Main | Family List (MO) | Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge Draft Treatments | Guidelines | Checklist | Citing | Editors The Cutting Edge Volume VI, Number 2, April, 1999 News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature Andersson, L. & J. H. E. Rova. 1999. The rps16 intron and the phylogeny of the Rubioideae (Rubiaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 214: 161--186. This study of sequence variation reveals that the vast genus Psychotria "is paraphyletic with respect to all the other genera of the tribe." From the cladogram, we would have said it was polyphyletic. Quite possibly it is both. Backlund, A. & N. Pyck. 1998. Diervillaceae and Linnaeaceae, two new families of caprifolioids. Taxon 47: 657--661. The further breakup of Caprifoliaceae (already shorn of Sambucus and Viburnum) is proposed, mainly (it seems) to obviate the inclusion therein of Dipsacaceae, Morinaceae, and Valerianaceae. But lumping is always preferable to splitting (assuming monophyly), and we have no problem with an enlarged Caprifoliaceae. Better by far than yet more new, little families! Features a phylogenetic tree, brief family descriptions, and a ± natural key to the 12 genera of the three "families" involved. Bernhard, A. & P. K. Endress. 1999. Androecial development and systematics in Flacourtiaceae s. l. Pl. Syst. Evol. 215: 141--155. This study supports recent molecular evidence suggesting a division of the traditional Flacourtiaceae into two smaller families: Flacourtiaceae s. str. (most genera occurring in Costa Rica), and Kiggelariaceae (including Lindackeria, Carpotroche, and Mayna, to name only those genera represented in Costa Rica). Stamens develop centrifugally in the former group, but centripetally, or in "a sequence that is neither distinctly centripetal nor centrifugal," in the latter. Bravo-Hollis, H. & S. Arias. 1999. Sinopsis de la familia Cactaceae en Mesoamérica. Cact. Suc. Mex. 44: 4--19. An informal analysis and evaluation of several regional lists and accounts (including one incarnation of the INBio/Manual data-base), accepting 38 indigenous spp. (plus three infraspecific taxa) for Costa Rica. Of special interest is Apéndice 1, an annotated and nomenclaturally updated (but unvouchered) checklist of Mesoamerican Cactaceae. Our count reveals a surprising total of 16 taxa (13 spp. and three infraspecific taxa) flagged as endemic to Costa Rica. These are: Disocactus kimnachii G. D. Rowley (syn. Nopalxochia horichii Kimnach), Hylocereus calcaratus (F. A. C. Weber) Britton & Rose, Pseudorhipsalis acuminata Cufod., P. himantoclada (Rol.-Goss.) Britton & Rose, P. horichii (Kimnach) Barthlott, P. lankesteri (Kimnach) Barthlott, P. ramulosa (Salm-Dyck) Barthlott var. angustissima (F. A. C. Weber) Barthlott, Rhipsalis micrantha (Kunth) DC. f. micrantha and f. kirbergii (Barthlott) Barthlott, Selenicereus wercklei (F. A. C. Weber) Britton & Rose, Stenocereus aragonii (F. A. C. Weber) Buxb., Weberocereus bradei (Britton & Rose) G. D. Rowley, W. imitans (Kimnach & Hutchison) Buxb., W. tonduzii (F. A. C. Weber) G. D. Rowley, W. trichophorus H. Johnson & Kimnach, and W. tunilla (F. A. C. Weber) Britton & Rose. Several names attributed to Costa Rica in this appendix are not accounted for in our data-base: Epiphyllum columbiense (F. A. C. Weber) Dodson & A. H. Gentry, Hylocereus polyrhizus (F. A. C. Weber) Britton & Rose, H. undatus (Haw.) Britton & Rose, Opuntia decumbens Salm-Dyck, Pereskia bleo (Kunth) DC., Weberocereus panamensis Britton & Rose, and W. tunilla (F. A. C. Weber) Britton & Rose. The reverse is true for Disocactus biformis (Lindl.) Lindl., Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill., and Rhipsalis teres (Vell.) Steud. Chatrou, L. W. 1998. Revision of the Malmea alliance: Malmea and three new, neotropical genera: Klarobelia, Mosannona, and Pseudomalmea. Pp. 103--192 in, L. W. Chatrou, Changing genera: systematic studies in neotropical and West African Annonaceae. Utrecht Univ., Utrecht, Netherlands. This thesis chapter, subtitled "Precursor of Flora Neotropica Monograph," is effectively published here, according to the conditions of the Code (Arts. 29--31), whatever the author's intent. The genus Malmea is divided into four smaller, somewhat technical genera (three newly validated), with no cladistic analysis and no phylogenetic argument of any kind; indeed, the author implies that Malmea s. l. is monophyletic. It would appear that the author has simply managed to recognize some synapomorphies of a few major clades, and has congratulated himself by elevating these to generic rank. The only rationale presented (or alluded to) for this re-ranking is the never-ending quest for genera defined by characters of equal strength: "These groups can be discerned on the basis of several types of morphological and anatomical characters, many of which are significant for generic circumscription within Annonaceae" (emphasis ours). The old table-leg shortening thing. We would argue that the time has passed for this sort of pointless reshuffling: if a traditional genus (or other taxon) is monophyletic, or has not been shown to be otherwise, don't mess with it! Simple as that, a priori. But now, there is the fait accompli factor to be considered: because half (13 of 26) of the spp. in Chatrou's new genera are here described as new, undoing his generic reclassification would wreak as much nomenclatural havoc as adopting it. In view of this, we would have to tentatively endorse the new classification. The consequences for Costa Rican floristics are, in any case, minor. The endemic Malmea costaricensis R. E. Fr., a rarely collected lowland sp. of both slopes, becomes Mosannona costaricensis (R. E. Fr.) Chatrou. Malmea s. str. is restricted to six, mainly South American spp., reaching only as far north as central Panama (as noted by the author, "It is somewhat paradoxical that the oldest and most well-known name, Malmea, remains associated with the least known genus of this alliance"). Mosannona, with 14 spp., emerges as the largest genus in the "Malmea alliance." A second Costa Rican sp. in the group, Klarobelia stipitata Chatrou sp. nov., is endemic to the Golfo Dulce region, and one of just two members of Klarobelia (a genus of 10 spp.) to extend beyond South America. This sp. was treated and illustrated in Paul Allen's Rain Forests of Golfo Dulce (1956) under the misapplied name Guatteria lucens Standl. Yet a third Costa Rican sp., from the San Carlos region, has been listed in the INBio/Manual data-base as Malmea hypoglauca (Standl.) R. E. Fr. [i.e., Mosannona hypoglauca (Standl.) Chatrou]; however, that name was apparently misapplied, and the Costa Rican material is now regarded by Chatrou (pers. comm.) as representing a new sp. of Mosannona, still awaiting description. The taxonomic section of this work is nicely done, featuring a key to genera and keys to species in each genus, descriptions of genera and species, synonymy and typology, complete specimen citations, distribution maps, composite line drawings of selected spp., and an index to exsiccatae. More generous discussions would have been welcome. Jiménez, Q. 1999. Arboles maderables en peligro de extinción en Costa Rica. Ed. II (revisada y ampliada). Inst. Nac. de Biodiversidad, Sto. Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica. This new edition of Quírico's seminal work spotlights 40 spp. of valuable timber trees threatened and in danger of extinction in Costa Rica. Among these, 18 have already been protected by a ban on cutting, including: Cordia gerascanthus L. (Boraginaceae), Couratari scottmorii Prance (Lecythidaceae), Guaiacum sanctum L. (Zygophyllaceae), Myroxylon balsamum (L.) Harms (Fabaceae: Papilionoideae), and Swietenia macrophylla King (Meliaceae). Kallunki, J. A. & J. R. Pirani. 1998. Synopses of Angostura Roem. & Schult. and Conchocarpus J. C. Mikan (Rutaceae). Kew Bull. 53: 257--334. Angostura is more narrowly defined, as a genus of just seven spp. (as opposed to 38, fide The plant-book). The spp. here newly excluded from Angostura are recognized as members of Conchocarpus, together with some spp. formerly included in other genera such as Galipea and Ticorea. Conchocarpus, not even included in the most recent edition of The plant-book, rises like a phoenix as a genus of 45 spp., strongly centered in eastern Brazil. It seems from the outset a suspicious taxon, described as "quite variable in most characters and...composed of the species that do not fit into the other more easily definable genera." A key is provided to separate Angostura, Conchocarpus, and Galipea, three of the 26 genera in tribe Galipeeae Kallunki subtribe Galipeinae Kallunki (both of the suprageneric names freshly minted to replace their predecessors, based on the illegitimate Cusparia). Twenty-eight new combinations are here validated, plus 24 new infrageneric taxa (none of the latter from Costa Rica). Angostura granulosa (Kallunki) Kallunki comb. nov. (formerly in Galipea), of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, is the only Mesoamerican member of its genus. The sp. most recently known as A. nicaraguensis (Standl. & L. O. Williams) T. S. Elias becomes Conchocarpus nicaraguensis (Standl. & L. O. Williams) Kallunki & Pirani. The only other Conchocarpus sp. reaching Costa Rica is C. guyanensis (Pulle) Kallunki & Pirani, formerly known to us as Ticorea unifoliolata T. S. Elias (see our last issue). Features comprehensive generic descriptions, keys to all spp. in both genera, synonymy and typology, distribution summaries, composite line-drawings of selected (new) taxa, some SEM pollen micrographs, sections on doubtful and excluded species, an index to accepted and rejected names, and an index to exsiccatae. Six lectotypes are designated, as well as one epitype. Absent are sp. descriptions and exsiccatae citations (except for new spp.; these are synopses, after all), and any kind of cladistic or phylogenetic analysis or discussion; the reclassification appears to have been accomplished solely on the basis of character association. Kennedy, H. 1999. Calathea singularis and Stromanthe palustris, two new species of neotropical Marantaceae. Novon 9: 61--65. Only the latter sp. need concern us. The name Stromanthe palustris is here validated for a sp. discovered and recognized as new more than 20 years ago, at the Estación Biológica La Selva. Originally, it was identified as belonging to the genus Ctenanthe, a close relative of Stromanthe; indeed, the classification of the new sp. appears still to be in some doubt. Apart from La Selva, S. palustris is known only from the Reserva Biológica Hitoy-Cerere, south of Puerto Limón. Lengthy description, black-and-white photos of live material. Lewis, G. P. 1998. Caesalpinia: a revision of the Poincianella-Erythrostemon group. The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. 233 pp. On the basis of both morphological and cladistic analysis, Caesalpinia (Fabaceae: Caesalpinioideae), a genus of ca. 120--130 spp., has recently been divided by the author and colleagues into various informal "groups." The Poincianella-Erythrostemon "group," here revised, is a strictly New World assemblage of 47 spp., ranging from the southern United States to southern Chile. It is most diverse in drier regions, and not well-represented in southern Central America. Both Caesalpinia eriostachys Benth. and C. exostemma DC., the only spp. reaching Costa Rica, are essentially restricted to the Guanacaste region. Several new taxa and new combinations are validated, but the only one affecting us is C. exostemma subsp. tampicoana (Britton & Rose) G. P. Lewis stat. & comb. nov.; this name, applied to a little-known Mexican taxon, consigns our material to the autonymic subsp. A beautifully presented piece of work that provides nearly all the features one might ask of a taxonomic revision, and then some: a lengthy introductory section, key to spp., thorough descriptions, comprehensive specimen citations, distribution maps, excellent line-drawings, indices to scientific names and exsiccatae, and 15, mostly color, photographic plates, mainly of live plants. There is also a key to the "groups" of Caesalpinia and a detailed, formal description of the Poincianella-Erythrostemon "group"; however, one searches in vain for a concise, diagnostic characterization of the latter. Martínez, M. 1998. Revision of Physalis section Epeteiorhiza (Solanaceae). Anales Inst. Biol. Univ. Nac. Autón. México, Bot. 69: 71--117. Physalis is characterized as a genus of ca. 90 spp., all but one indigenous to the New World. The spp. are tentatively grouped in four subgenera, including subg. Rydbergis Hendrych, characterized by rotate, campanulate, or urceolate, unlobed, mostly maculate corollas. Physalis sect. Epeteiorhiza G. Don, one of nine sections of subg. Rydbergis, is defined by a herbaceous habit, glabrous to pubescent or glandular-pubescent foliage, and solitary flowers with yellow, rotate corollas and terete to strongly 5-angled fruiting calyces. The 14 spp. of sect. Epeteiorhiza range from Canada to South America. Six are recorded from Costa Rica (all wide-ranging, at least in the Mesoamerican region): Physalis cordata Mill., P. ignota Britton, P. minuta Griggs, P. porrecta Waterf., P. pruinosa L., and P. pubescens L. Features introductory sections on taxonomic history and general morphology, descriptions of the genus and section, keys to the subgenera, to sections of subg. Rydbergis, and to spp. of sect. Epeteiorhiza, sp. descriptions, representative specimen citations, range maps, and some line-drawings. Morales, J. F. 1999. A new species of Macoubea (Apocynaceae) from Mesoamerica. Novon 9: 86--88. Macoubea mesoamericana J. F. Morales becomes the third sp. of this mainly Amazonian genus of trees. The only Central American representative, discovered in Costa Rica just 10 years ago (but long known from Panama), has heretofore gone under the name M. sprucei (Müll. Arg.) Markgr. Nonetheless, it differs significantly from the latter in fruit and seed morphology. The Costa Rican collections are all from lowland forests on the Atlantic slope of the Cordillera de Talamanca, while all Panamanian collections have been made along the El Llano--Cartí road. Includes drawings of fruits and seeds of M. mesoamericana and M. sprucei, plus a key to all three spp. Paclt, J. 1999. (1399) Proposal to conserve the name Zizyphus (Rhamnaceae) with that spelling and with feminine gender. Taxon 48: 173--174. According to Art. 62.1 of the Code, "A generic name retains the gender assigned by botanical tradition, irrespective of classical usage or the author's original usage." Paclt's own evidence makes it clear that botanical tradition, classical usage, and the original author's usage converge in assigning feminine gender to this genus. So is it really necessary to propose formal conservation, simply because a minority of workers have gotten it wrong? Paclt's argument for conserving the spelling Zizyphus over Miller's original Ziziphus is also flawed, as noted in Dan Nicolson's editorial aside. We wonder why Taxon even publishes such seemingly needless proposals (only to undermine them with editorial postscripts). Would it help to add an article to the Code fixing spellings and genders of generic names according to Index nominum genericorum, or some other standard work? Reveal, J. L., W. S. Judd & R. Olmstead. 1999. (1405) Proposal to conserve the name Antirrhinaceae against Plantaginaceae (Magnoliophyta). Taxon 48: 182. The sundering of Scrophulariaceae, in the traditional sense, marches on. As we were already aware, "the hemiparasitic herbs historically retained in the Scrophulariaceae are now associated with the wholly parasitic, achlorophyllous Orobanchaceae Vent., so that this family is now defined as a taxon of some 60 genera." These include Agalinis, Buchnera, Castilleja, Euphrasia, Orobanche, and Pedicularis. Scrophulariaceae s. str. is "now restricted to approximately 24 genera," among which are Scrophularia and Verbascum. This leaves nearly 110 genera that do not belong (according to recent molecular/cladistic analyses) in either of the aforementioned families, but comprise a family of their own, for which the oldest available name is Veronicaceae Durande (1782). In addition to Veronica, this family includes Antirrhinum, Linaria, Lindernia, and Penstemon. End of story, but for the fact that "there is considerable evidence" that both Callitrichaceae and Plantaginaceae also belong in Veronicaceae. This would necessitate the use of the name Plantaginaceae Juss. (1789) for the whole group, because it is listed in App. IIB of the Code, while the older Veronicaceae is not. The authors of this proposal, objecting to "the use of [Plantaginaceae] for a taxon dominated by genera traditionally associated with the Scrophulariaceae," at first thought to conserve Veronicaceae, but were thwarted by a provision of the Code that fixes the starting date for conserved family names at 4 Aug. 1789. Thus the present strategy, to conserve Antirrhinaceae Pers. (1806) against Plantaginaceae, in the event the two taxa are united (and if they are not, then Veronicaceae would prevail). But let's back up: if the Veronicaceae really should prove to be more closely related to Plantaginaceae than to Scrophulariaceae, why would the botanical community want to take special measures to pay tribute to the "traditional," yet discounted, association with the latter family? We disagree with the authors' rationalization for conservation, and prefer that Plantaginaceae--a much better known name than either Antirrhinaceae or Veronicaceae--be allowed to hold sway. But it is also our conviction that personal preferences should play no role in these matters; this is precisely the kind of disagreement that the rules of priority were designed to avert, impartially, in the first place. Finally, we wonder about the fate of the name Orobanchaceae vis-à-vis Rhinanthaceae. Why do the authors continue to use the former name, when they are so anxious to discard Plantaginaceae? The situations appear analogous, except that, in this case, conservation may not even be necessary, because the two names were published simultaneously by Ventenat (1799). Perhaps we can expect another proposal in the near future. And (ultra-finally--as long as we are giving sway to personal preferences!) what about the possibility, not discussed here, of putting all the pieces back together again--i.e., simply merging Callitrichaceae, Orobanchaceae, and Plantaginaceae into one big, familiar and comfortable, Scrophulariaceae? Would that be monophyletic? Soreng, R. J. & F. R. Barrie. 1999. (1391) Proposal to conserve the name Poa pratensis (Gramineae) with a conserved type. Taxon 48: 157--159. Poa pratensis L., the familiar Kentucky bluegrass (adventive in Costa Rica), is treated by some recent authors as comprising two distinct spp. Turns out that the type does not represent P. pratensis s. str. but, rather, its circumboreal segregate, P. alpigena (Fr. ex Blytt) Lindm. This proposal is of no consequence to workers who continue to treat P. pratensis in the broad sense. Souza, V. C. 1997. Considerações sobre a delimitação de Mecardonia procumbens (Mill.) Small (Scrophulariaceae). Acta Bot. Brasil. 11: 181--189. Five varieties of this weedy herb are recognized, and the appropriate new combinations proposed. Four of the varieties are restricted to southern Brazil and adjacent regions of South America. Costa Rican material would fall into the autonymic variety, widespread from the United States to south Brazil. Steane, D. A., R. W. Scotland, D. J. Mabberley & R. G. Olmstead. 1999. Molecular systematics of Clerodendrum (Lamiaceae): ITS sequences and total evidence. Amer. J. Bot. 86: 98--107. Separate and combined cladistic analyses of ITS sequence and cpDNA restriction-site data all identified four major clades within Clerodendrum s. l., and showed the genus to be polyphyletic. These results support previous studies suggesting that one of these four clades be removed from Clerodendrum s. l. as a separate genus, Rotheca Raf. (see Novon 8: 204--206, 1998), comprising five Old World spp. Furthermore, the oligotypic, North American Tetraclea will have be submerged in Clerodendrum s. str. These changes do not affect any indigenous New World spp. traditionally assigned to Clerodendrum, nor any Old World spp. commonly cultivated in Costa Rica. Tokuoka, T. & H. Tobe. 1999. Embryology of tribe Drypeteae, an enigmatic taxon of Euphorbiaceae. Pl. Syst. Evol. 215: 189--208. "Embryologically Drypeteae do not fit within [Euphorbiaceae subfam.] Phyllanthoideae and, as available nucleotide sequence data from the rbcL gene suggest, are rather placed near Erythroxylaceae, Rhizophoraceae, Chrysobalanaceae, and Linaceae. Drypeteae share with these families a combination of the fibrous exotegmen, the endothelium, and the thick, multiplicative inner integument." Zimmer, B. 1999. Report of the committee for Pteridophyta: 14. Taxon 48: 133--134. Rejection of the obscure Adiantum dissimile Schrad. is recommended, protecting the junior but widely used A. deflectens Mart. [see The Cutting Edge 4(2): 8, Apr. 1997]. Several other rulings are handed down, none of which appears to affect the status quo.