2011. Molecular phylogenetics of Linaceae with complete generic sampling and data from two plastid genes. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 165: 64–83.
Surprisingly, at least to us, the family and both of its subfamilies were found to be monophyletic; thus there is no cladistic necessity for separating Hugoniaceae (with Roucheria in southern Central America), and the authors support its inclusion. However, the genus Linum, with just two spp. (one introduced) in Costa Rica, is not monophyletic. What this seems to imply, based on our examination of the cladograms, is that a bunch of bogus, “Johnnny-come-lately” genera like Hesperolinon and Sclerolinon, which never should have been separated in the first place, are nested within Linum. The obvious solution to such a problem would be to return those genera to the fold, but according to an insidious pattern that we have lately articulated (see under Sundue et al., this column, in our last issue), we expect that Linum will most likely be partitioned even more finely to preserve the segregate genera, undeservedly cherished by the youngsters who revel in this type of work.
Moran, R. C., P. H. Labiak & M. Sundue. 2010. Synopsis of Mickelia, a newly recognized genus of bolbitidoid ferns (Dryopteridaceae). Brittonia 62: 337–356.
This paper, “said to be forthcoming” in a previous issue of this newsletter [see under Moran et al. in The Cutting Edge 17(3), Jul. 2010, this column], elevates the “Bolbitis nicotianifolia” clade to generic rank under the name Mickelia R. C. Moran, Labiak & Sundue. Bolbitis was shown to be polyphyletic in the earlier paper, and the B. nicotianifolia clade was found to have a sister-group relationship with the genus Elaphoglossum; but rather than compromise the characterization of that venerable entity, the authors have elected to create this new genus, even though it evinces no morphological synapomorphies. For the purposes of routine identification, Mickelia may be distinguished from Bolbitis by its generally epiphytic habit and lack of foliar bulbils. Combinations in Mickelia are here validated, in the name of all three authors (in the same order as the by-line), for eight spp., including the following represented in Costa Rica: the former Bolbitis bernoullii (Kuhn ex Christ) Ching, B. hemiotis (Maxon) Ching, B. lindigii (Mett.) Ching, B. nicotianifolia (Sw.) Alston, B. oligarchica (Baker) Hennipman, and B. pergamentacea (Maxon) Ching. Two new spp. and a new hybrid are also described, from other regions. Synoptic as advertised, this treatment features a technical genus description (but no sp. descriptions), dichotomous and indented keys to the genera of bolbitidoid ferns and the spp. of Mickelia, full synonymy and typology, and a distribution summary and discussion for each sp. All of the spp. (but not the hybrid) are depicted in mostly composite line drawings.
Monge-Nájera, J. (ed.). 2010. Los primeros años de mi vida, por Luis Diego Gómez Pignataro. Brenesia 73-74: 15–20.
A brief summary of the origins and formative years of the late Luis Diego Gómez, largely in is own words, as transcribed from a damaged audio tape recorded by the editor. Luis Diego was raised in Turrialba, his father a successful merchant and his mother a recent immigrant from Italy (via Brazil). Physician and naturalist Clodomiro ("Clorito") Picado (of snake-bite fame) was his godfather, but never fulfilled his baptismal role, passing away just a month before Luis Diego's birth. As a young man, Luis Diego was bent on becoming a monk or priest, attending a religious school in California and monasteries in Minnesota and Mexico. It was in Mexico that he met famed Swiss psychologist Erich Fromm, who convinced him that his religious aspirations were insincere. With that, Luis Diego decided to dedicate his life to natural history, and sometime later (the account is short on dates) worked briefly at Chicago's Field Museum, took courses at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, and apprenticed himself to mycologist Rolf Singer, then at the University of Illinois. Marrying (for the first time) in 1970, he began working that same year at the Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, where he remained until 1986. And the rest is history, filled out in the words of the editor, whose tape could not be salvaged beyond a certain point. Illustrated with a composite photographic plate.
——, V. Nielsen-Muñoz & A. B. Azofeifa. 2010. Determinants of scientific output: an in-depth view of the productivity of tropical botanist and conservationist, Luis Diego Gómez Pignataro. Revista Biol. Trop. 58: 1093–1114.
This self-described “bibliometric” study of Luis Diego Gómez’s scientific output (i.e., his publications) seeks to interpret the volume and nature of the man’s work from the perspective of aging and the vicissitudes of life, e.g., marriage and divorce (there were two of each for Luis Diego) and unforeseeable calamities (the 1994 fire at the Jardín Botánico Wilson). It turns out that Luis Diego’s productivity peaked early, prior to the age of 40 (predicted by other research), and declined dramatically and permanently after that age. The authors conclude that marriage, divorce, and the great fire played insignificant roles in this decline, which is better explained by a mid-life switch to “intense teaching and conservation activities.” They also propose (but do not themselves test) the so-called “journal hypothesis”: that Luis Diego, while at the Museo Nacional, drove himself to generate articles for Brenesia (the journal he had founded), but after leaving the Museo no longer felt the need to shoulder that responsibility. Contains a complete bibliography (1968–2010), which is most peculiar in that the entries are not ordered chronologically but, rather, alphabetically, according to the first word (ignoring articles) of the title! This arrangement, in addition to being unconventional, is anathema to the purpose at hand, i.e., the analysis of productivity over time.
Morales, C. O. 2010. Aportes científicos de un botánico universal: Luis Diego Gómez Pignataro (1944–2009). Brenesia 73-74: 1–14.
In addition to a biographical sketch, this article (featuring several photos) includes a list of some spp. ("Ejemplos que conozco...") dedicated to Luis Diego Gómez and an extensive catalog of his many publications, which alone occupies eight pages. The publications are also quantified according to category (the largest, pteridophytes, accounting for 34.7% of the total). A curious detail that we learned from this article: Luis Diego and famed Russian phylogenist Armen Takhtajan were lost on the same day, 13 November 2009.
Morera, P. 2010. Luis Diego Gómez Pignataro, 1944–2009.
Revista Biol. Trop. 58: XIX–XXI.
This is the first installment we encountered in what is already shaping up to be a lengthy series of homages to the late Luis Diego Gómez (start with Alvarado, this column), to whom Manual Vol. 5 was also dedicated. This one features a succinct enumeration of his major accomplishments in life (prizes, honors, positions held, and courses taught), as well as some personal reminiscences of the author, a professor emeritus at the Universidad de Costa Rica.
Pedraza-Peñalosa, P. 2010. Disterigma (Ericaceae: Vaccinieae). Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 108: 1–126.
We had been anticipating the appearance of this revision, heralded by the author in her previous publications [see this column in The Cutting Edge 16(4), Oct. 2009]. A total of 32 Disterigma spp. is here accepted, including five described as new; however, none of these novelties is from Costa Rica, and in fact, the total number of four Disterigma spp. attributed to the country in the recent (2010) Manual treatment by James L. Luteyn and Robert L. Wilbur (DUKE) is cut in half. This reduction is accomplished by the subsumption of D. pilosum Wilbur (a casualty of the Phylogenetic Species Concept) within D. humboldtii (Klotzsch) Nied. and the outright banishment of D. trimerum Wilbur & Luteyn from the genus (as presaged in the author's prior work), to parts as yet undetermined. The synonymization of D. pilosum was already accomplished in Flora mesoamericana Vol. 4(1), but somehow did not get done for Manual Vol. 5—published slightly later and with the same Ericaceae authors! Also noteworthy is the case of Disterigma agathosmoides (Wedd.) Nied., now known from western Panama so near to the Costa Rican border that, had we been aware, it would certainly have been mentioned in the Manual genus discussion, if not treated in full. In our defense, all the pertinent material was evidently on loan to the author of this revision, and there are still (as of this writing) no Panamanian specimen records for D. agathosmoides in the TROPICOS database.
Features full synonymy and typology and detailed descriptions at all levels, a dichotomous and indented key to spp., distribution summaries, representative (mostly) specimen citations, discussions (often lengthy), distribution maps, sections on excluded taxa and invalid names, and indices to exsiccatae and common and scientific names. The illustrated introductory part discusses a wide range of topics, including taxonomic history, morphology, phylogeny, hybridization, distribution and ecology, conservation, floral biology, and uses. Most of the spp. are depicted in either black-and-white photos or composite line drawings.
Penneys, D. S. & W. S. Judd. 2011. Phylogenetics and morphology in the Blakeeae (Melastomataceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 172: 78–106.
Anyone with even a smattering of knowledge of the neotropical flora could see this one coming from a mile away: Blakea and Topobea are both polyphyletic, and because the former name has priority, the latter must go. Botanists have wavered back and forth for nearly 200 years on whether to recognize one genus or two in this group. The two taxa, as traditionally circumscribed, are extremely similar, and have been distinguished by only a few subtle, inconsistent, and generally not very convincing staminal features, that have in some cases been misinterpreted, as these authors document in some detail. The conclusions of this study are based exclusively on cladistic analyses of morphological characters, and despite their strong pronouncement (in the abstract) that “Topobea must be synonymized,” the authors take no definitive steps in that direction, perhaps preferring to await the results of molecular studies. In any event, we expect that many of the spp. treated under Topobea in Frank Almeda’s (CAS) Manual account (2007) will already have a name in Blakea (though we just checked on the two spp. recorded from the Estación Biológica La Selva, and that is not the case).
Rojas-Alvarado, A. F. 2010. New species and new records in Elaphoglossum sect. Polytrichia subsect. Hybrida (Dryopteridaceae) from the Neotropics. Amer. Fern J. 100: 172–179.
Three new spp. are described in the subsect. mentioned in the title, of which Elaphoglossum erinaceum (Fée) T. Moore is evidently the best-known member. Just one of these novelties is represented in Costa Rica: the endemic Elaphoglossum reductum A. Rojas, based on a single collection (the author’s) from 750–850 m elevation on the Caribbean slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca. It is distinguished from E. erinaceum by details of the rhizome scales and leaf-blade morphology (both illustrated). None of the new records is of direct relevance to Costa Rican floristics.
Ruhfel, B. R., V. Bittrich, C. P. Bove, M. H. G. Gustafsson, C. T. Philbrick, R. Rutishauser, Z. Xi & C. C. Davis. 2011. Phylogeny of the clusioid clade (Malpighiales): evidence from the plastid and mitochondrial genomes. Amer. J. Bot. 98: 306–325.
Several genera of the so-called "clusioid clade" appear to be non-monophyletic, including Hypericum and (not surprisingly) Tovomita (with T. weddelliana Planch. & Triana more closely related to Clusia). The authors suggest that sundry small segregate genera (including Thornea and Triadenum) should be returned to Hypericum. Interestingly, "the monophyly of Clusiaceae s.l. (Calophyllaceae + Clusiaceae s.s.) could not be rejected" (a result that receives no notice in the abstract).
Schaefer, H. & S. S. Renner. 2011. Phylogenetic relationships in the order Cucurbitales and a new classification of the gourd family (Cucurbitaceae). Taxon 60: 122–138.
Based on both molecular and morphological data, the authors "recircumscribe tribes and genera within Cucurbitaceae and present a more natural classification of the family." We generally do not traffic in tribes or suprageneric classification, so we'll cut right to the chase and address the generic changes. Those directly impacting Costa Rican floristics are as follows: Elateriopsis is reduced to synonymy under Hanburia, Rytidostylis under Cyclanthera, and Posadaea (together with two monospecific extraterritorial genera) under Melothria [see under Schaefer & Renner, this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(4), Oct. 2010]. All of the necessary new combinations are validated in the names of "H. Schaef. & S. S. Renner" (with no nomina nova required for spp. occurring in Costa Rica). The authors also indicate that several genera commonly accepted as distinct (including Microsechium and Sechium) are to be included in Sicyos, but they do not validate the expected combinations, citing ongoing research by a doctoral student in Germany. And lastly, trivial increases in sp. total accrue to Echinopepon (+2) and Sicydium (+1), each of which absorbs a minor genus of no interest to us. As a result of these and many other similar changes, the worldwide genus total for Cucurbitaceae now stands at 95 (vs. 119, as indicated in the Manual).
Schwartsburd, P. B. & J. Prado. 2011. (1990) Proposal to conserve the name Pteris arachnoidea (Pteridium arachnoideum) against Aspidium brasilianum and Pteris psittacina (Dennstaedtiaceae). Taxon 60: 234–235.
Aspidium brasilianum C. Presl and Pteris psittacina C. Presl, published simultaneously, were both "based on juvenile, sterile forms, morphologically quite distinct from the regular adult forms" of the sp. now widely known as Pteridium arachnoideum (Kaulf.) Maxon, resulting in "taxonomic misinterpretation." These authors assert that all three names refer to a single taxon, and because Presl's neglected names are prior by two years, propose conservation of Pteris arachnoidea Kaulf.
Sousa S., M. 2010. Revisión del complejo de Lonchocarpus cruentus (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae: Millettieae), con descripciones de cinco especies nuevas. Brittonia 62: 321–336.
This contribution treats six spp., of which all, with the exception of Lonchocarpus cruentus Lundell, are described as new. Just one sp. in the complex is attributed to Costa Rica, that being Lonchocarpus alternifoliolatus M. Sousa, sp. nov., which ranges southward to Colombia and Venezuela. On the basis of the two Costa Rican specimens cited (from the Llanura de Los Guatusos and Baja Talamanca), we are reasonably certain that this entity was called Lonchocarpus sericeus (Poir.) Kunth in co-PI Nelson Zamora’s (INB) recently published Manual treatment of Fabaceae. Nelson followed previous authors in citing Lonchocarpus cruentus in synonymy under L. sericeus, but the former sp. is also accepted as distinct here (though not occurring in Costa Rica). The author of this paper excludes L. sericeus from the L. cruentus complex by virtue of its fruits with the vexillar margin generally broadened (vs. keeled), but provides no indication of its proper geographic range. Includes distribution maps, and an excellent, composite line drawing for each spp.
——. 2011. La sect. Lonchocarpus del género Lonchocarpus (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae, Millettieae): nuevas especies y subespecie para México y Mesoamérica. Acta Bot. Mex. 94: 27–59.
Eight spp. are here described as new, as well as the subsp., and sect. Lonchocarpus is recharacterized accordingly, with an amended description and a key (dichotomous and indented) to all of its spp. (at the end of the paper). The only one of the new spp. that concerns us is Lonchocarus brenesii M. Sousa, ranging from southern Mexico (Chiapas) to Costa Rica. Eight Costa Rican collections are cited, most or all of which are from the Pacific versant of the Valle Central; unfortunately, these do not afford any insight as to how this entity might have been treated in co-PI Nelson Zamora's Manual account of Fabaceae. The new sp. is compared with L. macrophyllus Kunth, though we cannot be certain whether the author's concept of the latter is the same as Nelson's. The sole new subsp. described in this paper comprises the northern populations (Mexico to El Salvador and Honduras) of L. brenesii, requiring that Costa Rican material be qualified as belonging to the autonymic subsp. Each new taxon is illustrated with an adequate composite line drawing.
Stace, C. A. 2010. Combretaceae. Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 107: 1–369.
The author characterizes this as “the culmination” of his life’s work, begun in 1959 under the supervision of the late Arthur Wallis Exell. That’s our loss, because it appears just a few months too late to be considered for the Manual Combretaceae treatment, by Quírico Jiménez. The differences, in any case, are not monumental, the most significant being the author’s synonymization of his own Combretum graciliflorum Stace, accepted as distinct in the Manual, under C. cacoucia Exell. But that’s okay, because we are not on board with this change anyway, and feel certain that C. graciliflorum will prevail in the long run. The two other most noteworthy changes are at infraspecific ranks: the two vars. of Conocarpus erectus L. mentioned in the Manual are demoted to formas, as C. e. f. erectus and C. e. f. sericeus (DC.) Stace (we agree that “Fors ex” should be excluded from the authority designation); and the recognition of an extraterritorial var. for Laguncularia racemosa (L.) C. F. Gaertn. consigns Costa Rican material to the autonymic var. Both of the foregoing innovations were actually implemented in the author’s (2007) Flora of Ecuador treatment, which we did not adequately consider. It is also worth noting that the author cites an old Panamanian collection of Buchenavia costaricensis Stace, costing Costa Rica an endemic sp., and finally accepts Terminalia bucidoides Standl. & L. O. Williams as a good sp. (which he had not done in his Flora de Nicaragua and Flora mesoamericana treatments). Five genera and 85 spp. are treated in this work, which features technical descriptions of varying length at all ranks from family on down, full synonymy and typology, dichotomous, indented keys and distribution summaries at all levels, extensive (though not necessarily comprehensive) specimen citations, distribution maps, and indices to exsiccatae and scientific names. Most, if not all, of the spp. are depicted in composite line drawings or using other graphic devices. The lengthy and well-illustrated introductory portion expounds on anatomical, morphological, embryological, and palynological characters, cytology, phytochemistry, reproductive biology, distribution, uses, and phylogeny, among other things. One new sect. and one new var. are described and five new combinations validated (including three at sectional rank), but none of these is of particular concern to us. The accounts of Buchenavia and Terminalia were coauthored by Abdul-Ridha Alwan (BSRA).
Sundue, M. A. 2010. A monograph of Ascogrammitis, a new genus of grammitid ferns (Polypodiaceae). Brittonia 62: 357–399.
The original concept of Terpsichore, by now thoroughly discredited, is dealt another blow with the elevation to generic rank of the “Terpsichore anfractuosa clade,” an event promised as imminent in our last issue (see this column, under Sundue et al.). In its author’s own words, “the new genus, Ascogrammitis, consists of 17 species distributed in neotropical cloud forests, particularly in the northern and central Andes. It is distinguished from other genera of grammitid ferns by dorsiventral rhizomes with ventral root insertion and clathrate rhizome scales with cordate bases and reddish setose margins.” Well and good. Just two spp. of Ascogrammitis Sundue reach Costa Rica: A. alan-smithii (A. Rojas) Sundue (based on Melpomene alan-smithii A. Rojas), mainly of the Cordilleras de Guanacaste, de Tilarán, and Central (and also in western Panama); and A. anfractuosa (Kunze ex Klotzsch) Sundue (based on Polypodium anfractuosum Kunze ex Klotzsch), widepread both within Costa Rica and beyond. In addition to all the new combinations, five new spp. are published (none occurring in Costa Rica), and the name Polypodium induens Maxon (a synonym of Ascogrammitis anfractuosa) is lectotypified. Includes detailed genus and sp. descriptions, a dichotomous and indented key to spp., full synonymy and typology, distribution summaries, comprehensive specimen citations, discussions, distribution maps, an index to exsiccatae, and illustrations of most spp.
Taylor, C. M. & R. E. Gereau. 2011. Rubiacearum americanarum magna hama pars XXVI: new species of Hoffmannia (Hamelieae) and more comments on the genus. Novon 21: 94–117.
The 14 new Hoffmannia spp. described in this paper fall into two categories: those with laminar formicaria, and those without. An indented, dichotomous key is provided for the former, here dubbed the Hoffmannia vesiculifera Standl. group (thus no more will be said here about their differences); however, all the new spp. are intermixed in strict alphabetical order in the taxonomic section. Nine of the proposed new spp. occur in Costa Rica, of which the following three are assigned to the H. vesiculifera group: Hoffmannia formicaria C. M. Taylor (700–1900 m on the Atlantic slope throughout Costa Rica and into western Panama); H. limonensis C. M. Taylor (200–900 m on the Atlantic slope of the Cordillera de Talamanca, and disjunct in central Panama); and H. subcapitata C. M. Taylor (endemic to Costa Rica at 600–1700 m on the Atlantic slope of the Cordilleras Central and de Talamanca). A fourth new sp. in this group, H. pseudovesiculifera C. M. Taylor, is known only from westernmost Panama (Prov. Bocas del Toro), and might be expected in Costa Rica. The remaining six novelties for the Costa Rican flora are: Hoffmannia barbillana C. M. Taylor, endemic on the Atlantic slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca at 300–400 m, compared to H. longipetiolata Pol.; H. costaricensis C. M. Taylor, endemic at 1500–2200 m in the Cerros de La Carpintera, Altos Tablazo, and Cerros de Escazú, compared to H. valerioi Standl.; H. micrantha C. M. Taylor, endemic at 150–1400 m on the Pacific slope of the Cordillera de Talamanca, the southern Fila Costeña, near Puntarenas, and the Golfo Dulce region, compared to H. hammelii C. M. Taylor; H. pacifica C. M. Taylor, endemic at 0–1400 m roughly in the same region as the previous sp. and also compared with H. hammelii; H. tilaranensis C. M. Taylor, endemic at 400–1600 m on the Atlantic slope (and near the Continental Divide) of the Cordilleras de Guanacaste and de Tilarán, compared with H. nicotianifolia (M. Martens & Galeotti) L. O. Williams; and H. turrialbana C. M. Taylor, endemic at 750–1400 m on the Atlantic slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca, compared with H. pittieri Standl. Composite line drawings are used to depict all the new spp.
——, B. Hammel & R. E. Gereau. 2011. Rubiacearum americanarum magna hama pars XXVII: six new species and a new taxonomic view of Posoqueria. Novon 21: 118–132.
Posoqueria is a distinctive and easily recognized genus in the Costa Rica flora, but the delimitation of its spp. has been beset by taxonomic and nomenclatural confusion, hopefully rectified by this paper. Here, an emphasis is placed "on corolla form and size, the length and symmetry of the filaments, and fruit morphology," as opposed to the pubescence features that have played a major role traditionally in the systematics of the genus. Thus analyzed, Posoqueria is easily resolved into two major groups of spp.: those exhibiting "an asymmetric androecium and catapult pollination mechanism" and those (at least nine) with "an actinomorphic androecium without the pollen catapult mechanism." Five of the six spp. described as new (and all three of those recorded from Costa Rica) belong to the second group. The three Costa Rican novelties are: Posoqueria costaricensis C. M. Taylor, from 800–1760 m on the Atlantic slope of the Cordilleras de Guanacaste and de Tilarán, the Pacific slope of the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca, the southern Fila Costeña, and into western Panama; P. grandifructa Hammel & C. M. Taylor, at 10–1000 m throughout the Atlantic slope of Costa Rica, in the northern Valle de General, and also in Nicaragua; and P. robusta Hammel & C. M. Taylor, at 10–400 m on the northern Atlantic slope of Costa Rica and into southeastern Nicaragua. Posoqueria robusta has generally been misidentified as P. panamensis (Walp. & Duchass.)Walp., a widely used name revealed here as a synonym of P. latifolia (Rudge) Roem. & Schult. The last-mentioned sp. also occurs in Costa Rica, as does P. grandiflora Standl. (both of these belonging to the "asymmetric androecium" group). All the new spp. described here are depicted in composite line drawings; however, there is no key to spp.
——, J. Sánchez-González, B. Hammel, D. H. Lorence, C. Persson, P. G. Delprete & R. E. Gereau. 2011. Rubiacearum americanarum magna hama pars XXVIII: new taxa, new combinations, new names, and lectotypification for several species found in Mexico and Central America. Novon 21: 133–148.
In which the miscellany promised by the authorship and title is delivered in spades. To summarize grossly: six new spp. are described, of which four occur in Costa Rica; and five new combinations and two nomina nova are validated, with three of the former and one of the latter relevant to Costa Rica. The taxonomic portion of the paper is divided into six sections, ordered alphabetically according to the six genera involved, with separate authorship for each section (this sometimes differing from the authorship of the names proposed thereunder!). Proceeding section-by-section (i.e., genus-by-genus), we note the following developments of interest to us: as suggested by molecular evidence, the genus Borojoa is submerged in Alibertia, with the new combinations Alibertia atlantica (Dwyer) Delprete & C. H. Perss. and A. patinoi (Cuatrec.) Delprete & C. H. Perss. validated for spp. occurring in Costa Rica. Furthermore, Alibertia premontana C. M. Taylor is demoted to varietal rank as A. edulis (Rich.) A. Rich. var. premontana (C. M. Taylor) Delprete & C. H. Perss. Notopleura recondita Hammel & C. M. Taylor, endemic at 180–350 on the Península de Osa, is described as new and compared with N. polyphlebia (Donn. Sm.) C. M. Taylor. Two new spp. of Palicourea, both endemic to Costa Rica, are described: P. matamana C. M. Taylor (known only from the type collected at 1400 m elevation on the Atlantic slope of the Cordillera de Talamanca) is compared with P. orosiana C. M. Taylor, while P. providenciana J. Sánchez-Gonz. & C. M. Taylor (known from the Pacific slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca at 1600–2200 m) is compared with P. hammelii C. M. Taylor. And finally, in Psychotria, we get both an endemic new sp. and a new name: the former is P. herrerana C. M. Taylor, known only from the type (collected at 700 m elevation on the Atlantic slope of the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca by the redoubtable Gerardo Herrera) and compared with P. rosulatifolia Dwyer; the new name is Psychotria tsakiana C. M. Taylor, replacing Rudgea thyrsiflora Donn. Sm. (blocked by Psychotria thyrsiflora Ruiz & Pav.). All of the spp. described as new are depicted in composite line drawings. Long may the big bucket reign!
Tippery, N. P., C. T. Philbrick, C. P. Bove & D. H. Les. 2011. Systematics and phylogeny of Neotropical riverweeds (Podostemaceae: Podostemoideae). Syst. Bot. 36: 105–118.
Marathrum emerges as polyphyletic but, fortunately, all the spp. occurring in Costa Rica group with M. foeniculaceum Bonpl., the generic type. The monospecific, Mexican Vanroyenella Novelo & C. T. Philbrick is formally submerged in Marathrum.
Vasiljev, A. 2011. Roadside orchids. Viewing species during a day trip in Costa Rica. Orchids (West Palm Beach) 80: 86–91.
Exactly as advertised, with lots of nice color photos by "an award-winning professional photographer."
Whitten, M. & M. Blanco. 2011. Defining generic limits in Maxillaria. A return to the orchidaceous mine. Orchids (West Palm Beach) 80: 104–113.
A popular condensation of the recent generic realignment of Maxillaria [see The Cutting Edge 15(2): 3–4, Apr. 2008], which involved both of these authors, with lots of the gaudy color photos seemingly required by these journals.
TOP
|
|
