Main | Family List (MO) | Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge Draft Treatments | Guidelines | Checklist | Citing | Editors The Cutting Edge Volume XXIX, Number 2, April 2022 News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature | Season's Pick | Global Range Extensions Ahlquist, T. K. & M. A. Vincent. 2022. A morphological analysis of the Trifolium amabile Kunth species complex in North America. Phytoneuron 2022-27: 1–26. The most recent taxonomic treatment of the “complex” specified in the title envisioned a single sp., Trifolium amabile (Fabaceae), with five more or less widespread and poorly distinguished vars. These authors dispense with vars. altogether and instead recognize seven full spp. in North America alone (the group ranges southward to Chile and Argentina), two described here as new. The status remains somewhat “quo” for Costa Rica, where the group is still represented by a single sp. called Trifolium amabile (our only native clover); most of the new action is confined to Mexico and the southwestern United States, whence all the other six spp. The overall geographic range of T. amabile, the most widespread member of the complex, remains more or less as stated in the Manual Fabaceae treatment (2010). The only difference for us is the abandonment (or better, disappearance) of the name T. a. var. hemsleyi (Lojac.) D. Heller & Zohary (based on a Mexican type), the only var. of T. amabile that had been explicitly attributed to Costa Rica. That name is mentioned in the first paragraph of this article, in an enumeration of the five previously recognized vars., but never again; the authors ought properly to have synonymized it under one of their accepted names, or else explained why they were unable to do so. We did consult the first author’s 2012 master’s thesis, cited in this article, but learned nothing more on this score. Applequist, W. L. 2022. Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 72. Taxon 71: 219–227. The following decisions are consequential for Costa Rican floristics: the well-established genus name Bulbostylis (Cyperaceae) is recommended for conservation against the prior Nemum [see under “Roalson,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018], and Selaginella (Selaginellaceae) against Didiclis [see under “Mazumdar,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(3), Jul. 2018]; the obscure genus name Senega (Polygalaceae), which may or may not eventually come into play in Costa Rica [see under “Pastore,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018], is recommended for conservation against six prior but even more obscure names; the sp. names Commelina erecta L. [Commelinaceae; see under “Hassemer,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018] and Polypodium parasiticum L. are recommended for conservation with conserved types (a mistaken epitypification could have caused a combination based on the latter name to replace Christella dentata (Forssk.) Brownsey & Jermy, AKA Thelypetris dentata (Forssk.) E. P. St. John; Theylpteridaceae]; the sp. name Hedyotis pentandra Schumach. & Thonn. (Rubiaceae) is recommended for conservation against H. pentandra (Retz.) Forsyth f., which would maintain the name Pentodon pentandrus (Shumach. & Thonn.) Vatke for a sp. to be expected in Costa Rica [see under “Franck,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018]; and the sp. names Poa amabilis L. (Poaceae) and Solanum frutescens A. Braun & C. D. Bouché (Solanaceae) are recommended for rejection, which would result (respectively) in the replacement of Eragrostis amabilis (L.) Wight & Arn. (the name accepted in the Manual, and elsewhere) by E. tenella (L.) P. Beauv. [see under “Peterson,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018] and the safeguarding of the name Solanum macrotonum Bitter for a sp. that occurs in Costa Rica [see under “Knapp,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018]. Azevedo, I. H. F. & P. L. R. de Moraes. 2022. New synonymies in Sanchezia (Acanthaceae). Nordic J. Bot. 2022(e03426): 1–8. We were able to dredge just one scrap out of this: Sanchezia speciosa Leonard, a name mentioned in the Manual as having been misapplied to S. parvibracteata Sprague & Hutch.—one of the two Sanchezia spp. treated for Costa Rica—is instead a synonym of S. oblonga Ruiz & Pav., the accepted name for the second such sp. Confusingly, the name S. parvibracteata had been long misapplied in the country to S. oblonga; thus, for example, material of this genus from the Estación Biológica La Selva that was first identified as S. parvibracteata, and later “corrected” to S. speciosa, now comes home to roost as S. oblonga! Now we have confused even ourselves… Borges, R. L., S. G. Razafimandimbison, N. Roque & C. Rydin. 2021. Phylogeny of the Neotropical element of the Randia clade (Gardenieae, Rubiaceae, Gentianales). Pl. Ecol. Evol. 154: 458–469. Randia, of course, does not stand up to molecular scrutiny, being either polyphyletic or (depending on one’s perspective) paraphyletic with respect to several smaller genera, including (in Costa Rica) Tocoyena. This situation, in the opinion of the authors, “calls for a taxonomic revision.” They reject the notion of subsuming the whole lot into Randia, on the grounds that such action would “render Randia highly heterogeneous in morphology.” Instead, they lean toward the option of retaining most of the genera in the group but dividing Randia into two separate genera, one of which (that harboring the type sp.) would absorb the oligospecific Caribbean genus Casasia (the name of which cedes priority to Randia). Of the 19 Randia spp. recorded from Costa Rica, just three were included in this study: R. aculeata L. (the generic type) and R. brenesii Standl., which would both remain in Randia under the preferred scenario; and R. armata (Sw.) DC., which would be left out in the cold. The authors are uncertain as to the operative name (if one exists) for the genus that would be split from Randia, but suggest that “one possibility worth exploring could be to resurrect the genus Basanacantha Hook. f.…” For the record, in addition to Randia armata, the following spp. in Costa Rica have names (mostly basionyms) in Basanacantha: Randia altiscandens (Ducke) C. M. Taylor, R. grandifolia (Donn. Sm.) Standl., R. lasiantha (Standl.) Standl., R. monantha Benth., and R. pittieri (Standl.) Standl.; on the other side of the ledger, Randia matudae Lorence & Dwyer was originally described in Casasia, and thus would likely remain in Randia following the suggested split. We dare not speculate on the fate of the other Costa Rican spp. that are under the gun (many of which were described too recently to have ever been assigned to Basanacantha or Casasia). One other interesing development: according to these analyses, Tocoyena pittieri (Standl.) Standl., the only Costa Rican representative of its genus, is nested among accessions of the South American T. williamsii Standl. (type from Peru). Based on this, the authors formally synonymize T. williamsii (the junior name) under T. pittieri. With respect to the Manual Rubiaceae treatment (2014), this would require replacing “Ecua.,” in the distribution paragraph of T. pittieri, with “Bol., O Bras.” A plate of color photos of selected spp. in situ includes one of Tocoyena pittieri by Manual co-PI Barry Hammel. Bouman, R. W., P. J. A. Keẞler, J. R. H. Telford, J. J. Bruhl, J. S. Strijk, R. M. K. Saunders, H.-J. Esser, B. Falcón-Hidalgo & P. C. van Welzen. 2022. A revised phylogenetic classification of tribe Phyllantheae (Phyllanthaceae). Phytotaxa 540: 1–100. The Manual Euphorbiaceae treatment (2010) by José González opted for an amplified concept of Phyllanthus, just coming into vogue at the time, that included such traditionally accepted genera as Breynia and Sauropus (both only cultivated in Costa Rica). The present paper, heading in the opposite direction, represents the predictable splitters’ response to any lumping proposal. Here, traditional (pre-Manual) Phyllanthus is split into 10 segregate genera, with the goal (in part) of maintaining certain traditional genera, such as Breynia (though not Sauropus, which is synonymized under Breynia even by these authors). This makes some sense from an Old World perspective, because the genera that would be lost to lumping are all restricted to the Old World, and comprise a respectable number of spp. (ca. 480, according to Table 1 of this paper, including ca. 350 in Glochidion alone). From a strictly Costa Rican perspective, however, it seems a step backward, because the spp. treated formally or mentioned in the Manual Phyllanthus account must now be apportioned among five genera, including: Breynia, with the two culitvated spp. alluded to previously; Cicca L., with the former Phyllanthus acidus (L.) Skeels (cultivated in Costa Rica) and P. elsiae Urb. (to be expected in the country); Emblica Gaertn., with only the former Phyllanthus urinaria L. (introduced and weedy in Costa Rica); and Moeroris Raf., with the former Phyllanthus amarus Schumach. & Thonn., P. caribaeus Urb., P. stipulatus (Raf.) G. L. Webster, and P. tenellus Roxb. in Costa Rica. The remaining spp. assigned to Phyllanthus in the Manual will all remain therein, including the former P. compressus Kunth (mentioned as to be expected). These authors describe Phyllanthus in the sense of the Manual as “a morphologically heterogeneous genus” that is “too variable and unwieldy,” and we ourselves have observed that even traditional (pre-Manual) Phyllanthus embraces a disconcerting array of habital diversity, from diminutive herbs to canopy trees. However, this new system does little or nothing to alleviate those particular concerns: Phyllanthus sensu stricto will still contain the entire range of habital diversity, from small herbs (e.g., P. caroliniensis Walter) to canopy trees (P. skutchii Standl.), while superficially similar, mainly herbaceous spp. are now to be classed in different genera (e.g., P. amarus in Moeroris, P. niruri L. in Phyllanthus, and P. urinaria in Emblica). So, while we must accept that the authors have discriminated natural, monophyletic groups, we would maintain that these are mostly technical segregates more usefully ranked as infrageneric taxa. Therefore, we are inclined to stick with the Manual treatment of Phyllanthus. That said, we must acknowledge that the authors have made the strongest possible case for their proposal with a rigorous and professionally executed presentation (and also on their side is the inevitable tendency of most workers to accept the most recently published taxonomic opinion on any issue). The “Taxonomic treatment” at the heart of this work provides a variety of keys to the genera (as accepted by these authors) of tribe Phyllantheae and, for each genus (and subgenus and section), a revised description, synonymy and typology, a distribution summary, “Notes,” and a list of included spp. (wherein necessary taxonomic innovations are validated, always in the name of “R. W. Bouman”). Unfortunately, for the authors, the horrifically non-indented nature of their keys (an apparent requirement of the journal) will do nothing to foster a better understanding of their new system. Incidentally: the genus Margaritaria, which had sometimes been included in Phyllanthus (but was accepted in the Manual), is cladistically distinct (according to the cladograms published in this paper) and off the hook. Burton, G. P., K. C. St. E. Campbell & E. J. Lucas. 2021. Morphometric analysis as a tool to resolve a taxonomic complex in Myrcia sect. Calyptranthes (Myrtaceae, Myrteae). Syst. Bot. 46: 1016–1025. Put us down as skeptical with regard to these morphometric analyses. “Leaf size and shape are found to be indicative of subspecies…” Seriously? Even if we could swallow that assertion (in the Abstract), it seems at odds with the fact that these authors recognize only vars., not subspp. The “taxonomic complex” of the title was treated in the Manual (2007) under the genus Calyptranthes, since formally submerged in Myrcia [see under “Lourenço,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(1), Jan. 2019]. Two taxa referable to this complex were ascribed to Costa Rica in the Manual, under the names Calyptranthes chytraculia (L.) Sw. var. americana McVaugh and C. pallens Griseb. As far as we can determine, these authors are on board with the Manual in attributing those same two taxa to Costa Rica, but not with respect to their names. Instead, what were once two spp. are now two vars. of a single sp., Myrcia chytraculia (L.) A. R. Lourenço & E. Lucas (so a sp. is effectively lost to the Costa Rican flora). The change is minimal for the former Calytranthes chytraculia var. americana, now Myrcia chytraculia var. americana (McVaugh) G. P. Burton & E. Lucas (comb. nov.); however, the former Calyptranthes pallens is demoted and subordinated to Myrcia chytraculia var. pauciflora (O. Berg) G. P. Burton & E. Lucas (comb. nov.). Take it as you will. A dichotomous key is provided to separate the four vars. of Myrcia chytraculia (the first couplet invoking the unique character of leaf surface area!). Espinosa, A. F., L. Guillén, H. van der Werff, J. Ceballos & O. O. Ortiz. 2021. An additional record of the genus Mespilodaphne (Lauraceae) for Panama. Feddes Repert. 132: 28–34. Yet another ostensible Costa Rican endemic bites the dust, as Mespilodaphne morae (Gómez-Laur.) Trofimov (i.e., Ocotea morae Gómez-Laur. of the Manual) has turned up in Panama. Ten collections are cited, from three localities in the central (Cerro Campana) and eastern (Prov. Darién) portions of the country, and abundant photographic illustrations (mostly in color) supplement the nefarious documentation. A key to the three Mespilodaphne spp. occurring in Panama is also aprovided. Fawcett, S., A. R. Smith, M. Sundue, J. G. Burleigh, E. B. Sessa, L.-Y. Kuo, C.-W. Chen, W. L. Testo, M. Kessler, GoFlag Consortium & D. S. Barrington. 2021. A global phylogenomic study of the Thelypteridaceae. Syst. Bot. 46: 891–915. As it turns out, this paper presents the “phylogenomic” rationale for a new classification of Thelypteridaceae which, in fact has already been published, but has yet to reach our shores. Thus, we have little to say at the present time. Not surprisingly, the results of the present study largely support a prior generic classification of Thelypteridaceae proposed by a committee featuring members of this same team [see under “Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(1), Jan. 2018], pending “taxonomic revision” of 13 of the 30 genera accepted by that crew. We gather that most of these “revisions” affect Old World members of the family, the result being a net gain of seven genera. We cannot wait to get our hands on the paper presenting the classification itself, which features “all necessary taxonomic combinations, a key to genera, and descriptions of the 37 genera…” One noteworthy observation: these authors continue to ignore an alternative fern classification (not even cited here) which opts for much more inclusive genus and family circumscriptions (perhaps more comprehensible to generalist botanists), e.g., lumping most of “Thelypteridaceae” (not even accepted as a family!) into a single genus [see under “Christenhusz,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(2), Apr. 2014]. Figueroa-Mata, G., E. Mata-Montero, J. C. Valverde-Otárola, D. Arias-Aguilar & N. Zamora-Villalobos. 2022. Using deep learning to identify Costa Rican native tree species from wood cut images. Frontiers Pl. Sci. (Online journal) 13(789227): 1–12. This is way over our heads from the standpoint of mathematics and computerese, but the gist of the article may be gleaned from the title: the authors are working to perfect a computerized method of identifying tree spp. based on wood cross-sections. Accuracies in the 70–80% range have been achieved, but clearly some kinks remain to be worked out. The potential applications of this project are obvious, especially in combating illegal logging of protected spp. A perhaps unexpected obstacle has been the development of an adequate dataset, as "field trips to collect wood samples and lab work on those samples is slow and costly." We wish them luck! Frazão, A. & L. G. Lohmann. 2021. Deciphering the typification of the Neotropical genus Tanaecium (Bignonieae, Bignoniaceae). Taxon 70: 1117–1123. Tanaecium jaroba Sw., the type sp. of its genus, has been lectotypified on an illustration (the only original material extant). Because said illustration “does not include sufficient characters to properly identify this species,” the authors of this paper designate an epitype. They also designate a lectotype for a synonym of T. jaroba. None of this action has any repercussions for the application of either the sp. or genus name. Gardner, E. M., M. Garner, R. Cowan, S. Dodsworth, N. Epitawalage, D. Arifiani, Sahromi, W. J. Baker, F. Forest, O. Maurin, N. J. C. Zerega, A. K. Monro & A. L. Hipp. 2021. Repeated parallel losses of inflexed stamens in Moraceae: phylogenomics and generic revision of the tribe Moreae and the reinstatement of the tribe Olmedieae (Moraceae). Taxon 70: 946–988. These analyses, involving “target enrichment sequencing,” found that “neither Moreae nor several of its major genera” are monophyletic. Two of those non-monophyletic genera, Morus and Trophis, are represented in Costa Rica, and we are impacted on both fronts. The remedy proposed by these authors for Morus is to segregate its sole African sp. into a newly described genus, Afromorus E. M. Gardner, and a group of 12 other, largely Indomalesian and Australasian spp. under the resurrected genus name Paratrophis Blume. Of the two native Costa Rican spp. recognized for Morus in the Manual Moraceae treatment (2007), M. celtidifolia Kunth (if that’s what it is!) remains in place (as does the cultivated M. alba L.), while M. insignis Bureau becomes, somewhat tentatively, the only New World representative of Paratrophis (with the indicated combination validated in the name of “E. M. Gardner”). We say “tentatively” because “analyses differ as to whether M. insignis is sister to Paratrophis or part of it,” but the authors consider that “it seems safest to treat it as a member of Paratrophis for the time being, rather than erecting a monotypic genus for it.” Amen! In the case of Trophis, these authors propose that it be restricted to its “Neotropical clade, ” and that the sp. that has become known in recent years as T. caucana (Pittier) C. C. Berg “must be excluded.” The latter conclusion is music to our ears, and vindication for Manual Moraceae author José González, who stuck to his guns and insisted that T. caucana remain in the monospecific genus Olmedia, as O. aspera Ruiz & Pav. José’s viewpoint is supported quite emphatically by these analyses, which establish that Olmedia does not even belong to the same tribe as Trophis! The meat of this paper (at least for us) is a well-illustrated section at the end entitled “Taxonomic revisions,” which provides a dichotomous key to the seven tribes of Moraceae, followed by descriptions of the tribes (four) and genera (14) affected by those revisions, with distribution summaries and lists of component spp. There are no other substantive change for us, and even the aberrant Trophis involucrata W. C. Burger (included in the cladograms) passes muster. Gerace, S., M. G. Bovini, L. Peruzzi & J. F. A. Baumgratz. 2022. Typification of names in the neotropical genus Luehea (Malvaceae: Grewioideae). Phytotaxa 542: 180–188. Four obscure synonyms of Luehea speciosa Willd. (the accepted name for a widespread sp. represented in Costa Rica) are lectotypified, two in "second-step" fashion. These actions have no consequences for the applications of any names in Costa Rica, and no other spp. of Luehea (Tiliaceae, in the Manual) in the country are involved. Gillespie, L. J., R. J. Soreng, R. D. Bull, P. J. de Lange & R. D. Smissen. 2022. Morphological and phylogenetic evidence for subtribe Cinninae and two new subtribes, Hookerochloinae and Dupontiinae (Poaceae tribe Poeae PPAM clade). Taxon 71: 52–84. Most of this is well outside of our wheelhouse, as it deals with taxa in which we have no interest (tribes and subtribes), or genera that do not occur in Costa Rica. The sole exception, on both counts, is the genus Cinna, represented in the country by a single sp., C. poiformis (Kunth) Scribn. & Merr., as according to the Manual Poaceae treatment (2003). The present study portrays Cinna as polyphyletic, however, and C. poiformis “resolves as a distinct lineage, weakly sister to Aniselytron”—even though it groups with the type sp. of Cinna in one of the authors’ own cladograms! Nevertheless, they “consider C. poiformis to represent a distinct [monospecific] genus, separate from Cinna, and resurrect the genus name Cinnastrum for that species,” henceforth Cinnastrum poiforme (Kunth) E. Fourn. Never mind that, “even with the removal of Cinnastrum, Cinna remains non-monophyletic”! But that does not concern us… Cinnastrum “differs from Cinna in its broader glumes and subterete caryopsis with solid endosperm.” Revised descriptions of both genera are provided near the end of the paper. Greuter, W. & R. Rankin-Rodríguez. 2022. Notes on the genus Exostema (Rubiaceae), its limits and sectional subdivision. Taxon 71: 210–215. The authors of a recent molecular study of Rubiaceae tribe Chiococceae Hook. f. [see under “Paudyal,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018] elected to remove 22 spp. from Exostema, in the sense of the Manual Rubiaceae treatment (2014), to Solenandra, leaving the former genus with just eight spp. (vs. 25, as according to the Manual). As a result, Exostema mexicanum A. Gray of the Manual became Solenandra mexicana (A. Gray) Borhidi (a name that was cited in synonymy in the Manual); however, the names of three other potentially affected spp. in the Costa Rican flora—Coutarea hexandra (Jacq.) K. Schum., Exostema caribaeum (Jacq.) Schult., and Hintonia lumana (Baill.) Bullock—remained unchanged. Piggybacking on the same analyses, the authors of the paper under review have upset the fruit basket yet again, favoring “a wide circumscription” that lumps Coutarea, Exostema, Hintonia, and Solenandra into a single genus. By rights, the name of that genus ought to be Coutarea, the oldest of the four by a healthy margin; however, these same authors have already proposed that Exostema be conserved [see under “Greuter,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 29(1), Jan. 2022]. Assuming that the conservation proposal will be accepted, this latest system is only slightly more disruptive, where Costa Rican floristics are concerned, than its predecessor: whereas the latter invoked just one name change, vis-à-vis the Manual, this one will require two, i.e., Coutarea hexandra and Hintonia lumana both being transferred to Exostema (which action is not formally effected here, “pending the fate of [the] conservation proposal”). So which of these two classifications should we adopt? Now we are at sea. A new infrageneric classification is proposed for Exostema (now swollen to 40 spp.), featuring five sections (three of which are restricted to the Greater Antilles, or virtually so). Curiously, two combinations at sectional rank are validated, even though those names also hinge on the passage of the aforementioned conservation proposal. Hilje Quirós, L. 2022. Las rutas históricas del desarrollo de las ciencias biológicas en Costa Rica. Revista Herencia 35: 110–154. This is a scholarly analysis of the “natural, economic, social and political factors and circumstances that have been conducive to the institutionalization and consolidation of biological sciences in Costa Rica,” illustrated to boot. The subject is examined “following six key historical routes,” which we will not get into here. The scope of the article is so huge, both chronologically and academically (the author is himself an entomologist), that the Manual merits but a single paragraph (on p. 134) in the grand saga. Commensurate with the present paragraph, in fact! But see also under “Jiménez Madrigal,” this column. Huang, J., W. Chen, Y. Li & G. Yao. 2020. Phylogenetic study of Amaranthaceae sensu lato based on multiple plastid DNA fragments. Chin. Bull. Bot. 55: 457–467. We have only the cladograms and the English-language Abstract to go by, and according to the latter, the gist of this article is that “the concept of Amaranthaceae s.l. [i.e., including Chenopodiaceae] is accepted here.” This suits us, of course, because that is the course we opted for in the Manual. As also noted in the Abstract, Amaranthaceae was strongly supported as monophyletic “both in broad and narrow sense…, but the monophyly of Chenopodiaceae was rejected.” Indeed, the cladograms reveal Chenopodiaceae as paraphyletic with respect to Amaranthaceae sensu stricto (which is nested rather deeply). Jauregui-Lazo, J. & D. Potter. 2021. Phylogeny and biogeography of Acaena (Rosaceae) and its relatives: evidence of multiple long-distance dispersal events across the globe. Syst. Bot. 46: 998–1010. According to these molecular analyses, the sizeable genus Acaena is paraphyletic with respect to the South American genera Margyricarpus, Polylepis, and Tetraglochin. Assuming this to be correct, and that radical taxonomic changes will be required somewhere down the line (they are not effected here), we can rest assured that one of the two Acaena spp. occurring in Costa Rica, A. elongata L., will remain in place, as it is the generic type. However, our other sp., Acaena cylindristachya Ruiz & Pav., is on shakier ground, being sister to the clade that includes Polylepis. That said, in the view of these authors, their results “support the expansion of Acaena to include Polylepis, Margyricarpus, and Tetraglochin…” Of course, their results can also be said to support any number of other classifications, but we sense that nothing much is likely to happen any time soon. Jiménez, J. E. & J. Hidalgo-Mora. 2021. Matelea tarrazuana (Apocynaceae, Asclepiadoideae), a new critically endangered ocellate species from Central Pacific of Costa Rica. Webbia 76: 213–220. The so-called “ocellate” spp. of Matelea are those with “a reflective white spot…at the apex of each [corolla] lobe.” Two such spp. (neither endemic) were treated for Costa Rica in the Manual account (2020) of Matelea: M. corniculata W. D. Stevens & Arbeláez, known in the country only from the Estación Biológica La Selva, and M. ocellata W. D. Stevens, recorded only from the Península de Santa Elena (not from “Caribbean lowland rainforest,” as erroneously stated in the paper under review). Both of those spp. come out conveniently in the first couplet of the Matelea sp. key in the Manual. Now they are joined by Matelea tarrazuana J. E. Jiménez & Hidalgo-Mora, here described anew based on two collections from 1200–1300 m elevation on the Pacific slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca (in the Tarrazú region, as suggested by the epithet). The new sp. is compared most closely with Matelea pusilliflora L. O. Williams, of northern Mesoamerica (the name of which was mentioned in the Manual as having been misapplied to the Costa Rican collection of M. ocellata). The five “ocellate” Matelea spp. in Mesoamerica are distinguished by means of a dichotomous key and tabular comparison. A distribution map is provided for the new sp., which is also illustrated with a composite line drawing and several color photos from life. Jiménez Madrigal, Q. 2022. La gestación y culminación del Manual de Plantas de Costa Rica: una herramienta para el conocimiento y la conservación de la flora neotropical/The gestation and culmination of the Manual of Plants of Costa Rica: a tool for the knowledge and conservation of the neotropical flora. Revista Ci. Amb. 56: 268–283. This is exactly what its title says it is: the history of the Manual project, from start to finish (preceded by a brief history of botanical exploration in Costa Rica), mentioning just about everyone who was involved, with a consideration of results and successes. The author, of course, was involved from the outset, and has witnessed (and facilitated) the entire progression. Table 1 enumerates “some [13] tree genera collected for the first time in Costa Rica during the Manual…project.” Sparingly illustrated. Löfstrand, S. D., C. M. Taylor, S. G. Razafimandimbison & C. Rydin. 2021. Phyogenetic relationships, infrageneric classification and species limits in the Neotropical genus Faramea (Coussareeae: Rubiaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 197: 478–497. The big story here seems to be the enigmatic one of spp. being resolved as non-monophyletic—ten, in fact, including at least three that occur in Costa Rica: Faramea eurycarpa Donn. Sm., F. multiflora A. Rich., and F. occidentalis (L.) A. Rich. Costa Rican specimens of at least the first two (the print is very small!) were sampled, and in each case, non-monophyly prevailed even within Costa Rica! We will pose our usual question when confronted with such evidence: what does it all mean? Is something amiss with the authors’ methodology? Were some specimens simply misidentified (a possibility alluded to by the authors themselves)? Or do these taxonomic concepts really merit reappraisal? Cladistic analysis is promoted as reducing or eliminating subjectivity, yet depends heavily on the subjective indentification of specimens. We have no idea where to go with this. Manzitto-Tripp, E. A., I. Darbyshire, T. F. Daniel, C. A. Kiel & L. A. McDade. 2022. Revised classification of Acanthaceae and worldwide dichotomous keys. Taxon 71: 103–153. This is a useful contribution (involving three of the Manual Acanthaceae contributors) that provides considerably more than is indicated by the title, or even in the Abstract. Infrafamilial relationships are discussed in detail, a revised classification is presented, and the “major lineages” are compared morphologically in a table. A brief glossary precedes the keys, 12 in all, nine for “major lineages” and three for major geographic regions. Sadly, the keys are non-indented, so we won’t be tackling them anytime soon! Following the keys, several names of tribes, subtribes, and genera are validated, though these either do not interest us or are not pertinent to Costa Rica. Finally, several new synonymies are designated and consequent new combinations at sp. rank validated, resulting in minor enlargements of certain genera (Aphelandra, Asytasia, and Stenostephanus, to name only those represented in Costa Rica). An appendix accounts for all accepted genera and their synonyms. Matos, F. B., R. C. Moran & J. Prado. 2022. A nomenclator for Elaphoglossum section Polytrichia (Dryopteridaceae), with notes on the identification and biogeography of its species. Phytotaxa 535: 1–67. This contribution recognizes a total of 53 spp. (plus two hybrids) in Elaphoglossum sect. Polytrichia Mickel & Atehortúa, a largely neotropical taxon (with just one sp. extending to the Old World) generally characterized by subulate scales (often mistaken for trichomes) and sporophytic leaves that lack hydathodes. The first two authors of this paper have already been involved in the taxonomic revisions of two more or less anomalous subsets of sect. Polytrichia [see under “Matos,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 27(1), Jan. 2020, and 29(1), Jan. 2022]. Here we learn a bit more about the group in its entirety. A table conveniently summarizing the distribution of spp. by country reveals that 20 spp. occur in Costa Rica (as well as one of the hybrids), which is certainly less than 20% of the country sp. total for the genus Elaphoglossum. The body of the paper (the “nomenclatural synopsis”) enumerates the accepted spp. in alphabetical order, with synonymy and typology, a distribution summary, and “Remarks” for each. The two hybrids are treated similarly at the end of the sequence, followed by a section on “Doubtful names and excluded species.” Elaphoglossum squamicostatum A. Rojas (which occurs in Costa Rica), one of the spp. in the last-mentioned category, is only excluded provisionally from sect. Polytrichia, pending its inclusion in molecular studies; the authors suspect that it might in fact belong to the group. An index to exsiccatae (3475 herbarium specimens were examined by the authors) is included as an appendix. The generous and very well-illustrated introductory portion addresses taxonomic history, morphology, and distribution and ecology. Two new combinations are validated, but neither pertains to Costa Rica. One epitype, 13 lectotypes, and two neotypes are designated, including the following lectotypes for names of spp. in Costa Rica: Elaphoglossum angustioblongum A. Rojas, the basionym and three synonyms of E. barbatum (H. Karst.) Hieron., E. demissum Christ, one synonym of E. erinaceum (Fée) T. Moore (a “second step” lectotypification), and E. reductum A. Rojas. The lectotypification of Elaphoglossum demissum, one of the “excluded” spp., is especially significant, inasmuch as that name was based on a mixed collection, and the new lectotype effectively fixes both the sp. identity and sectional affinity (while also salvaging the junior name E. angustioblongum, which applies to the other element of the mixture). Moraes, P. L. R. de. 2022. Leaf venation of living species of Persea (Lauraceae), with taxonomic and nomenclatural notes. Phytotaxa 539: 77–129. We will pass on the leaf venation, however, the author could not resist the temptation to indulge in a bit of lectotypification, and at least two of his 10 newly designated lectotypes pertain to sp. names relevant to Costa Rica: Persea donnellsmithii Mez (an accepted name) and P. laevigata Kunth [a synonym of P. caerulea (Ruiz & Pav.) Mez]. As far as we can tell, the prevailing applications of both names are upheld. Morales, J. F. & A. Idárraga-Piedrahita. 2022. Nightmare on Dendropanax Street: what is Dendropanax arboreus (Araliaceae)? Phytotaxa 536: 154–164. Great title! We must say that the question posed therein comes as no major shock to us: we have long considered that the name Dendropanax arboreus (L.) Decne. & Planch. was being applied too liberally, just within the confines of Costa Rica. For us, this paper provides no immediate satisfaction: it is merely the first chapter of an ongoing investigation that may still be a long way from resolving the nomenclature of the D. arboreus complex in Costa Rica and neighboring countries. The intent of the present paper (or so it seems) is to circumscribe D. arboreus sensu stricto, i.e., in the sense of its Jamaican lectotype. That entity is tentatively restricted to the West Indies (mainly, the Greater Antilles), with populations on Trinidad and Tobago explicitly excluded. However, the authors’ stipulation that “only synonyms from the West Indies are given” suggests that their sp. concept may yet be subject to expansion. They promise that “the status of the synonyms in Mexico and Central America versus the circumscription proposed here will be treated in subsequent papers,” so we will be watching for those! Nesom, G. L. 2022. Taxonomic revision of Cirsium sect. Erythrolaena (Asteraceae: Cardueae). Phytoneuron 2022-23: 1–100. This section of 15 spp. is virtually restricted to Mexico, with the exception of a single sp., Cirsium subcoriaceum (Less.) Sch. Bip., which extends southward to Panama (though the Abstract confusingly states that it “extends into Guatemala”). Thus we are obliged to include this contribution, though it provides nothing new for us. Features synonymy and typology, a dichotomous and indented key to spp., descriptions of variable length, distribution statements, specimen citations (except for some spp., such as C. subcoriaceum), discussions of variable length, and distribution maps. There are no índices. The introductory portion very fleetingly addresses morphology, relationships, and taxonomic history. Illustrations? The final ¾ of this paper is nothing but color photos, mostly of herbarium specimens. Ten new spp. (all Mexican) are described. Nobis, M., E. Klichowska, M. Wolanin, A. Nobis & A. Nowak. 2022. Typification of five plant names described by Józef Warszewicz in Central and South America. PhytoKeys 192: 45–61. A lectotype for Psammisia ramiflora Klotzsch (Ericaceae) designated previously, but ineffectively, by Manual Ericaceae co-contributor James Luteyn, is here ordained officially, with no ramifications. Even more inconsequential is the correction of Luteyn’s type designation for an obscure synonym of Cavendishia bracteata (Ruiz & Pav. ex J. St.-Hil.) Hoerold (Ericaceae) from lectotype to neotype. None of the other “actions” here pertains to a sp. occurring in Costa Rica. Mysteriously, Warszewicz’s year of death is amended, without comment, to 1864, vs. 1866, as indicated elsewhere [including a previous paper with the same first author; see under “Nobis,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 27(3), Jul. 2020]. Ohashi, H., K. Ohashi, K. Nata, P. Souladeth & S. Tagane. 2021. A new species and a new combination of Grona with a list of Desmodium s.l. (Leguminosae) of Indochina. J. Jap. Bot. 96: 264–278. Neither the new sp. nor the list are relevant to us, but the new combination may be. Previously, the first two authors of this paper segregated a group of spp. from Desmodium under the genus name Grona [see under “Ohashi,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018], to which they transferred four spp. represented in Costa Rica, including the former D. heterocarpon (L.) DC. The former Desmodium heterocarpon subsp. ovalifolium (Prain) H. Ohashi, to which Costa Rican material of the sp. was referred in the Manual Fabaceae treatment (2010), also received a new combination in Grona. In the present paper, however, the decision has been made (largely on the basis of cladistic considerations) to elevate the last-mentioned taxon to sp. rank as Grona ovalifolia (Prain) H. Ohashi, K. Ohashi & Tagane, comb. nov. A key (non-indented) is provided to separate G. ovalifolia from G. heterocarpos (L.) H. Ohashi & K. Ohashi and a handful of “similar species,” and we tried it out on the available specimens from Costa Rica. We found, to our chagrín, that the key is perfectly useless, with the result that we now doubt the distinctiveness of the two last-mentioned taxa even as subspp.! Couplet 1, which effectively separates G. heterocarpos and G. ovalifolia, requires the latter to have the “loments glabrous or glabrescent,” vs. “lateral surfaces of loments hairy” in G. heterocarpos; however, according to couplet 3, G. ovalifolia also has the “lateral surfaces of loments hairy”! Great work, folks! Now what do we do? Ortiz, O. O., T. B. Croat, O. Rodríguez-Reyes, J. Ceballos, M. Cedeño-Fonseca & M. M. Mora. 2022. Taxonomic novelties in Philodendron subg. Philodendron (Araceae) from Panama. Novon 30: 18–42. Seven spp. are described as new in this paper, and two others reported for the first time from Panama, but only the range extensions are germane to Costa Rica. Philodendron anisotomum Schott, indicated in the Manual Araceae treatment (2003) as ranging from “Méx.–CR,” has now turned up (not surprisingly) in western Panama, on the basis of four collections cited in this paper. Of greater import to us is the citation of a single Panamanian collection (from Prov. Chiriquí) of Philodendron auriculatum Standl. & L. O. Williams, signifying the loss of yet another Costa Rican endemic! This too shall pass… Pagare, R. S. & W. Arisdason. 2021. Nomenclatural note and lectotypification of the synonyms of Dioscorea bulbifera and varieties in D. pentaphylla (Dioscoreaceae). J. Jap. Bot. 96: 284–291. Dioscorea bulbifera L. is the accepted name for an Asian sp. that is sparingly cultivated and escaped in Costa Rica. Seven of it synonyms (none of which was cited in the Manual Dioscoreaceae treatment) are here lectotypified. We are at a loss for words. Pastore, J. F. B., G. M, Antar, A. S. Soares, F. Forest & R. M. Harley. 2021. A new and expanded phylogenetic analysis of Hyptidinae (Ocimeae-Lamiaceae). Syst. Bot. 46: 1086–1094. Our readers may recall that, subsequent to the publication of the Manual Lamiaceae treatment (2007), the major genus Hyptis was carved into segregate genera, four of which (Cantinoa, Condea, Hyptis s. str., and Mesosphaerum) were inflicted on Costa Rica [see under “Harley,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(4), Oct. 2012]. All of this mayhem was perpetrated solely to maintain (in Costa Rica) the oligospecific genera Asterohyptis and Marsypianthes, which we would happily have sacrificed to the cause. The present paper, involving both authors of the aforementioned generic reclassification, is of negligible interest to us, except insofar as it (ironically) alerts us to a movement, apparently afoot, to resist the atomization of subtribe Hyptidinae and instead accept but a single genus, Hyptis! We don’t even need to see the argument (but we do intend to check it out). Pennington, T. D., A. Barker & B. M. Rojas-Andres. 2021. A revision of the genus Ruagea (Meliaceae: Melioideae). Kew Bull. 76: 565–604. When the Manual Meliaceae treatment was published in 2007, Ruagea was credited with a total of seven spp., just two of which, R. glabra Triana & Planch. and R. insignis (C. DC.) T. D. Penn., were attributed to Costa Rica. The sp. total has since more than doubled, with 15 spp. recognized in this revision (including three here described as new), but there are no major changes for Costa Rica. Features a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp., synonymy and typology, technical descriptions, distribution summaries, specimen citations, evaluations of conservation status, diagnostic pointers, distribution maps, and índices to exsiccatae and scientific and vernacular names. The brief introductory section focuses on relationships and morphology. Each sp. is illustrated with a composite line drawing. Prance, G. T. 2021. Humiriaceae. Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 123: 1–241. Our initial impression is that this is somewhat of a low-budget production, by the standards of this series, beginning with the quality of the paper on which it is printed (or is it just our imagination?). The introductory section is relatively brief and sparingly illustrated, and we noted in passing a fair number of editorial errors (for example, the volume number is given as “122” in the Abstract). Perhaps it is a Covid thing. Getting down to the nitty-gritty: eight genera and 65 spp. of this almost exclusively neotropical family are recognized, including 16 spp. of Humiriastrum, 11 of Sacoglottis, and 22 of Vantanea (annotate your copy accordingly!). With respect to the spp. attributed to Costa Rica in Manual co-PI Nelson Zamora’s Humiriaceae treatment (2007), there is fair congruence, with two noteworthy exceptions: first, “Sacoglottis sp. A” of the Manual is in no way accounted for (its voucher is nowhere cited, and was presumably not seen); and second, Vantanea depleta McPherson (described from Panama) is added to the Costa Rican flora on the basis of Hammel & Trainer 12954, from near Chilamate de Sarapiquí (we thought we had reported that finding in this blog, but cannot track it down). It should also be noted that the South American Sacoglottis amazonica Mart. is mapped as occurring in Costa Rica, but not attributed to the country in the distribution statement for that sp., nor are any Costa Rican specimens cited. Features synonymy and typology, dichotomous and indented keys to genera (including one based on fruiting material), spp., and vars., technical descriptions at all ranks, distribution and phenology statements, assessments of conservation status, specimen citations, distribution maps, and índices to exsiccatae and “local” and scientific names. Not much in the way of discussions, however. Selected spp. are depicted in composite line drawings. Ridley, R. & P. Jiménez-Mejías. 2022. Incipient insular differentiation of Carex firmula (Cyperaceae, former genus Uncinia) in the Juan Fernández archipelago (Chile). Phytotaxa 533: 267–286. When the genus Uncinia was lumped formally into Carex some time ago, Carex firmula (Kük.) J. R. Starr abruptly became the accepted name for the sp. (quite rare in Costa Rica) that had been treated in the Manual as Uncinia tenuis Poepp. ex Kunth (see under “Global Carex Group,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(4), Oct. 2015]. The end result of this rather long-winded paper is that Carex firmula is now resolved into two subspp., with the autonymic one restricted to the remote archipelago referenced in the title (the type locality, needless to say). The new combination Carex firmula subsp. tenuis (Poepp. ex Kunth) Jim. Mejías & R. Ridl. is validated to be used for all the mainland populations of this widespread sp., which ranges (according to these authors) from Mexico to Tierra del Fuego (although its occurrence on the Falkland Islands, alleged in the Manual and elsewhere, is here challenged). The differences between the two subspp. (if anyone is interested) are presented in a completely haywire key. The reemergence of “Uncinia tenuis” at the rank of subsp. recalls the similar treatment (at the hands of one of these same authors) accorded Uncinia koyamae Gómez-Laur. [see under “Jiménez-Mejías,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(1), Jan. 2019], which became a subsp. of Carex phleoides Cav. Rojas-Alvarado, A. F. & L. Barrantes-Calvo. 2021. Serpocaulon orosiense, a new hybrid of Serpocaulon (Polypodiaceae) from Costa Rica. Open Access Libr. J. 8(e8047): 1–8. Serpocaulon ×orosiense A. Rojas (why are pteridologists so obsessed with hybrids?), a putative cross between S. fraxinifolium (Jacq.) A. R. Sm. and S. loriceum (L.) A. R. Sm., has been collected just twice, by the authors, at 1700 m elevation on the Atlantic slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca (in the Tapantí region). The three entities are compared in a table and several photos. —— & P. Muñoz-Cambronero. 2021. Two new species of edible berries, one in Gaultheria L. and one in Vaccinium L. (Ericaceae) from Costa Rica and Panama. Open Access Libr. J. 8(e8116): 1–13. Recent investigations of the Costa Rican páramo flora by the first author, nominally a pteridologist, have resulted in the discovery or recognition of several new angiosperm spp. [see also under “Estrada Ch.,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 29(1), Jan. 2022]. Gaultheria paramicola A. Rojas and Vaccinium reptans A. Rojas, described in the present paper, both range into westernmost Panama. The new Gaultheria belongs to a group of spp. previously segregated as a separate genus, Pernettya [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 16(3): 3, Jul. 2009], as in the Manual Ericaceae treatment (2010). Just one sp. of “Pernettya” was accepted in the Manual, under the name P. prostrata (Cav.) DC., but that entity was characterized as “sumamente variable” and liable to “abarcar más que una sp. en CR.” Indeed, we have long suspected that as many as three distinct spp. of “Pernettya” could be discriminated in Costa Rica, even on the easily accessible and intensively botanized Cerro de La Muerte. Gaultheria paramicola, corresponding to one of our three putative novelties, is here compared in tabular form wtih G. myrsinoides Kunth (the correct name in Gaultheria for Pernettya prostrata), as well as the South American G. mucronata (L. f.) Hook. & Arn. We have no idea what, if anything, may be in store for the third Costa Rican entity we have tentatively distinguished in this complex. Vaccinium reptans—which we did not see coming—is compared in a table with V. consanguineum Klotzsch and V. floribundum Kunth, both also represented in Costa Rica. Both new spp. are illustrated (together with similar spp.) with color photos of living material. We worry a bit about the alleged edibility of the fruits of these new spp., especially those of the Gaultheria, as the fruits of G. myrsinoides (Pernettya prostrata) have been reported (e.g., in the Manual, where the sp. was construed in a broad sense) as poisonous. Did the authors eat these fruits themselves, and if so, how many? The basis for their assertion is not revealed. Having heard some grim tales, we would advise extreme caution, if not abstinence, with respect to the consumption of ericaceous fruits in general. —— & F. Villalobos-Brenes. 2018. Three new species and new records of Dennstaedtia Bernh. from Mesoamerica. Open Access Libr. J. 5(e5020): 1–7. Okay, so we missed this by a few years, but we would never think to look in such a journal (thanks to the first author for alerting us!). All three of the new spp. occur in Costa Rica, two endemically: Dennstaedtia axilaris A. Rojas (the correct spelling “axillaris” appears only in the Abstract), known in Costa Rica only from the Estación Biológica La Selva (but also from two Nicaraguan specimens); Dennstaedtia rectangularis A. Rojas, collected just twice, at 1400–1500 m elevation in the La Hondura/La Palma region; and Dennstaedtia riparia A. Rojas, based on two collections from 700–1000 m elevation on the Atlantic slope of the Cordillera de Tilarán (Reserva Biológica Alberto Manuel Brenes) and the northern Cordillera de Talamanca (near Jicotea). All three novelties are compared with Dennstaedtia dissecta (Sw.) T. Moore and provided with rather basic line drawings showing frond details. Just one of the two new records is of potential interest to us, viz., the first and only record of Dennstaedtia sprucei T. Moore from Mesoamerica; however, we have known of this for a very long time, and it was reported in these very pages 26 years ago [The Cutting Edge 3(1): 4, Jan. 1996]. Samper-Villarreal, J., J. Moya-Ramírez & J. Cortés. 2022. First characterization of seagrasses at Sámara Bay, Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Aquatic Bot. 178(103486): 1–6. This is principally an ecological study, but does add new localities to the geographic ranges of the only two “seagrasses” recorded from the study site: Halodule beaudettei (Hartog) Hartog (Cymodoceaceae) and Halophila baillonis Asch. (Hydrocharitaceae). The former was not treated formally in the Manual at all, but has since been reported from Costa Rica by members of this same group [see under “Samper-Villarreal,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(1), Jan 2019]—although it is unclear whether actual herbarium vouchers have ever been prepared (none is cited here). With respect to the latter sp., the authors persist in spelling its epithet as “baillonii,” a position that we have already effectively (we like to think!) rebutted [see under “Creed,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(3), Jul. 2019]. Smidt, E. C., G. A. Salazar, A. V. S. R. Mauad, M. E. Engels, J Viruel, M. Clements, I. Jiménez Pérez & M. W. Chase. 2021. An Indomalesian origin in the Miocene for the diphyletic New World jewel orchids (Goodyerinae, Orchidoideae): molecular dating and biogeographic analyses document non-monophyly of the Neotropical genera. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 197: 322–349. The meat of this paper concerns the genus Erythrodes, in the broad, traditional sense that was employed in the Manual Orchidaceae treatment (2003). Even in the Manual, however, an auxiliary key was presented separating five segregate genera that were becoming widely accepted at the time, viz., Aspidogyne, Erythrodes s. str., Kreodanthus, Ligeophila, and Platythelys. The Manual genus discussion for Erythrodes also revealed that Erythrodes s. str. had recently been restricted to the Old World, with its erstwhile neotropical members assigned to the genus Microchilus. Subsequent molecular analyses led to the synonymization of both Ligeophila and Platythelys under Aspidogyne [see, e.g., under “Chase,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015], resulting in the three-genus classification of the neotropical members of the group that is accepted essentially “a priori” for the purposes of this study: Aspidogyne, Kreodanthus, and Microchilus. The “non-monophyly” mentioned in the title refers partly to the fact that even this three-genus system does not pass cladistic muster: “Microchilus and Aspidogyne…are both polyphyletic, and Kreodanthus (monophyletic) is embedded among clades of the other two genera.” Citing the lack of “any obvious way to recognize more than one genus without creating several morphologically undiagnosable new genera,” the authors instead sagely “propose abandoning the highly artificial current generic arrangement, and in the interest of nomenclatural utility and stability” to combine all three genera under the oldest (by far) name, Microchilus. This means that the single-genus system of the Manual is restored (at least for the New World), except that the genus must now be called Microchilus, rather than Erythrodes. Beats the alternatives! All the necessary new combinations in Microchilus are validated in the names of “E. C. Smidt & M. W. Chase.” The genus Goodyera is also apparently polyphyletic, but what this may mean for us is less clear; perhaps it is significant that G. major Ames & Correll, the only Costa Rican representative included in the study, belongs to the same clade (the "Nearctic clade”) as the type sp. Wilson, K. L. 2022. Report of the General Committee: 23. Taxon 71: 216–216. The final decisions are herewith handed down! Among those that impinge on our little corner of the universe: a proposal to conserve Campyloneurum densifolium (Hieron.) Lellinger (Polypodiaceae) over an obscure predecessor [see under “León,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(1), Jan. 2017] is accepted; a proposal [see under “Patil,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(4), Oct. 2017] to conserve the genus name Podostemum, with that spelling (vs. Podostemon), is accepted, also maintaining Podostemaceae as the correct spelling of the family name (and vindicating the Manual on both counts); the names Mimosa inga L. and M. ynga Vell. (Fabaceae) are ruled confusable, securing Inga edulis Mart. as the accepted name for a well-known sp. [see under “Davidse,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(1), Jan. 2017]; and finally, the names Briquetastrum Robyns & Lebrun (1929) and Briquetiastrum Bovini (2015) are also ruled confusable, sanctioning the usage (by those so inclined) of the replacement name Allobriquetia Bovini (Malvaceae) for the latter genus, with but a single sp. in Costa Rica [see under “Bovini,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 28(1), Jan. 2021]. Yao, G., B. Xue, K. Liu, Y. Li, J. Huang & J. Zhai. 2021. Phylogenetic estimation and morphological evolution of Alsineae (Caryophyllaceae) shed new insight into the taxonomic status of the genus Pseudocerastium. Pl. Diversity 43: 299–307. The new insight establishes the Chinese genus of the title as nested within Cerastium, and a nomen novum is validated to transfer its sole sp. accordingly. Nudge the Manual sp. total for Cerastium up one notch. Zhang, Q., L. Zhao, R. A. Folk, J.-L. Zhao, N. A. Zamora, S.-X. Yang, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, L.-M. Gao, H. Peng & X.-Q. Yu. 2022. Phylotranscriptomics of Theaceae: generic-level relationships, reticulation and whole-genome duplication. Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 129: 457–471. Here we have additional evidence (courtesy of "phylotranscriptomics," whatever it may be) that Laplacea [including the sp. treated as Gordonia fruticosa (Schrad.) H. Keng in the Manual] is widely separated from Gordonia and richly merits acceptance as a distinct genus [as previously suggested by this same crowd; see, e.g., under "Yu," this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(1), Jan. 2019].   TOP