| |
Main |
Family List (MO) |
Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments |
Guidelines |
Checklist |
Citing |
Editors
The Cutting Edge
Volume XXIX, Number 1, January, 2022
News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature |
Season's Pick | Global Range Extensions
Acuña-Castillo, R., J. E. Jiménez, L. E. Bezerra-Silva, J. San Gil-León & M. A. Blanco. 2021. Notes on the distribution of Brasenia schreberi (Cabombaceae) in the Neotropics, with a new country record for Costa Rica. Darwiniana n. s., 9: 364–374.
This is one bombshell we did not see coming though, unfortunately for us, it arrives too late for incorporation into the Manual. The cosmopolitan floating aquatic Brasenia schreberi J. F. Gmel. represents not only a new sp., but a new genus for the Costa Rican flora. As these authors suggest, it perhaps ought to have been mentioned in the recently published Manual Cabombaceae treatment (2020) as “to be expected,” because it was already known from northern Mesoamerica and northwestern South America. The Costa Rican population (depicted in excellent color photos taken in situ) was discovered by the authors at ca. 40 m elevation in the remote Reserva Nacional de Vida Silvestre Mixto Maquenque, on the Atlantic coastal plain near the northeastern extreme of the Llanura de San Carlos in the Cureña región (Prov. Heredia), not far from the Río San Juan (Nicaraguan border). Flowering was documented in January. This must now qualify as the botanical find of the decade in Costa Rica! Features an informal (but thorough) sp. description, a distribution summary and distribution map, and a listing of specimens examined from the neotropical region.
Ancona, J. J., J. P. Pinzón, J. J. Ortiz Díaz, I. Ramírez Morillo, J. Tun-Garrido, C. Palma-Silva & W. Till. 2021. Botanical history and typification in the Tillandsia ionantha complex. Taxon 70: 1317–1326.
This is an erudite and meticulously researched article, but one that offers very little to us. Basically: the geographic origin [S Méx. (Ver.)] of the original material of Tillandsia ionantha Planch. (which does occur in Costa Rica) is clarified, and a lectotype is designated for one of its synonyms.
Arthan, W., L. T. Dunning, G. Besnard, S. Manzi, E. A. Kellogg, J. Hackel, C. E. R. Lehmann, J. Mitchley & M. S. Vorontsova. 2021. Complex evolutionary history of two ecologically significant grass genera, Themeda and Heteropogon (Poaceae: Panicoideae: Andropogoneae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 196: 437–455.
Neither of the genera specified in the title is monophyletic, because two spp. currently included in Heteropogon are nested within Themeda. Moreover, Heteropogon fischerianus Bor, described from India, is deeply nested among accessions of the much more widespread H. contortus (L.) P. Beauv. The authors of this paper are clearly on board with transferring the nested Heteropogon spp. to Themeda and synonymizing H. fischerianus under H. contortus. These actions would restrict Heteropogon to just one or (perhaps) two spp. So how does all of this affect us? Scarcely, in fact: Heteropogon contortus is now known from Costa Rica [see The Cutting Edge 10(4): 4, Oct. 2003], although it was found there too late for inclusion in the Manual Poaceae treatment (2003); however, because H. contortus is effectively the type sp. of its genus, it is not going anywhere, and no other spp. of Heteropogon or Themeda occur in Costa Rica.
Bruniera, C. P., J. A. Kallunki, I. M. Silva, C. I. Silva & M. Groppo. 2021. A revision of Conchocarpus with pantocolporate pollen grains: the Almeidea group (Galipeinae, Rutaceae). Syst. Bot. 46: 375–388.
In a transfer already effected in a paper we did not see, the oligospecific South American genus Almeidea has been absorbed by Conchocarpus. The present paper (a revision of the former members of Almeidea) does not concern us, except insofar as it officially augments the sp. total for Conchocarpus (45, according to Manual Vol. 7) by four.
Carvalho, C. S., D. B. O. S. Cardoso, H. C. Lima, N. A. Zamora & B. B. Klitgaard. 2021. (2842) Proposal to conserve Coumarouna panamensis (Dipteryx panamensis) against D. oleífera (Leguminosae). Taxon 70: 1142–1144.
This has been a pet issue of Manual co-PI and Fabaceae author Nelson Zamora, who clung to the familiar name Dipteryx panamensis (Pittier) Record & Mell in his Manual account (2010), knowing full well that the prior D. oleífera Benth. had been implemented as the accepted name in the Flora de Nicaragua (2001), and several posterior works. Now he has conscripted a small army of like-minded souls to help further his agenda. In their favor: the name Dipteryx oleífera was “hidden in the literature” for about 150 years, and its type is fragmentary (a single flower and fruit) and of dubious provenance. Perhaps to the detriment of their cause is the fact that they waited so long to submit this proposal; by now, the name D. oleífera has become a force to be reckoned with, both in the literature and herbaria (69 specimens are so annotated at MO, vs. 43 as D. panamensis), so the confusion they hope to curtail may only be compounded.
Carvalho-Sobrinho, J., V. N. Yoshikawa & L. J. Dorr. 2021. Notes on Brazilian Pachira (Malvaceae, Bombacoideae) II: additional typifications and new synonymies. PhytoKeys 186: 53–72.
Inevitably, it seems, some trivial aspect of every one of these typification-fests pertains, at least nominally, to us. In this case, an epitype is newly designated for the name Pachira aquatica Aubl., which applies to a very widespread sp. that is well-known in Costa Rica. The previously designated lectotype “consists solely of detached leaflets and a sterile twig.”
Cascante-Marín, A. & J. F. Morales. 2021. A new species of Werauhia (Bromeliaceae, Tillandsioideae) from the highlands of southern Central America. Phytotaxa 523: 254–258.
The aptly named new sp., Werauhia talamancana Cascante & J. F. Morales, occurs in “Bosque de roble,” at ca. 2350–2600 m, on both slopes of the Cordillera de Talamanca, extending into westernmost Panama on the Pacific slope (Prov. Chiriquí). It belongs to a large group of spp. “that are very similar in appearance and difficult to keep apart from one another” (which does not exactly breed confidence). Among these, W. talamancana is compared most closely with Werauhia brunei (Mez & Wercklé) J. R. Grant, from which it differs in its longer, foliose lower peduncular bracts, brown-maroon (vs. light green) floral bracts, and larger flowers with longer petals. The two spp. are contrasted in color photographs of living material, and the new sp. is depicted in a composite line-drawing.
Escobari, B., T. Borsch, T. S. Quedensley & M. Gruenstaeudl. 2021. Plastid phylogenomics of the Gynoxoid group (Senecioneae, Asteraceae) highlights the importance of motif-based sequence alignment amid low genetic distances. Amer. J. Bot. 108: 2235–2256.
Lots of high-sounding words in the title, but for us it comes down to just one tidbit: this study supports a previous one (involving two of the same authors) in portraying the “genus” Roldana as non-monophyletic [see under “Quedensley,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(1), Jan. 2019]. For the record: we would be pleased as punch to see a whole lot of “genera” lumped back into the grand old Senecio of yore! Enough of this hair-splitting, already.
Estrada Ch., A. & A. F. Rojas Alvarado. 2021. Una nueva especie de Gentiana (Gentianaceae) de Costa Rica. Phytoneuron 2021-60: 1–8.
A new sp. that might appropriately have commemorated the late Costa Rican páramo ecologist Adelaida Chaverri (who first collected it in 1983) instead becomes Gentiana bicentenaria A. Estrada & A. Rojas, in recognition (for some reason) of its home country’s bicentennial. This is only the second Gentiana sp. recorded from Costa Rica, the other being the more widespread G. sedifolia Kunth, from which the new sp. differs inter alia in its imbricate, spatulate (vs. linear) leaves and smaller, differently colored flowers with shorter and more deeply included stamens. The two spp. are compared (together with two other morphologically similar spp.) in a tabular format. Fittingly, Gentiania bicentenaria is a Costa Rican endemic, restricted to the highest elevations (3450–3750 m) of Cerro Chirripó. A distribution map is provided, and the new sp. is well illustrated with a composite line drawing and color photos. It would appear that no substantive changes are indicated for the Manual disrtibution statement of G. sedifolia.
Freire, S. E., M. A. Grossi, L. Iharlegui, C. L. Abarca, C. Monti & N. D. Bayón. 2021. Taxonomic identity of Gamochaeta americana and Gamochaeta coarctata (Gnaphalieae, Asteraceae). Phytotaxa 523: 273–283.
Gamochaeta americana (Mill.) Wedd. was one of four spp. of its genus accepted in Alexánder Rodríguez’s Manual Asteraceae treatment (2020), while G. coarctata (Willd.) Kerguélen was merely mentioned there, as having been attributed to Costa Rica in Flora mesoamericana on the basis of a specimen not duplicated in the country. The main contribution of the present study is a morphometric analysis (24 morphological characters) of 99 specimens “representing the two species of Gamochaeta,” the results of which “support that G. coarctata should be considered a synonym of G. americana.” It seems to us that there is some circularity in this approach. If only one sp. is involved, how was it possible to identify the studied specimens a priori as representing two different spp.? On whose authority was that done? That said, the published cladogram reveals that the specimens did indeed tend to group in two separate clades, corresponding to their original determinations, with a few scattered exceptions; and who’s to say those exceptions don’t represent mere misidentifications, rather than evidence for conspecificity? It is also worth mentioning that no Mesoamerican material of (or determined as) Gamochaeta coarctata was included in the study (although, to be fair, the type is from Uruguay). We have no opinions, based on personal experiences, on this issue, but are not convinced that the final word has yet been spoken. And what is now the fate of the Costa Rican voucher (Dodge & Thomas 4934, MO) cited for G. coarctata in Flora mesoamericana (and which remains so determined in TROPICOS)? Shall it now be subsumed in G. americana, or does it perhaps represent a different sp. altogether? Stay tuned! More incidentally: a lectotype is designated for Gnaphalium purpureum L. var. macrophyllum Greenm., a synonym of Gamochaeta americana based on Costa Rican material.
Frost, L. A., N. O’Leary, L. P. Lagomarsino, D. C. Tank & R. G. Olmstead. 2021. Phylogeny, classification, and character evolution of tribe Citharexyleae (Verbenaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 108: 1982–2001.
The main product of this molecular study is a new infrageneric classification of the genus Citharexlyum (all the Costa Rican representatives of which were sampled). Such esoterica is beyond the pale for us, of course, but we are gratified to see that the oligospecific genus Rehdera, which has sometimes been included in Citharexylum, is resolved as sister to (rather than nested within) the last-mentioned genus, and may thus be defendably maintained as distinct (as it was in Manual Vol. 8).
Gardner, E. M., L. Audi, Q. Zhang, H. Sauquet, A. K. Monro & N. J. C. Zerega. 2021. Phylogenomics of Brosimum (Moraceae) and allied genera, including a revised subgeneric system. Taxon 70: 778–792.
The big news here is that Brosimum has been shown (by this and prior studies) to be paraphyletic with respect to two dispecific, South American genera, Helianthostylis and Trymatococcus. The spp. of the two last-mentioned genera are here summarily and formally transferred to Brosimum, boosting its sp. total from 15 (as indicated in Manual Vol. 6) to 19. The gross geographic range of Brosimum is unaffected.
Grayum, M. H. 2021. (2847) Proposal to conserve the name Anthurium microspadix against A. porrectum (Araceae). Taxon 70: 1364–1365.
The names Anthurium microspadix Schott, A. porrectum Schott, and A. tapinostachyum Schott, all based on Costa Rican material and published simultaneously, have been deemed for more than 40 years to apply to a single, widespread, well-known, and much-collected neotropical sp. During this period, A. microspadix has come to be accepted as the operative name, with A. porrectum and A. tapinostachyum consigned to synonymy thereunder. However, it has recently come to our attention that, way back in 1878, Adolf Engler formally chose Anthurium porrectum in place of A. microspadix, going so far (the following year) as to demote the latter to varietal status under the former. Certainly he was the earliest author to make such a choice (our efforts to debunk that notion have proved fruitless), so according to the Code (ICN Art. 11.5), Anthurium porrectum is the correct name for the sp. in question (the priority of Anthurium tapinostachyum with respect to A. porrectum has not been established, but the former name cannot be used for any sp. that also includes the type of A. microspadix). We view this proposal as a formality, as the establishment of A. microspadix is by now a fait accompli.
Greuter, W. & R. Rankin-Rodríguez. 2021. (2831) Proposal to conserve the name Exostema against Coutarea (Rubiaceae). Taxon 70: 906.
The lumper vs. splitter battles continue: reacting to a recent proposal to cleave off several splinter genera in Rubiaceae tribe Chiococceae Benth. & Hook. f. [see under “Paudyal,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018], these authors instead conclude “that recognition of a single, monophyletic genus is more convenient….” However, they dislike Coutarea, the oldest name, partly because it is potentially confusable with Coussarea (never mind that the two genera have coexisted happily in Rubiaceae for many decades), and partly because its deployment would require 37 new combinations. Thus they advocate for the posterior Exostema, which would necessitate just nine new combinations. Again, we ask: at the rank of genus, why not just ditch priority, in the Code, and instead require adoption of the name that would require the fewest new combinations? That is how most people seem to be operating nowadays. But if that were to happen, of course, we wouldn’t be able to churn out these easy little publications!
Guedes, F. M., A. I. Coan, G. B. Araújo & M. Alves. 2021. The identity of Utricularia trinervia (Lentibulariaceae): taxonomic re-establishment and unpublished descriptions of trap morphology. Taxon 70: 854–865.
This is yet another contribution that, for us, raises more questions than it answers. Utricularia trinervia Benj., which has generally been deemed synonymous with U. amethystina Salz. ex A. St.-Hil. & Girard, is here segregated as a distinct sp., differing most conspicuously in its mainly yellow (vs. purple) flowers. According to specimen citations and a distribution map, U. trinervia occurs in southern Mexico (Chiapas) and Belize, thence disjunctly in eastern Brazil. Utricularia amethystina, according to the same map (no specimens are cited), is restricted to South America (Brazil and the Guianas). So where does that leave the entity dubbed U. amethystina that was ascribed to Costa Rica in the Manual Lentibulariaceae treatment (2007) by Garrett Crow? Based solely on flower coloration, it does indeed match Utricularia amethystina, rather than U. trinervia; however, checking the Manual description against Table 1 of this paper (a morphological comparison of the two spp.) reveals several features that seem more compatible with U. trinervia. So we are in a quandary, and must even consider the possibility that the Costa Rican plants belong to some different sp. altogether, or are part of the reason that U. trinervia has been considered a synonym. Clearly, the matter should have been addressed by these authors, who give no indication of having consulted the Manual at all, and cite very few Mesoamerican specimens (tendencies that we have come to expect of authors based in places like Brazil or Argentina).
Hassemer, G. & R. V. Lansdown. 2021. (2827–2828) Proposals to reject the names Callitriche cruciata and C. ovata (Plantaginaceae). Taxon 70: 902.
Callitriche cruciata Raf. and C. ovata Raf., both long ignored and destitute of any material verifiable as original, were accompanied by diagnoses that narrow their identity to (in each case) either C. heterophylla Pursh or C. palustris L.; the authors found it “imposible” to choose between those two spp. The Rafinesque names pose no threat to Callitriche palustris, but have priority over C. heterophylla (which occurs in Costa Rica), and could replace it if neotypified accordingly. Of course, both Rafinesque names could be neutralized by neotypification on “elements identifiable as the earlier C. palustris,” but for some unspecified reason the authors “consider it more appropriate to have them rejected.”
Hsieh, C.-L, C.-C. Yu, Y.-L. Huang & K.-F. Chung. 2022. Mahonia vs. Berberis unloaded: generic delimitation and infrafamilial classification of Berberidaceae based on plastid phylogenomics. Frontiers Pl. Sci (Online journal) 12(720171): 1–21.
This is the latest salvo in the latest campaign to salvage Mahonia, this time by segregating two pesky, basal clades as mono- or oligospecific genera [for a fuller understanding, see under “Yu,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(2), Apr. 2018]. Not surprisingly, the present sudy, which involves two of the same authors, is interpreted as “confirming” or “supporting” the same stratagem. Different words are used in different places, but actually “supporting” is the correct word—though, according to the cladograms, other classificatory options receive equal support, including a two-genus system (lumping one of the minor genera into Berberis and the other into Mahonia) and (need we say?) the single-genus (Berberis) concept that has become widely accepted and was deployed in the recently publilshed Manual Berberidaceae treatment (2020). Ranking is arbitrary, and this discussion will probably never die. A key (non-indented) to the subfamilies, tribes, and genera of Berberidaceae recognized by these authors is presented near the end of the paper.
Jiménez, J. E., R. Aguilar Fernández & M. A. Blanco. 2021. Two new species of Aristolochia series Thyrsicae (Aristolochiaceae) from southern Central America, with comments on morphologically similar species. Phytotaxa 520: 169–183.
The recent (2020) Manual treatment of Aristolochiaceae included four spp. with provisional names, viz., Aristolochia spp. B–E. Now we have valid binomials for the first two of these: Aristolochia longissima M. A. Blanco, J. E. Jiménez & Aguilar = A. sp. B, while Aristolochia ornithorhyncha J. E. Jiménez, M. A. Blanco & Aguilar = A. sp. C. In addition to the names, of course, we now get much more extensive documentation, including detailed descriptions, comprehensive specimen citations, lengthy discussions, a tabular comparison of these and related spp., a distribution map, and excellent color photographs (three plates!) and composite line drawings. Bravo, gentlemen! Two down, two to go…
Julius, A., J. S. Gutiérrez-Ortega, S. Sabran, S. Tagane, A. Naiki, D. Darnaedi, M. M. Aung, V. S. Dang, N. V. Ngoc, H. T. Binh, Y. Watano, T. M. A. Utteridge & T. Kajita. 2021. Phylogenetic relationship of tropical Asian Ardisia and relatives (Primulaceae) shows non-monophyly of recognized genera and subgenera. J. Jap. Bot. 96: 149–165.
The authors trumpet this study as “by far the most comprehensive phylogenetic investigation among Ardisia and its relatives in tropical Asia,” yet conclude with the inevitable “further investigation…is necessary.” The realization that “sampling many additional species from the Neotropics” (whence the type sp. of Ardisia, which was not included in the study) would be needed seems to have come belatedly. Thus, the conclusions of this study are both tentative and germane mainly to Old World taxa. Just two genera accepted in the Manual Myrsinaceae treatment (2007) are involved here, Ardisia and Hymenandra. The former “was recovered as non-monophyletic and paraphyletic with several other genera sitting within the two major clades,…many of which were formerly treated in Ardisia.” One of those nested genera is Hymenandra—itself “not monophyletic”—the New World spp. of which we indeed learned originally as members of Ardisia. The authors briefly discuss the two usual classificatory options under such circumstances: to lump all the nested genera into Ardisia, yielding “a very large and heterogeneous genus” (we’re all for it!); or to split Ardisia, which itself presents various alternatives [one being the enlargement of Hymenandra to include Ardisia subgen. Pyrgus (Lour.) Mez, with which it groups]. Somewhat of an outlier to all of this is Ardisia subgen. Graphardisia Mez, represented in this study only by A. opegrapha Oerst. (well known in Costa Rica!), which came out as basal to the entire group—and could thus achieve generic status in either the lumping or splitting scenario. However, all of this must be categorized as highly premature speculation.
Karremans, A. P. 2021. With great biodiversity comes great responsibility: the underestimated diversity of Epidendrum (Orchidaceae). Harvard Pap. Bot. 26: 299–369.
Twenty new spp. of Epidendrum are described from Costa Rica and Panama, though all 20 are represented in Costa Rica (18 endemically), boosting our running count of such orchid novelties (published since our first issue) up to 445. Furthermore, five previously described spp. are reported as new to Costa Rica and one to Panama. The new addition to the Panamanian flora comes at the expense of an erstwhile Costa Rican endemic, Epidendrum jorgewarneri Karremans & Hágsater. The 20 spp. new to science (many based on a single collection by author, often from very well-botanized sites such as Monteverde or Cerro de La Muerte) are as follows: Epidendrum aeolicum Karremans [bosque de roble, potreros, ca. 1950–2000 m; vert. Carib. o cerca de la División Continental, N Cord. de Talamanca (Casa Mata); fl. ene.], compared with E. sanchoi Ames; Epidendrum bicentenarium Karremans & Gil-Amaya [bosque nuboso y de roble, orillas de caminos, 1550–1750 m; vert. Carib. y cerca de la División Continental, Cords. de Tilarán (Monteverde) y Central (Vara Blanca); fl. ene., oct.], compared with E. wercklei Schltr.; Epidendrum capitalinum Karremans [bosque nuboso, 1400–1550 m; vert. Carib. o cerca de la División Continental, Cord. Central (vecindad de La Palma); fl. ago.], compared with E. pseudoramosum Schltr.; Epidendrum chespiritorum Karremans (bosque de roble, bosques secundarios, ca. 2400–2800 m; vert. Carib. y cerca de la División Continental, Cord. de Talamanca; fl. ene., abr.–ago.), compared with E. anoglossoides Ames & C. Schweinf.; Epidendrum colibri Karremans (bosque de roble, bosques secundarios, ca. 2150–2550 m; vert. Pac. E Cord. de Talamanca; fl. set.), compared with E. sanchoi; Epidendrum conservatorum Karremans (bosque pluvial, bordes de bosque y potreros, 950–1200 m; vert. Carib. Cord. Central; fl. oct., nov.), compared with E. monophlebium Hágsater; Epidendrum globuliferum Karremans (bosque pluvial y de roble, bordes de bosque y potreros, 1800–2200+ m; ambas verts. Cord. Central; fl. ene.–may.), compared with E. sanchoi; Epidendrum iricolor Karremans [bosque de roble, bosques primarios y orillas de ríos; 2400–2550 m; vert. Carib. E Cord. de Talamanca (Valle del Silencio); fl. may., set., nov.]; Epidendrum manta-birostris Karremans [páramo, ca. 3000–3050 m; vert. Carib. o cerca de la División Continental, E Cord. de Talamanca (Cerros Utyum); fl. ene.], compared with E. atrorugosum Hágsater; Epidendrum miriamiae Karremans [bosque de roble, bosques secundarios, 2500–2550 m; vert. Carib. N Cord. de Talamanca (Madreselva); fl. jun.]; Epidendrum nativitatis Karremans [bosque muy húmedo, bordes de bosque, ca. 700–750 m; vert. Carib. Cord. de Guanacaste (Volcán Tenorio); fl. dic.], compared with E. villegastigma Hágsater & García-Cruz; Epidendrum rossanae Karremans [bosque muy húmedo y pluvial, potreros, 1100–1500+ m; vert. Carib. y cerca de la División Continental, Cord. Central (Volcán Turrialba), Cerros de La Carpintera, Valle Central; fl. feb., jun.], compared with E. piliferum Rchb. f.; Epidendrum rudolfii Karremans (bosque de roble, ca. 2750 m; vert. Carib. vert. Pac. o cerca de la División Continental, Cord. de Talamanca; fl. mar., jun.), compared with E. elcimeyae Hágsater & García-Cruz; Epidendrum saltatrix Karremans (bosque de roble, ca. 2600–2750+ m; vert. Pac. o cerca de la División Continental, Cord. de Talamanca; fl. jun.), compared with E. sanchoi; Epidendrum santaelenae Karremans [bosque pluvial y nuboso, 1400–1600+ m; vert. Pac. Cord. de Tilarán (vecindad de Monteverde); fl. oct., nov.], compared with E. monophlebium; Epidendrum sidereum Karremans (bosque de roble, 2600–2850 m; vert. Carib. o cerca de la División Continental, E Cord. de Talamanca, vert. Pac. o cerca de la División Continental, N Cord. de Talamanca; fl. jun.), compared with E. sanchoi; Epidendrum sinac Karremans [bosque de roble, 2600–2850 m; ambas verts. Cord. Central (Volcán Barva); fl. oct.], compared with E. anoglossoides; Epidendrum spiculiferum Karremans & Bogarín (bosque de roble, 1850–2050 m; ambas verts. E Cord. de Talamanca; fl. abr.), compared with E. lancilabium Schltr.; Epidendrum usurpator Karremans (bosque muy húmedo y pluvial, bosques secundarios y bordes de bosque, ca. 550–1300 m; ambas verts. Cord. de Tilarán; fl. ene., oct.–dic.), compared with E. bilobatum Ames; and Epidendrum utyumii Karremans (bosque de roble y páramo, 2600–3050 m; vert. Carib. y cerca de la División Continental, E Cord. de Talamanca, vert. Pac. y cerca de la División Continental, N Cord. de Talamanca; fl. ene., mar., set., nov.), compared with E. sanchoi. Several of these novelties were segregated from more expansive sp. concepts, e.g., Epidendrum chespiritorum (from E anoglossoides), E. conservatorum (from E. rugosum Ames), and E. globuliferum (from E. microcardium Schltr., under which its heterotypic synonym, E. sanchoi var. exasperatum Ames & C. Schweinf., was cited in the Manual). Two of the spp. in the foregoing list, Epidendrum iricolor [the basis for a here-debunked report of E. unicallosum Hagsater & E. Santiago (with which both this and the following sp. are compared) from Costa Rica; see under “Díaz-Morales,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(4), Oct. 2016] and E. miriamiae (corrected by us from “miriamae”), would have been treated under Oerstedella when the Manual Orchidaceae volume was published (2003). Just two of the new spp., Epidendrum chespiritorum and E. rudolfii, extend into westernmost Panama. Five previously described spp. are officially reported from Costa Rica for the first time: Epidendrum bugabense Hágsater [bosque de roble, 2550–2600 m; vert. Carib. E Cord. de Talamanca (Valle del Silencio); fl. set.], formerly deemed endemic to western Panama; E. cymbiglossum Hágsater (bosque de roble, bosques secundarios, 2050–2200 m; vert. Pac. E Cord. de Talamanca; fl. ene., abr.), previously known only from westernmost Panama; E. gymnochlamys Hágsater & E. Santiago (bosque de roble, bosques secundarios, 2700–2750 m; vert. Pac. E Cord. de Talamanca; fl. ene.), also encroaching from western Panama; E. longibracteatum Hágsater [bosque pluvial, bosques primarios y bordes de bosque, ca. 1500–1550 m; vert. Pac. E Cord. de Talamanca (región de Coto Brus); fl. ago.], yet another predictable interloper from neighboring Panama; and E. vexillium Hágsater [bosque muy húmedo, potreros, 700–750 m; vert. Carib. Cord. de Guanacaste (Volcán Tenorio); fl. dic.], formerly known (couterintuitively) only from Panama and Colombia. And finally: the following spp., though already recorded from Costa Rica and formally treated in the Manual, are here reappraised and (in some cases) reimagined: Epidendrum atrorugosum, E. microcardium, E. rugosum, E. sanchoi, and E. wercklei. All of the spp. described as new or discussed are illustrated (mostly with color photos from life).
Larridon, I., A. R. Zuntini, R. L. Barrett, K. L. Wilson, J. J. Bruhl, P. Goetghebeur, W. J. Baker, G. E. Brewer, N. Epitawalage, I. Fairlie, F. Forest, I. A. B. S. Kikuchi, L. Pokorny, I. Semmouri, D. Spalink, D. A. Simpson, A. M. Muasya & E. H. Roalson. 2021. Resolving generic limits in Cyperaceae tribe Abildgaardieae using targeted sequencing. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 196: 163–187.
Another paper in which the by-line is longer than the title. Business as usual, these days. The conclusions are not terribly earth-shattering, at least from our narrow perspective. Although it is apparently sister to Fimbristylis (in which it has sometimes been included), the genus Abildgaardia is recognized as distinct by these authors (with the transfer of a single Asian sp. recently described in Fimbristylis). This seems a bit risky, as only about 8% of the spp in Abildgaardia + Fimbristylis were sampled (what if others should prove variously nested?). Still, it is fine by us, because Abildgaardia (with a single sp. in Costa Rica) was accepted in the Manual Cyperaceae treatment (2003) by the late Jorge Gómez-Laurito. This study also supports the inclusion of the small (8 spp.), African genus Nemum in Bulbostylis [see under “Roalson,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018] and the monospecific, Australian genus Crosslandia in Fimbristylis, as well as the segregation of two African spp. “previously placed in Fimbristylis” into a new segregate genus. The Manual sp. totals for Bulbostylis and Fimbristylis may be adjusted accordingly. A key to the genera of Cyperaceae tribe Abildgaardieae Lye is provided, and all the necessary new combinations (none pertinent to Costa Rica) are validated.
Lehnert, M., A. Tejedor, W. D. Rodríguez Duque & L. F. Giraldo Gallego. 2021. The scaly tree ferns allied to Cyathea multiflora (Cyatheaceae) in Colombia and neighboring countries. Amer. Fern J. 111: 251–307.
As indicated in the title, this study is peripheral to our area of interest, and in fact has few if any repercussions for Costa Rican floristics. Included is a key (dichotomous and indented, at the end of the paper) to the “species of Cyathea with hemitelioid indusia and bipinnate-pinnatifid leaves” in the authors’ realm, together with sp. entries (in alphabetical order) featuring synonymy and typology, technical descriptions, distribution summaries, and specimen citations. There are no indices. Six new spp. are described, but none reaches Costa Rica. Among the 13 spp. treated in full, just three occur in Tiquicia: Cyathea acutidens (Christ) Domin, C. multiflora Sm. (newly shorn of some South American elements), and C. pinnula (Christ) Domin. However, at least two other Costa Rican representatives, Cyathea holdridgeana Nisman & L. D. Gómez and C. squamulosa (I. Losch) R. C. Moran, are included in the key. Distribution maps are provided, along with line drawings and/or color photos of each sp.
Lima dos Santos, L., F. Forest, D. F. Lima, M. F. Sales, T. N. Vasconcelos, V. G. Staggemeier & E. Lucas. 2021. Phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis in Myrcia sect. Myrcia (Myrcia s.l., Myrtaceae) with focus on highly polyphyletic Mycria splendens. Int. J. Pl. Sci. 182: 778–792.
In addition to the widespread and variable Myrcia splendens (Sw.) DC., the autonymic section of Myrcia includes at three other spp. that occur in Costa Rica and were represented in this study: M. coumete (Aubl.) DC., M. paivae O. Berg, and M. sylvatica (G. Mey.) DC. According to the cladograms in this paper, the 12 accessions of M. splendens (including two from Costa Rica) crop up across the board, some in close association with all of the other aforementioned spp. So, what does it mean for a sp. to be “polyphyletic”? Were some of the samples merely misdetermined? On whose authority were the accessions identified? Or do some “morphotypes” presently included in M. splendens merit sp. rank? Myrcia coumete and M. paivae were each represented by a single accession; maybe, with more, those would appear polyphyletic as well! This study raises many questions and answers virtually none; if anything, it makes a strong case that taxonomy must be well understood before phylogeny can be meaningfully investigated. This paper puts the cart before the horse!
Lobo Cabezas, S. 2021. Three new records of Poaceae for Costa Rica. Phytoneuron 2021-63: 1–3.
Two of these three new records involve very widespread, ruderal spp. that had just never popped up in Costa Rica (although both have been found in Nicaragua and Panama): Bothriochloa bladhii (Retz.) S. T. Blake (here documented as occurring at 0–50+ m elevation near Bagaces and in the Valle de Diquís) and Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. (at ca. 600 m elevation on the Atlantic slope of the Cordillera Central). The third addition to the Costa Rican flora, Enteropogonopsis chloridea (J. Presl) Wipff & R. B. Shaw [in Flora mesoamericana (1994) as Enteropogon chlorideus (J. Presl) Clayton, and more recently as Tetrapogon chlorideus (J. Presl) P. M. Peterson], is restricted to the Neotropics, from the southeastern United States to Nicaragua (now Costa Rica), and disjunctly in Venezuela; the sole Costa Rican record hails from 0–100 m elevation on the Península de Nicoya. The three spp. of Bothriochloa now known from Costa Rica are distinguished in a dichotomous key, but no such identification aids are provided for Enteropogonopsis or Panicum; however, Costa Rican herbarium vouchers for all three new records are depicted in (rather reduced) color photos. Incidentally: according to the online CR database, one of the vouchers for Bothriochloa bladhii, “Lobo et al. 2864,” is miscited (should be 2846).
Lu-Irving, P., A. M. Bedoya, F. R. G. Salimena, T. R. S. Silva, L. F. Viccini, C. Bitencourt, V. A. Thode, P. H. Cardoso, N. O’Leary & R. G. Olmstead. 2021. Phylogeny of Lantana, Lippia, and related genera (Lantaneae: Verbenaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 108: 1354–1373.
At least in terms of our personal interests, this study does not appear to progress far beyond an earlier one involving two of the same authors [see under “Lu-Irving,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(2), Apr. 2013], the results of which were summarized (mainly in the Lantana genus discussion) in the Manual Verbenaceae treatment (2015). To reiterate: neither Lantana (ca. 100 spp., with fleshy or leathery fruits) nor Lippia (ca. 120–150 spp., with dry fruits) is monophyletic, fleshy fruits having evolved multiple times within the group. Moreover, Aloysia (in part) and Phyla are also nested among these elements. The authors lament that a taxonomic revision of this group, according to the dictates of the Code, “will require extensive changes, regardless of how genera are circumscribed.” They also note that “the types [sic] species of Lantana and Lippia occur in small sister clades, rendering any taxonomy that retains either genus similar to its current circumscription imposible.” With all of that said, they indicate that they “are currently preparing a taxonomic revision” (we can’t wait!), and briefly discuss “two contrasting approaches” they have considered. These are, of course, the usual “splitting” and “lumping” scenarios. The “splitting” approach “would require that several small clades be recognized as genera, many without clear defining traits.” The authors also point out that, if retaining the genus names Lantana and Lippia is a prime motivation for splitting, the genera bearing those names would themselves be small, and “most species currently placed in each genus would need to be assigned to…numerous new genera of dubious usefulness to field botanists.” With that in mind, these authors recommend the “lumping” option, i.e., “absorbing most, if not all of [the spp. in the Lantana/Lippia clade] into an expanded Lantana or Lippia.” But this approach entails a prickly nomenclatural problem, i.e., that the two last-mentioned genus names, both well-known and long-established, have equal priority (1753)! The authors suggest that “Lantana is perhaps the more widely recognized name, due to the number of widely cultivated species,” but allow that “keeping Lippia would require fewer name changes.” So we don’t yet know where they may be headed in that regard (and the possibility that some prior author may already have chosen one name over the other is not addressed). “A third compromise option” is also mentioned, i.e., to recognize a handful of small genera (Phyla survives in this scenario), while classifying the bulk of the clade “into a single large Lippia or Lantana.” This paper for us is kind of a teaser, and we eagerly await the formal resolution of this problema!
Mabberley, D. J. 2021. The Latin name for Assam tea revisited and the further nomenclatural significance of the three editions of Julius Bosse’s Vollständiges Handbuch der Blumengärtnerei – and contemporary compendia. Taxon 70: 1352–1359.
Although we are uncertain as to which of the titular categories it falls under, the sole nomenclatural adjustment resulting from this bibliographic investigation that impacts Costa Rican floristics involves the authorship of the name Maclura tinctoria (Moraceae). This was presented in Manual Vol. 6 (2007) as follows: “Maclura tinctoria (L.) D. Don, en Steud., Nomencl. Bot. ed. 2 2: 87. 1841.” However, that version now becomes an isonym, as Mabberley has discovered (and we concur) that the same combination was published more than a decade earlier, viz.: Maclura tinctoria (L.) D. Don ex G. Don, en Loudon, Hort. brit. ed. 1 380. 1830. Annotate your copies!
Matos, F. B., J. Lóriga & R. C. Moran. 2021. Monograph of Elaphoglossum sect. Polytrichia subsect. Apoda (Dryopteridaceae). Syst. Bot. 46: 764–789.
Thirteen spp. are recognized in the titular subsection, which is “usually characterized by the presence of brightly colored stem scales…, evenly distributed subulate scales on laminar surfaces, tiny glandular hairs on different parts of the leaves, and adult sterile leaves without hydathodes.” This exclusively neotropical taxon includes six spp. attributable to Costa Rica: Elaphoglossum alvaradoanum A. Rojas (endemic to Isla del Coco), E. auripilum Christ, E. backhouseanum T. Moore, E. latum (Mickel) Atehortúa ex Mickel, E. longipilosum (Atehortúa ex Mickel) A. Rojas, and the endemic E. pendulum A. Rojas. Dealt with separately at the end, under the heading “Doubtful Species, Excluded Names, and Putative Hybrids,” are Elaphoglossum ×morphohybridum A. Rojas (known only from Isla del Coco), a putative hybrid supposed to involve E. alvaradoanum and a sp. belonging to a different group; and E. siliquoides (Jenman) C. Chr., which occurs in Costa Rica and was originally assigned to subsect. Apoda, but is here excluded. This is a standard revision featuring a dichotomous, indented key to spp., synonymy and typology, technical sp. descriptions (though none for any higher taxa), distribution summaries, “notes,” representative specimen citations, and an index to exsiccatae (though none for scientific names). The introductory portion addresses taxonomic history, phylogeny, and morphology (particularly of spores, which are illustrated). Distribution maps are provided, along with color photos from life (of selected spp.) and composite line drawings (for all spp.), the latter annoyingly bunched together just before the key. The lone taxonomic novelty does not pertain to Costa Rica.
Moroni, P., J. S. Miller, M. G. Nadra & N. O’Leary. 2021. Nomenclatural notes and typifications of Cordiaceae names from the Flora of Argentina. Novon 29: 274–278.
An exotic “second-step” lectotypification of Varronia dichotoma Ruiz & Pav. (Boraginaceae, in the Manual) is the only item here pertinent to Costa Rica. Moving right along…
Prado, J. & J. Lendemer. 2021. Guidelines for the preliminary evaluation of general nomenclature manuscripts submitted to Taxon. Taxon 70: 1327–1328.
The Code sagely suggests that “Designation of a lectotype should be undertaken only in the light of an understanding of the group concerned” (ICN Rec. 9A.2). We take this to mean that typifications in general should be undertaken principally by monographers, during the course of taxonomic revisions, and published in the revisions themselves. In recent years, however, gratuitous typification by generalist workers has exploded, fueled in part (we suspect) by the ready availability of type images on the Internet (meaning that, in many cases, actual specimens are not even seen). It would appear from this article that the journal Taxon is now taking steps to stem this flow, which we see as a positive development (and we hope that other journals will follow suit). In support of our view, we will cite an actual example of a dubious typification decision made by a poorly informed individual. That individual was the late Richard A. Howard, an experienced and respected plant taxonomist, but one who was not particularly knowledgeable about the family Araceae. In a 1979 paper (J. Arnold Arbor. 60: 272–289), Howard suggested a Plumier plate (comprising original material) as a potential lectotype for Arum lingulatum L., pending "comparative study with the specimen in the Linnaean Herbarium (1079.17)." Quite unbeknownst to Howard, the Linnaean name had been based on elements representing two distinct spp., both now assigned to Philodendron subgen. Pteromischum (Schott) Mayo, but otherwise not closely related (belonging to different sections). Shortly thereafter, in his Flora of the Lesser Antilles (Vol. 3), Howard fixed the application of Arum lingulatum by citing the Plumier plate as the lectotype, without further comment. Whether Howard ever had the opportunity to examine the specimen in the Linnaean Herbarium was not revealed, but if he did, and had possessed "an understanding of the group concerned," he'd have realized that it represents a very different sp. from the one depicted by Plumier. No particular harm was done in this case—a coin flip might just as well have settled the issue—but it does shine a light on the potential for ham-handed bungling by meddling non-specialists indulging recklessly in miscellaneous typifications.
Pruski, J. F. 2021. Studies of Neotropical Compositae–XV. The new genus Chaetacalia, retention of Aetheolaena, Culcitium, Haplosticha, and Iocenes, two new species of Senecio, and Lasiocephalus revisited again (Senecioneae: Senecioninae). Phytoneuron 2021-65: 1–83.
This miscellany is restricted to South American taxa, but it makes our cut due to the inclusion (for comparative purposes) of a color photo (the first ever published?) of the Costa Rican páramo endemic Senecio hansweberi Cuatrec. (who knew it was semiaquatic?), taken by the author on Cerro Chirripó (see p. 57). One question: why is this photo not posted in TROPICOS?
Rodríguez, A. 2021. Una nueva especie de Simsia (Asteraceae: Heliantheae) de Costa Rica. Phytoneuron 2021-56: 1–8.
So now we have a valid name, Simsia lupo Al. Rodr., for the sp. dubbed “Simsia sp. A” in the recent Manual Asteraceae treatment by the author of this paper. As indicated in the Manual, this entity is a Costa Rican endemic that is essentially restricted to the Península de Santa Elena and the adjacent Islas Murciélago (one of them, anyway), in the northwestern corner of the country. Previously, collections of the new sp. (most of which have accrued since 2003) have been subsumed in an inclusive concept of Simsia santarosensis D. M. Spooner; ironically, the last-mentioned sp. is now restricted to the Río Tempisque basin, and does not occur (or has not yet been found) in Parque Nacional Santa Rosa (its epithet having been contributed by a paratype now consigned to S. lupo). The new sp. is depicted in a composite line drawing and color photos from life, and a distribution map is provided. Its unusual epithet, explicitly a noun in apposition, honors the venerable, Santa Rosa-based parataxonomist Roberto Espinoza, known to one and all as “Lupo.”
Romero-González, G. A., G. Carnevali Fernández-Concha, C. M. Burelo Ramos & M. A. González. 2021. New reports of Galeandra (Orchidaceae) from Mexico. Harvard Pap. Bot. 26: 371–401.
This contribution is rather more than its title suggests, bursting at the seams with illustrations (including line drawings and color photos and plates) and providing extensive treatments of the few spp. considered, along with an appraisal of important characters in Galeandra and a dichotomous key to its four Mexican representatives. For Costa Rica, it all boils down to this: Galeandra arundinis G. A. Romero & Garay, based on Costa Rican material and published after the Manual Orchidaceae treatment [see The Cutting Edge 13(3): 11–12, Jul. 2006], does not equate to a new (third) Galeandra sp. for the Costa Rican flora, as we (and perhaps its authors, initially) had imagined; rather, it simply replaces Galeandra batemanii Rolfe, which name had been misapplied to Central American material in the Manual (and elsewhere). According to these authors, the real G. batemanii is restricted to southern Mexico (and “expected in Guatemala”), while G. arundinis ranges from southern Mexico to westernmost Panama (Prov. Bocas del Toro). Annotate your copy! In addition to the aforementioned illustrations (which, frankly, are excessive), we get (for G. arundinis) synonymy and typology, a paragraph on “Field and herbarium recognition,” distribution and phenology summaries, specimen citations, and a conservation assessment and discussion.
Santamaría-Aguilar, D., I. M. Coronado, R. L. Liesner & A. K. Monro. 2021. A new species of Carpotroche (Achariaceae) from Honduras and Nicaragua. Harvard Pap. Bot. 26: 455–469.
Most standard floras have recognized just two spp. of the genus Carpotroche in the Mesoamerican region: C. platypytera Pittier, and the largely South American C. longifolia (Poepp.) Benth., which extends to central Panama. The former was the only Costa Rican representative, according to the Manual treatment (2010) of the genus (under Flacourtiaceae) by José González, who alluded to its “gran variación.” The authors of this paper have set out to partition that variation among distinct taxonomic entities which they rank (or may plan to rank) as spp. The new sp. of the title is of no particular interest to us, as its Nicaraguan occurrence is limited to the northernmost tier of that country. However, the authors grant formal taxonomic recognition to three Carpotroche spp. in Costa Rica, all with previously published names: Carpotroche crassiramea Pittier and C. glaucescens Pittier (both of which were synonymized under C. platyptera, in the Manual and elsewhere), plus C. platyptera sensu stricto. Because this is not a formal taxonomic revision, the specimen citations are not comprehensive, and overall geographic ranges are not indicated; therefore, we cannot elaborate on that, except to say that C. platyptera sensu stricto, at least, is not endemic to Costa Rica (it extends northward to southernmost Nicaragua, and conceivably southward as well). Based on the specimens cited, the Costa Rican distributions of these three entities may be expressed (in Manualese) as according to the following passage. Carpotroche crassiramea: bosque húmedo y muy húmedo, 0–850+ m; vert. Carib. Cord. de Talamanca, Llanura de Tortuguero (P.N. Tortuguero), vecindad de Puerto Limón, Baja Talamanca; fl. may.; C. glaucescens: bosque húmedo y muy húmedo, 0–450(–700) m; vert. Carib. Cord. Central, N Cord. de Talamanca, Llanuras de San Carlos y de Tortuguero, Baja Talamanca; fl. ene.; C. platyptera sensu stricto: bosque húmedo y muy húmedo, 0–450(–800+) m; vert. Carib. N Cord. de Talamanca, Llanuras de Los Guatusos, de San Carlos y de Santa Clara; fl.(?). Those in the know may have noticed the absence of any “vert. Pac.” regions in the foregoing accounts. This is because the authors consider that populations from the Pacific slope of Costa Rica, along with some from the “Caribbean slopes…(e.g., Hitoy-Cerere, Uatsi, Suretka) and Panama (El Llano-Cartí road) require further study.” We will not be at all surprised if at least some of those populations are also eventually anointed as distinct spp., which could raise the Costa Rican sp. total for Carptroche to as many as five! Our only question would be: are these authors really discriminating spp., or merely regional morphological differentiation, that may be unaccompanied by reproductive isolation? We may never know. A partial disrtibution map is provided, and Carpotroche crassiramea, C. glaucescens, C. platyptera, and the new sp. are all included in a “preliminary” key to Mesoamerican Carpotroche spp. and abundantly illustrated (mainly with color photos from life); C. longifolia is scarcely featured in any of this, because the authors were unable to locate “physical specimens from Panama.”
Shaikh, T., R. Ghalme & G. Potdar. 2022. Typifications in the genus Dichanthium (Andropogoneae: Poaceae). Phytotaxa 530: 103–110.
Among other things (that do not concern us), the basionym of Dichanthium aristatum (Poir.) C. E. Hubb.—an Asian weed sparingly naturalized in Costa Rica—is lectotypified, on a specimen of which the authors have evidently seen only an image. SCIENCE!!!
Silva, F. A., N. P. Taylor & D. C. Zappi. 2021. Superseding the type of Mendoncia (Acanthaceae) with a species from eastern Brazil. Taxon 70: 875–879.
Here it is established that, while the author of the genus name Mendoncia did not publish any sp. names, he only had access to material from eastern Brazil. On that basis, the generic type sp. is changed from the Peruvian Mendoncia aspera Ruiz & Pav. to M. velloziana Mart., of eastern Brazil. More ominous and potentially significant, from our perspective, is the authors’ implication that Mendoncia, as we know it, could soon find istelf on the chopping block (“its phylogeny is being revealed”)—evidently a prime motivation for this paper.
Sundue, M. 2021. Rebuttal to: (100) Request for a binding decision on whether the names Parisia Broth. (Dicranaceae) and Parrisia Shalisko & Sundue (Polypodiaceae) are sufficiently alike to be confused. Taxon 70: 1376–1377.
The genus name Parisia (1906) applies to a bryophyte, while its quasi-Doppelgänger Parrisia (2019) was created for a fern, one of the myriad technical segregates of Grammitis [see under “Shalisko,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(2), Apr. 2019]. The rebutted proposal (which we seem to have missed) was inevitable. While we would be thrilled to see all of these Grammitis segregates disappear, and think that the authors of Parrisia should have foreseen this development, we find ourselves in agreement with their rebuttal: the two genus names are not homonyms, and were named for different individuals with differently spelled last names (the argument goes on, but that for us is enough). Anyone likely to be confused by something like this has no future in plant taxonomy. The Costa Rica connection here, by the way, is that one of the two Parrisia spp. occurs in the country.
Sylvester, S. P., R. J. Soreng & L. J. Gillespie. 2021. Resolving páramo Poa (Poaceae): morphometric and phylogenetic analysis of the ‘Cucullata complex’ of north-west South America. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 197: 104–146.
The titular complex is represented in Costa Rica by just two spp., Poa chirripoensis R. W. Pohl and P. talamancae R. W. Pohl, but only the former is included in this study (presumably because it alone extends to South America). Somewhat disturbingly, the published cladogram shows P. chirripoensis as nested within the Venezuelan P. petrosa Swallen, a result that the authors chalk up to “low taxon sampling” (why do they even publish this stuff?). For whatever it may be worth, we get a key (non-indented) to the studied spp., as well as an updated description (and photographic images) of P. chirripoensis. The authors continue to ignore an Ecuadorian specimen determined (in TROPICOS) as P. chirripoensis by one of their own.
Taylor, C. M. & A. Berger. 2021. Rubiacearum americanarum magna hama pars XLIX: overview of the Neotropical genus Tournefortiopsis (Guettardeae), with some new species and subspecies. Novon 29: 227–265.
Although the separation of Tournefortiopsis from Guettarda had already been suggested by a molecular study and, indeed, implemented nomenclaturally [see The Cutting Edge 16(3): 3, Jul. 2009] well before the publication of the Manual Rubiaceae treatment (2014), the affected spp. were retained in Guettarda in the Manual pending “más datos.” The present paper, helmed by the principal author of the Manual Guettarda treatment, accepts Tournefortiopsis as distinct and fortifies its circumscription, so we may presume that the requisite “datos” have accrued. Two spp. now referable to the genus Tournefortiopsis were accepted in the Manual, under the names Guettarda crispiflora Vahl (with three subspp. in Costa Rica) and G. tournefortiopsis Standl. This new treatment accepts a total of 12 spp. in Tournefortiopsis, ranging from Guatemala to Bolivia and Venezuela, Trinidad, and the Lesser Antilles. The Costa Rican sp. total is increased by one with the recognition of Tournefortiopsis conferta (Benth.) Borhidi [synonymized under Guettarda crispiflora subsp. sabiceoides (Standl.) C. M. Taylor in the Manual], endemic to Isla del Coco. Otherwise, Guettarda crispiflora [now Tournefortiopsis crispiflora (Vahl)] Borhidi] is maintained as distinct, as is G. tournefortiopsis (which must now be called Tournefortiopsis reticulata Rusby). So far, so good, but difficulties arise with the infraspecific classification of Tournefortiopsis crispiflora, which has been radically reimagined. Four subspp. are now recognized (vs. five previously), but although three remain attributable to Costa Rica, their names and circumscriptions have changed. Just one of the original three, now Tournefortiopsis crispiflora subsp. poasana (Standl.) C. M. Taylor (comb. nov.), emerges unscathed, and still qualifies as a Costa Rican endemic. The other two subspp. of Guettarda crispiflora distinguished in the Manual, G. c. subsp. cobanensis (Donn. Sm.) C. M. Taylor and G. c. subsp. sabiceoides, seem to have been thrown back in the hat, shaken well, and pulled out as three completely different rabbits: Tournefortiopsis conferta, mentioned previously; T. crispiflora subsp. delicatula C. M. Taylor & A. C. Berger, described as new, ranging from Costa Rica to western Colombia; and T. c. subsp. discolor (Rusby) A. C. Berger & C. M. Taylor (comb. nov.), which “includes most of the plants of this species and is found through most of its range” (including Costa Rica, as we were able to establish with some difficulty). The authors acknowledge that T. c. subsp. delicatula was included in Guettarda crispiflora subsp. sabiceoides in the Manual, and the same is partly true of T. c. subsp. discolor: recent determinations in TROPICOS confirm that the last-mentioned taxon now includes the Manual vouchers for both G. c. subsp. cobanensis and G. c. subsp. sabiceoides. Furthermore, the names Guettarda crispiflora subsp. cobanensis and G. chiriquensis Standl. (the latter synonymized under G. crispiflora subsp. sabiceoides in the Manual) are both cited as synonyms of Tournefortiopsis crispiflora subsp. discolor in this new system. To summarize: with respect to their usages in the Manual, Guettarda crispiflora subsp. cobanensis is now subsumed within Tournefortiopsis crispiflora subsp. discolor; G. c. subsp. poasensis remains intact (as T. c. subsp. poasensis); and G. c. subsp. sabiceoides contributes elements to T. conferta, T. crispiflora subsp. delicatula, and T. crispiflora subsp. discolor. And by the way, the name Guettarda crispiflora subsp. sabiceoides (along with its homotypic synonyms) is now synonymized under Tournefortiopsis dependens (Ruiz & Pav.) Borhidi, a sp. restricted to Andean South America! One can only hope that the various keys provided in this paper will suffice to straighten all of this out. In addition to those keys (all dichotomous and indented), this self-described “overview” includes a technical description of Tournefortiopsis, synonymy and typology, distribution summaries, generally extensive “notes,” and a section on “Excluded Species.” There are no indices. The well-illustrated introductory portion is heavy on taxonomic history and morphology. Four new spp. are described, but these do not concern us.
Tippery, N. P., D. H. Les, K. J. Appenroth, K. S. Sree, D. J. Crawford & M. Bog. 2021. Lemnaceae and Orontiaceae are phylogenetically and morphologically distinct from Araceae. Plants 10(2639): 1–20.
This article, published in some on-line journal that we have never heard of, embodies the inevitable splitters’ response to the proposed lumping of a long-cherished family. In this case, the authors’ desire is to salvage Lemnaceae, now generally accepted as a subfamily of Araceae, by segregating the temperate genera Gymnostachys, Lysichiton, Orontium, and Symplocarpus into a third family, Orontiaceae. While that stratagem is cladistically tenable, and the authors present many good arguments, we would contend that this horse is already too long out of the barn. The case should have been made a few decades ago. At this stage of the game, to reverse course would only compound the nomenclatural instability these authors seek to undo. And if they were to accomplish their goal, one could then argue that Monsteroideae and Pothoideae (the basal subfamilies of Araceae sans Lemnaceae and Orontiaceae) were “phylogenetically and morphologically distinct.” Down tumbles the entire card house! As usual, it all boils down to this: relationships are more important than differences (RIP Bob Thorne).
Welker, C. A. D., J. Prado, E. A. Kellogg & K. N. Gandhi. 2021. Clarifying the type of the polyphyletic genus Schizachyrium (Poaceae: Andropogoneae). Kew Bull. 76: 327–331.
The bad news is communicated in the title: Schizachyrium, a moderately sizeable (ca. 70 spp.), cosmopolitan genus, is polyphletic, comprised of “at least three distinct lineages, two of them closely related to species of Andropogon, which is also polyphyletic.” The authors expect “many changes…in the generic circumscription of this group in coming years.” To us old-timers, Schizachyrium has never been more than a sketchy segregate of Andropogon, so we’re hoping for a return to something approaching the old, more inclusive concept of the latter genus. To that (or whatever) end, these authors conclude that the correct type of Schizachyrium is S. condensatum (Kunth) Nees (based on Andropogon condensatus Kunth), which at least applies to a New World sp. (that may even occur in Costa Rica).
Wilson, K. L. 2021. Report of the General Committee: 22. Taxon 70: 1360–1362.
Sometimes these nomenclatural decisions move forward at a glacial pace. Here several really ancient proposals are ruled upon, two of passing interest to us. The first concerns several sp. names that were mistakenly published twice: by Bonpland (1808) in the genus Hebeandra, and later by Kunth (in Humboldt, Bonpland & Kunth, 1823) in Monnina. In our review of the original proposal [see The Cutting Edge 4(1): 5, Jan. 1997], we worried that “unless this proposal is recommended, our familiar Monnina xalapensis Kunth will have to be called M. evonymoides Schltdl.” The proposal is, in fact, rejected, but the point is now moot for us, as the name Monnina xalapensis proved to have been misapplied to Costa Rican material, and was not used at all in the Manual Polygalaceae treatment (2014). The second relevant (to us) proposal, to conserve Wulffia against Tilesia [see The Cutting Edge 7(4): 6, Oct. 2000], is also rejected, which suits us because Tilesia was the name used in the recently published (2020) Manual Asteraceae treatment (and also in Flora mesoamericana).
Wood, J. R. I. & R. Clegg. 2021. Jacquemontia (Convolvulaceae) in Bolivia and Peru. Kew Bull. 76: 375–420.
First off, let us be the among the first to congratulate the editors of Kew Bulletin for returning to a more conventional and sensible system of pagination. May the editors of several other journals soon follow suit (Flora and Plant Systematics and Evolution, we’re talking to you!). This article alerts us belatedly to a significant recent development in Convolvulaceae that we had overlooked: the sp. treated as Convolvulus nodiflorus Desr. in the Manual (as well as Flora mesoamericana) can now be assigned unequivocally (on the basis of several molecular studes) to the genus Jacquemontia. We were aware of the usage of the name Jacquemontia nodiflora (Desr.) G. Don by certain parties [see under “Wood,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(3), Jul. 2015], but now we understand the rationale and will adopt the change. With the lectotypification craze still going strong, just about any floristic or revisionary paper dealing with a neotropical taxon is bound to impact Costa Rica in some minor way, and this one is no exception. Thus, we inherit newly designated lectotypes for two synonyms of Jacquemontia evolvuloides (Moric.) Meisn [i.e., J. agrestis Mart. ex Choisy) Meisn. of the Manual], one synonym of J. nodiflora, and three synonyms (one illegitimate) of J. pentanthos (Jacq.) G. Don. Fascinating stuff!
TOP
|
|
