Family List (MO) |
Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments |
The Cutting Edge
Volume XXVIII, Number 2, April 2021
News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature |
Season's Pick | Annotate your copy
Aguilar-Sandí, D. 2021. Correction of the name Hymenaea osanigraseminae (Detarioideae, Leguminosae). Phytotaxa 491: 92.
A few years back, three of our Costa Rican colleagues described a new sp. of Hymenaea (Fabaceae) from the Pacific slope of Costa Rica [see under "Aguilar Fernández," this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(2), Apr. 2018], but tried to cram too much information into its epithet, resulting in the atrocity addressed in this new paper. The present author proposes a well-considered "correction," Hymenaea osae-nigriseminum Aguilar, Poveda & D. Santam. (preserving, of course, the original authorship). This actually roils the waters even more. While we do not take issue with the author's Latin, we wonder whether any sort of correction is mandated by the Code, in this case, and question in particular the insertion of a hyphen. With regard to orthography, the Code waffles all over the map, from stating that "epithets may even be proposed arbitrarily" (ICN Art. 23.2) to condoning "the correction of typographical or orthographical errors" (Art. 60.1), while specifying the types of corrections to be made in certain situations (though not, as far as we can tell, any of those presented by the example under consideration). This terrain has always been challenging to negotiate. In terms of hyphens, Art. 60.11 makes it clear that one would be permitted in the epithet "osae-nigriseminum"; however, a hyphen was not used in the original version, and the Code examples of epithets in which a hyphen is to be inserted (Ex. 42) are limited to those published as two separate words. So how to proceed? With the Manual Fabaceae treatment water under the bridge, we have the luxury of leaving this problem to future workers (Flora mesoamericana?). But regardless of which spelling prevails, the sp. in question will forever be saddled with a ghastly abomination of a name (encumbered by three authors, to boot). Surely it deserved far better! And since it is not even confined to the Osa region, we cannot fathom why its authors were at such pains to incorporate that datum into the epithet.
Almeida, R. F. & C. van den Berg. 2021. Molecular phylogeny and character mapping support generic adjustments in the Tetrapteroid clade (Malpighiaceae). Nordic J. Bot. 39(1, e02876): 1–25.
Phylogenetic analyses of molecular data reveal that the genus Niedenzuella is paraphyletic, with respect to the dispecific Aenigmatanthera, while Tetrapterys is diphyletic. The authors' remedies are to sink Aenigmatanthera into Niedenzuella and establish a new genus, Glicophyllum R. F. Almeida, segregated from Tetrapterys. No spp. of either Aenigmatanthera or Glicophyllum have been documented to occur in Costa Rica, but Tetrapterys styloptera A. Juss., mentioned in the Manual as to be expected in the country, is now correctly Glicophyllum stylopterum (A. Juss.) R. F. Almeida. The only other noteworthy effects for us are to augment the Manual sp. total for Niedenzuella by two, and diminish that for Tetrapterys by 27. A dichotomous (though non-indented) key is provided to distinguish the 16 genera of the "Tetrapteroid" clade accepted by these authors. The pubescence of the stamen filaments, one of the main characters separating Glicophyllum ("usually pubescent") from Tetrapterys ("usually glabrous"), was also invoked in the Manual characterization of T. styloptera.
Alves-Araújo, A., Q. S. Moraes, R. Nichio-Amaral & V. S. Miranda. 2020. Typifications in neotropical Sapotaceae. PhytoKeys 170: 45–69.
Having discovered that many binomials in Sapotaceae remain "up for typification," the authors unleash their fury, full throttle, in another of those lectotypification orgies that have become all too frequent of late. Here, 74 lectotypes are newly designated, including four of the rarefied "second-step" variety. Only a few names applying to taxa occurring in Costa Rica are swept up in this madness, these being: two synonyms of Micropholis guyanensis (A. DC.) Pierre, the basionym of M. venulosa (Mart. & Eichler) Pierre, and one synonym each of Pouteria campechiana (Kunth) Baehni and P. glomerata (Miq.) Radlk. subsp. stylosa (Pierre) T. D. Penn. As far as we can tell, the applications of the foregoing names are unaffected.
Aymard C., G. A., J. O. Rangel-C., V. M. Minorta-Cely & F. Castro-Lima. 2020. Notes on the genus Bacopa (Plantaginaceae, Gratioleae) in the Orinoquia region of Colombia and Venezuela. Harvard Pap. Bot. 25: 195–203.
This we cite only because its key, to the 20 spp. of Bacopa (Scrophulariaceae) occurring in the region of the title, includes eight of the nine spp. treated for Costa Rica in the Manual account (2015) of the genus [B. egensis (Poepp.) Pennell being the odd-man out]. On second thought, this key is non-indented, so you should skip it and use the one in the Manual.
Bräuchler, C., T. M. Schuster, E. Vitek & H. Rainer. 2021. The Department of Botany at the Natural History Museum Vienna (Herbarium W) – history, status, and a best practice guideline for usage and requests. Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, B 123: 297–322.
A wealth of valuable information is presented here, along the lines suggested in the title, but of greatest interest to us is Table 2, listing all the plant taxa (extant and extinct) "destroyed in part or completely" in a fire at a storage facility in "Lower Austria" in 1945. This was one of six such sites to which the W herbarium was evacuated, during World War II, for protection (ironically) against bombing. A quick glance at the list reveals that most gymnosperms and monocots were lost (except Orchidaceae, including Reichenbach's critical material), as well as most dicot families deemed "primitive" according to the system in vogue at that time. From a personal (MHG) perspective, the destruction of Schott's Araceae collection was particularly tragic. The text indicates that some material in the listed families did somehow survive, e.g., because it was out on loan at the time; for example, although Bromeliaceae and Proteaceae were decimated, the types of the former family were spared, as was the genus Roupala (Proteaceae). However, the authors assess that "the probability is low" for such miraculous salvations among the families listed in Table 2. We expect that this table may spare some botanists the trouble and expense of personally visiting the W herbarium.
Cardoso, P. H., N. O'Leary, R. G. Olmstead, P. Moroni & V. A. Thode. 2021. An update of the Verbenaceae genera and species numbers. Pl. Ecol. Evol. 154: 80–86.
Without further ado: these authors have arrived at totals of 32 genera and ca. 800 spp. for the family Verbenaceae (in the APG sense, not the traditional sense, e.g., of the Manual). This is actually a downward trend from the most recent (2004) such compilation, which estimated 34 genera and ca. 1200 spp. The loss of spp. appears to be accounted for mainly by severely downsized sp. totals for the genera Citharexylum, Glandularia, Lantana, Lippia, and Verbena.
Cedeño-Fonseca, M., A. Hay, M. H. Grayum & M. A. Blanco. 2020. Two new endemic species of Monstera (Araceae: Monsteroideae: Monstereae) from Golfito in southern Costa Rica. Webbia 75: 123–132.
It has by now become abundantly clear that the sp. diversity of Monstera—in and beyond Costa Rica—was seriously underestimated, by the third author of this paper, in his 2003 Manual account (admittedly provisional) of said genus. Described anew, from the region specified in the title, in this latest contribution are Monstera croatii M. Cedeño & A. Hay, compared with M. pinnatipartita Schott, and known from just three collections (one from the Península de Osa); and Monstera gambensis M. Cedeño & M. A. Blanco, compared with M. minima Madison and M. obliqua Miq., and known only by the type. A distribution map is provided, and both new spp. are illustrated with color photos from life, and (in the case of M. gambensis) a composite line drawing.
Chase, M. W., A. Schuiteman & P. Kumar. 2021. Expansion of the orchid genus Eulophia (Eulophiinae; Epidendroideae) to include Acrolophia, Cymbidiella, Eulophiella, Geodorum, Oeceoclades and Paralophia. Phytotaxa 491: 47–56.
This is not a molecular study in and of itself, rather a reappraisal of conclusions by authors of previous such studies—in particular, one (that we did not see) in which ca. 31 Old World spp. of Eulophia were removed to a segregate genus (Orthochilus) with a view to retain several of the smaller genera (including Oeceoclades) mentioned in the title of the paper under review. Following a careful consideration of both morphological and molecular data, these authors decide that the better course of action is to lump all the smaller genera of the title (as well as Orthochilus) into Eulophia, remarking that, of "the characters that have been used previously to discriminate among these genera, …none…is without exceptions." We are, of course, almost always more sympathetic to lumping as opposed to splitting, and in the present situation lumping results in fewer taxonomic transfers (35, vs. 44). However, while we can embrace the authors' decision from a global perspective, it has negative consequences for Costa Rica in particular. The entire group connoted by Eulophia sensu lato (i.e., of these authors) is represented by just two spp. in Costa Rica (indeed, in the entire New World): the apparently native (albeit ruderal) Eulophia alta (L.) Fawc. & Rendle (which also occurs in the African tropics) and the widely introduced Old World weed Oeceoclades maculata (Lindl.) Lindl. (to use the names currently in vogue). Under this newly proposed lumping scenario, the latter sp.—already quite familiar and well-studied in Costa Rica—must become Eulophia maculata (Lindl.) Rchb. f. So this is rather a dilemma for us (how will the JBL crew respond?). The eventual sp. total for Eulophia (ca. 200, in the sense of the Manual) will range from ca. 172 (with Orthochilus removed) to ca. 267 (if the present authors get their way). Incidentally, two of the genus names (Geodorum, and one of its synonyms) here subordinated to Eulophia are actually older than the last-mentioned name, but a proposal for their rejection is said to be "in press."
Coulleri, J. P., D. O. Simelane, K. Mawela & M. S. Ferrucci. 2020. Climatic niche dynamics of three widespread Cardiospermum (Paullinieae, Sapindaceae) species revealed possible dispersal pathways. Syst. Bot. 45: 879–890.
In our last issue (see under "Monimiaceae" in "Annotate Your Copy"), we discussed the difficulty or virtual impossibility of obtaining many promising South American doctoral dissertations (which often are never published), and revealed that we had cited some of these in the Manual (as a sort of public service) despite not having seen them. Another case in point is the 2000 Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (Argentina) dissertation of the fourth author of the paper currently under review. Said work, embodying a taxonomic revision of Cardiospermum and Urvillea, was cited under both genera in the Manual Sapindaceae treatment (2015) by Francisco Morales, even though it was never available to either Chico or his/your editors. As a result, we inevitably got a few things wrong (with respect to Cardiospermum), or at least, in conflict with that dissertation, as judged from information gleaned from the present paper. Without belaboring the issue excessively, we will note three major discrepancies, beginning with the sp. total for Cardiospermum: it is correctly eight, not 14, as indicated in the Manual. As to the geographic distribution of the genus, these authors suggest that it is "native to the American continent" (a circumstance not indicated in the Manual), although three spp. have colonized the Old World tropics at various times. And lastly, Cardiospermum corindum L., cited in synonymy under C. halicacabum L. in the Manual, is here accepted as a distinct sp. According to the distribution maps included in this paper, both of those spp., along with C. grandiflorum Sw. (the only other Cardiospermum sp. treated in the Manual), are widespread in the American tropics, and all occur in, or at least very near, Costa Rica. However, until we get our hands on the dissertation (or it is published), we can say no more about the distributions of the three aforementioned spp. within Costa Rica, or how Cardiospermum corindum is to be distinguished from C. halicacabum. We expect there may be similar conflicts in Urvillea.
Dauphin López, G. 2019. Adolphe Tonduz y la época de la botánica en Costa Rica. 2 ed. Ed. Tecnol. Costa Rica. 284 pp.
We featured a brief mention of this volume shortly after it was published [see under "Dauphin López," this column, in The Cutting Edge 27(2), Apr. 2020], but at that time we had not actually seen it. Now we have it before us, courtesy of the author, Costa Rican hepaticologist Gregorio Dauphin. This is the second edition of a work first published just three years prior, and our more elaborate review of the first edition [see under "Dauphin López," this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(4), Oct. 2017] still applies, in the main. We encourage our readers to consult that review for a better appreciation of the fine features of this biography, which will certainly stand as the final word on the accomplished but underappreciated Swiss botanist Adolphe Tonduz. This new edition features various modifications and additions, the most significant of which is a new section (following the "Apéndice") reproducing in full all 10 of Tonduz's agronomic papers. These may be of limited interest to the readers of this blog, but should help to broaden the appeal of the book. The scholarship on display in this work is most impressive. The author, fluent in several languages and widely traveled in both Europe and the New World, has done a superlative job of sleuthing out and presenting (as photographic illustrations) old photos, letters, postcards, death notices, and other documents. And as we emphasized in our earlier review, the original translations (into Spanish) of Tonduz's seminal series "Herborisations au Costa-Rica" (1895–1897) is reason enough for anyone with an interest in Costa Rican floristics to acquire this book. It also bears mentioning that brief biographies of several of Tonduz's contemporaries (Paul Biolley, Théophile Durand, Otón Jiménez, Henri Pittier, and Karl Wercklé) are provided. On top of all that, the text is absorbing, and eminently readable, at least for us Tonduz fans! This is a "must have" for your personal library, if you can lay your hands on a copy. In Costa Rica, it can be purchased at the entrance of the Museo Nacional for ₡8000, i.e., about $13 at the prevailing exchange rate.
Dowe, J. L. & D. R. Hodel. 2021. Taxonomy and nomenclature of four unresolved names published by Udo Dammer in the genus Chamaedorea (Arecaceae). Candollea 76: 91–98.
The four names addressed in this paper have somehow fallen through the cracks, but all are deemed validly published by virtue of relatively brief descriptions. Three of the four names apply to spp. that occur in Costa Rica, based on lectotypes that are here designated. Fortunately, all can be immediately consigned to synonymy: Chamaedorea exorrhiza H. Wendl. ex Dammer under C. tepejilote Liebm., C. homomalla H. Wendl. ex Dammer under C. warscewiczii H. Wendl., and C. inaequilateralis H. Wendl. ex Dammer under C. costaricana Oerst. None of the three Dammer names was cited in the Manual Arecaceae treatment (2003); the name Chamaedorea exorrhiza H. Wendl. ex Guillaumin (also here lectotypified) has been widely cited (as in the Manual) in synonymy under C. tepejilote, but Dammer's version has priority. Miscellaneous loose ends, to be sure, but it is good to have them tied up.
Funez, L. A., G. Hassemer, N. Peroni & E. R. Drechsler-Santos. 2021. Taxonomic notes on Erechtites (Asteraceae: Senecioneae). Phytotaxa 489: 155–170.
And then there were six. Sharp-eyed Brazilian field botanists happened to notice significant differences between plants all classed conventionally in Erechtites valerianifolius (Link ex Spreng.) DC. The entities so distinguished correspond to taxa previously recognized (as in the revision cited in the recently published Manual Asteraceae treatment) as Erechtites valerianifolius f. valerianifolius and E. v. f. prenanthoides (Kunth) Cuatrec. ex Belcher; however, the Manual account by Alexánder Rodríguez followed Flora mesoamericana in withholding taxonomic recognition for these formas. The authors of the present article, noting that the two types of specimens grow both allopatrically and sympatrically and without morphological intermediates, opt to go in the opposite direction, elevating E. v. f. prenanthoides to the rank of sp. under the name Erechtites petiolatus Benth. The distinctions from E. valerianifolius sensu stricto, presented in tabular form, are rather convincing, especially those involving fertile structures. The newly recognized sp. is virtually restricted to South America, but is also attributed to Mexico, apparently on the sole basis of the lectotype of Cacalia prenanthoides Kunth (the basionym of Erechtites valerianifolius f. prenanthoides). Obviously, the Kunth name has priority over that of Bentham, but the epithet prenanthoides is preoccupied in Erechtites, requiring a different name. So far, so good, nomenclaturally speaking, but here is where the authors drop the ball: the name Erechtites petiolatus was published in November 1845, whereas Senecio albiflorus Sch. Bip. (a nomen novum for Cacalia prenanthoides) was published on 28 August 1845; therefore, the correct name for the sp. in question has to be a combination in Erechtites based on Senecio albiflorus (a misnomer if ever there was one, since the sp. has purplish corollas). This is an error that ought to have been caught by editors or reviewers. Under whatever name, "Erechtites petiolatus" should be sought in Costa Rica, since it occurs in Colombia and (ostensibly) Mexico. The only required modifications to the Manual treatment would be to raise the generic sp. total for Erechtites to "6," and delete Erechtites valerianifolus f. prenanthoides from the synonymy of E. valerianifolius. As far as we can tell, no changes to the global geographic distribution of the latter taxon are mandated. And by the way: Alexánder's description of Erechtites valerianifolius, prepared from Costa Rican material, concords in all important aspects with E. valerianifolius sensu stricto of this paper. A postscript, for interested parties: the combination Erechtites albiflorus (Sch. Bip.) Hassemer & Funez was validated in a subsequent issue of Phytotaxa, and pressed into service to replace E. petiolatus.
Gómez-Domínguez, H., A. E. Ortiz-Rodríguez, D. Velasco-Espino & R. Hernández-Burguete. 2021. Taxonomic updates in Amphitecna (Bignoniaceae): a new Mexican species and the re-establishment of the giant-leaved A. megalophylla. PhytoKeys 171: 75–90.
Neither of the spp. mentioned in the title concerns us, our main reason for citing this paper being its inclusion of a key (sadly, non-indented) to the 23 spp. of Amphitecna accepted by these authors (they claim 24, but we count just 23). Curiously, one of these spp. is "Amphitecna haberi A. H. Gentry," a name that has never been validly published and was synonymized under A. sessilifolia (Donn. Sm.) L. O. Williams in Manual Vol. 4(2). Even more oddly, "Amphitecna haberi" and A. sessilifolia were resolved in different "morphological groups"—the "Amphitecna steyermarkii group" and "Amphitecna molinae group," respectively—by the authors' "hierarchical clustering analysis" of 15 floral traits. However, the authors are not at all forthcoming as to the source of their information for "A. haberi."
Iamonico, D. 2020. A nomenclatural survey of the genus Amaranthus (Amaranthaceae) 9: names published by Roxburgh. Taiwania 65: 559–566.
Hooray, more lecto- and neotypifications! And from one of the leaders in the field, no less. The four names addressed in this contribution are all obscure synonyms, just one of which (lectotypified) applies to a sp. (Amaranthus hybridus L.) treated fully in the recent (2020) Manual Amaranthaceae account by José González. However, a synonym of Amaranthus blitum L. and one of A. tricolor L. are also lectotypified, and another synonym of A. tricolor is neotypified. Both of the last-mentioned spp. were briefly discussed in the Manual as potentially present or sometimes cultivated (respectively) in Costa Rica.
Kagame, S. P., A. W. Gichira, L.-Y. Chen & Q.-F. Wang. 2021. Systematics of Lobelioideae (Campanulaceae): review, phylogenetic and biogeographic analyses. PhytoKeys 174: 13–45.
The important conclusions of this molecular study, from a Costa Rican perspective, are pretty well summed up by the following excerpt from its abstract: "…Lobelia L., …Centropogon C. Presl, [and] Siphocampylus Pohl…are polyphyletic. The taxonomy of these genera, especially Lobelia, is particularly quite frustrating." Closer scrutiny of the body of the paper does not reveal many insights deeper than that. Lobelia is certainly a hell-hole, but Centropogon and Siphocampylus are approximately as bad, with spp. conventionally assigned to each interspersed wantonly among one another (and elsewhere). Other genera, such as Burmeistera, Diastatea, Hippobroma, and Lysipomia, may be monophyletic, but are deeply nested among the aforementioned elements. By any measure, the entire subfamily is an intractable disaster area, and no classificatory remedies are proposed here, pending "further reappraisals using both morphological and molecular data." Given the situation portrayed in this study and the sweeping taxonomic changes portended by same, future workers on this group should be required (by editors and reviewers) to include the type sp. for each genus in their analyses (this study inexcusably omitted the types of Burmeistera, Diastatea and Siphocampylus).
Kolanowska, M., A. M. Naczk & R. Jaskuła. 2016. Herbarium-based studies on taxonomy, biogeography and ecology of Psilochilus (Orchidaceae). PeerJ 4(e2600): 1–60.
What a wonderful thing electronic publication is! Cast your product out into the ether, and hope that someone stumbles onto it somewhere down the line. We finally did find this paper, but it took four years and a bit of serendipity. Like most of our readers, we regularly check the sites of such established botanical e-journals as PhytoKeys, Phytoneuron, and Phytotaxa; but there are many others that could potentially include articles of interest, and we can't constantly be checking every one of them. Really, "PeerJ"? Enough said on that subject. This is actually the second significant (or seemingly significant) contribution dealing with the relatively obscure neotropical genus Psilochilus to appear since the 2003 publication of the Manual Orchidaceae treatment. The first was a 2007 Ohio State University Ph.D. dissertation by one Erik Paul Rothacker, including a monograph of the genus, which was not reviewed in these pages and has never been published. Its eventual publication, if contemplated at all, will no doubt be complicated by that of the present paper (plus previous papers by the first author of same). A conspicuous weakness of the present paper is the paucity of specimens studied. According to a "Complete list of examined specimens" (annexed in a separate file)—which, insanely, does not indicate the identity of those specimens—just 11 Costa Rican collections were studied by these authors. Granted, Psilochilus is a poorly collected genus, but the fact remains that there are at least 20 additional Costa Rican specimens available at MO or (mainly) CR. Partly as a consequence of all that, it is difficult to reconcile the concepts espoused in this paper with those of Rothacker and of the late Robert L. Dressler's Manual account of Psilochilus. The last-mentioned source accepted just two Psilochilus spp. for Costa Rica, using the provisional names "sp. A" and "sp. B." The Manual voucher for Psilochilus sp. A was identified by Rothacker as P. carinatus Garay, but that determination is pointedly rejected by the authors of the present paper, who defer said specimen to their "Incertæ sedis" category. The Manual voucher for Psilochilus sp. B was determined as P. modestus Barb. Rodr. by Rothacker, but its identity according to the present authors is not revealed, even though the specimen is cited in their aforementioned "Complete list…" In any case, neither P. carinatus nor P. modestus is attributed to Costa Rica in the present paper, both being restricted to South America. So which Psilochilus spp. are alleged to occur in Costa Rica in the paper under review? Three, in fact: Psilochilus macrophyllus (Lindl.) Ames, represented in Costa Rica only by the type [Brenes 247(1434), F; San Ramón region] of P. m. var. brenesii Kolan. (described here as new), which also occurs in Guatemala, Panama, and the Antilles; P. physurifolius (Rchb. f.) Løjtnant, vouchered from Costa Rica by a single specimen (Grayum & Jacobs 3722, MO) from the Tapantí region, and also recorded from Panama and the Lesser Antilles (Grenada); and P. szlachetkoanus Kolan. (described here as new), based on one specimen (the type) from southern Mexico (Chiapas) and another (Brenes 1113, NY) from the San Ramón region of Costa Rica. Actually, the Costa Rican voucher for Psilochilus physurifolius has also been so determined (albeit tentatively) by Rothacker, so perhaps there is some consensus with respect to the occurrence of that particular sp. in Costa Rica. All in all, these authors accept a total of 18 spp. in Psilochilus, vs. just "6 o 7" according to the Manual. Their contribution features synonymy, typology, and relatively brief descriptions at all ranks, a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp., distribution summaries, notes (mainly diagnostic), specimen citations (for what they are worth), and distribution maps. The introductory material (largely deferred to the end of the paper), well provisioned with graphs, maps, and tables, deals with taxonomic history, morphometry, biogeography, ecology, phenology, morphological variation, and future perpsectives. All 18 spp. (as well as the vars. of Psilochilus macrophyllus) are illustrated with rather basic composite line drawings showing floral details. In addition to the two taxonomic novelties already mentioned, one new combination (of no concern to us) is validated and one lectotype (for the basionym of Psilochilus physurifolius) is newly designated. And in closing: Rothacker accepted only seven spp. of Psilochilus, but attributed four of those (P. carinatus, P. macrophyllus, P. modestus, and P. physurifolius) to Costa Rica, though he likewise cited just 11 specimens from the country. He included Brenes 1113—Psilochilus szlachetkoanus, according to the present paper—in his concept of P. macrophyllus. Perplexingly, although Psilochilus sp. B keys in the Manual as having flowers with the labellum "sin quillas," its voucher (Grayum et al. 4652) was assigned by Rothacker to a sp. (P. modestus) required by his key to have "a distinct keel in the claw of the labellum." It is also worth mentioning that the lone Costa Rican specimen cited by Rothacker under Psilochilus physurifolius (G. Herrera 2144) was also cited by him (albeit a different duplicate) under P. carinatus. None of this breeds confidence. How can the taxonomy of such a minor genus be so conflicted? Notwithstanding this flurry of recent activity, Psilochilus is in dire need of serious attention (maybe now more than ever!).
The publication of Psilochilus szlachetkoanus bumps our running count of new orchid spp. described from Costa Rica since we began issuing this rag up to 421 (we do not keep a tally of infraspecific taxa).
Ortúñez, E., R. Gamarra, S. Gestal, Á. Hernando & P. Galán Cela. 2020. Revision of Eulophia (Orchidaceae) in Nigeria, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and the Republic of Congo. Pl. Ecol. Evol. 153: 399–426.
According to the Manual account by the late Robert L. Dressler, Eulophia is a pantropical genus of some 200 spp., just one of which, E. alta (L.) Fawc. & Rendle, is represented in the New World (as well as tropical Africa). This paper claims a generic sp. total of only "about 164," but with five spp. in "America." The latter figure, especially, is highly suspect. We cite this paper here only because it does include Eulophia alta, among the 24 spp. treated for the region specified in the title. Beyond that it is of very little use to us, as it does not even feature morphological descriptions. See under "Chase," this column, for a much more authoritative appraisal of Eulophia.
Ramírez-Roa, M. A. de la P. 2016. El género Moussonia Regel (Gesneriaceae). Univ. Nac. Autón. México, México, D. F., Mexico. [254 pp.]
This is the author's doctoral dissertation, and while it has been our policy not to review dissertations, this one was posted online, with an "ISBN" number, and thus constitutes effective publication. But while it may qualify as "effective" from a nomenclatural standpoint, this is clearly not an effective means of publication in the vernacular sense; as testimony, we submit the fact that more than four years elapsed before we became aware of this work! How does one discover these things? Presumably someone at IPNI was duly informed, because all the new names and combinations have been entered there (and are also in TROPICOS). At last, a wood-wafer copy arrived at the MO library, so now we are in the loop.
Our review of a preliminary paper on Moussonia helmed by this author [see under "Ramírez-Roa," this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(4), Oct 2011] surmised that she intended to accept the names Moussonia costaricensis Klotzsch ex Oerst. and M. strigosa (C. V. Morton) Wiehler for spp. occurring in Costa Rica, and "eagerly" awaited the taxonomic revision that we hoped would follow. This is that revision, but it raises more questions than it answers, at least where Costa Rica is concerned. Our assumption was correct, insofar as the author does accept the two aforementioned names, but she applies just one of them to Costa Rican material. If you guessed Moussonia costaricensis, you could certainly be forgiven, but you would be wrong: it is M. strigosa that is characterized as "endémica de Costa Rica y la única del género en el país." The name M. strigosa is applied to the sp. that was dubbed Moussonia deppeana (Schltdl. & Cham.) Hanst. (here restricted to southern Mexico and Guatemala) in the Manual, as is clear because (among other things) the Manual voucher for M. deppeana is cited under M. strigosa. These facts immediately raise two big questions. First, how is it possible that a sp. named Moussonia costaricensis does not occur in Costa Rica? The type, it turns out, was collected (by von Warscewicz) in "Veragua," a somewhat ambiguous locality that has been variously ascribed to either Costa Rica or Panama (but is most likely in westernmost Panama); moreover, the type specimen could not be found and is presumed lost. The author of this revision did not find any specimens of M. costaricensis from either Costa Rica or Panama (which, in our minds begs the question of how she is able to recognize the sp.!). And the final elbow: she actually neotypifies M. costaricensis on a specimen from Guatemala! This seems to us a precipitous act because, while the author cites 49 Costa Rican specimens of Moussonia (all under M. strigosa), there are 21 others at MO that she did not see, and an additional 42 at CR! How can one banish a sp. from the Costa Rican flora based on a study of less than half of the available material? "Veragua" is, after all, an important part of the protologue. We doubt this will be the last word on this subject.
Our second question is: what about the other Moussonia sp. treated in the Manual, under the name M. ampla L. E. Skog? Based on its description, it is notably different from M. strigosa, and would come out under the other lead in the main couplet of this author's key to spp. The problem here (again) is that the author did not see enough material: she cites neither the Manual voucher for M. ampla, nor any of the other three Costa Rican specimens (all at CR) so determined. In fact, a recent crawl through the Moussonia material at the Santo Domingo branch of CR revealed two additional specimens of the same entity, for a total six known gatherings. Now, we will concede that this entity may not actually belong in M. ampla; reservations were expressed in the Manual itself, and the Manual voucher was later redetermined (by Larry Skog, the author of M. ampla) as simply "Moussonia." But we remain convinced that it is quite different from M. strigosa, and it would have been nice to have the matter resolved in this promising work. In spite of these reservations, we have implemented, as best we could, the findings of this revision in the online version of the Manual Gesneriaceae treatment.
This revision recognizes a total of 23 spp. in Moussonia (vs. just 12, as according to the Manual), all but five of which are represented in Mexico. Befitting a dissertation, it includes extensive introductory material, in addition to the standard taxonomic portion. A few tables, distribution maps, and illustrations (one composite line drawing and several photos, some in color) are provided at the end. Three new sp. names and four new combinations are validated (though none of these applies to Costa Rica), and several lecto- or neotypes are designated. The entire work is unpaginated (some poor sucker had to manually count the pages to post the necessary information in IPNI).
Rodríguez, A. 2021. Cinco nuevas especies de Mikania (Asteraceae: Eupatorieae) de Costa Rica. Phytoneuron 2021-12: 1–37.
This is an erudite and meticulously researched paper, featuring elaborate tabular comparisons and a relatively lengthy introduction, with copious literature citations. Nevertheless, for us it distills easily to the following glib summation: valid Latin binomials are provided for five of the six Mikania spp. that were given provisional names in the author's recent (2020) Manual treatment of Asteraceae (Mikania sp. D missed the boat because of COVID-19, essentially; the author informs us that he needed better material of said entity for a proper description, but was unable to get into the field last year to look for it). For the most part, the concepts espoused here correspond exactly to those of the Manual—indeed, the Manual voucher is the type specimen, in each case—so there is little more to be said along those lines. Without further ado, we will present the equivalents: Mikania sp. A of the Manual = M. pove Al. Rodr. (honoring venerable Costa Rican botanical mentor Luis Poveda), M. sp. B = M. ariasiana Al. Rodr. (honoring retired Universidad de Costa Rica archeologist Ana Cecilia Arias Quirós), M. sp. C = M. cuspidata Al. Rodr., M. sp. E = M. dioica Al. Rodr., and M. sp. F = M. sordida Al. Rodr.—pro parte! The last-mentioned sp. entrains one of two caveats: the Manual concept of Mikania sp. F (M. sordida) included a specimen that is now excluded (to "identidad incierta" status), resulting in erroneous characterizations of said sp. as "con pseudoestípulas" (which it lacks) and as occurring on the "vert. Carib." (which it does not); annotate your copy accordingly! The other caveat involves Mikania sp. A (M. pove), ascribed also to Panama in the Manual, but here claimed (without comment) as a Costa Rican endemic (as are the other four novelties). Each of the five new spp. is illustrated with a composite line drawing. And as long as we are on the subject of Mikania: we have just learned, from Manual collaborator Daniel Santamaría (LSU), that we miscounted the number of Costa Rican spp. for that genus in our recent volume: there are 27, not 28 as claimed. No telling how this happened, as these counts are checked and rechecked by at least two individuals. This means that the Manual sp. counts for Asteraceae, dicots, angiosperms, and seed plants are also inflated by one. Hey, we are human!
Salguero, G. & F. Pupulin. 2020. Maxillaria sanguinea f. exsanguis f. nov. A new and rare form of an attractive species of Maxillaria (Orchidaceae). Orchids (West Palm Beach) 89: 408–410.
Maxillaria sanguinea Rolfe f. exsanguis Salguero & Pupulin is described on the basis of its pale, "bloodless" (the meaning of its epithet) flowers, as compared with the "boldly colored, bloody appearance" of those of the autonymic form. The type was prepared from a cultivated plant, the provenance of which is ostensibly near Ciudad Quesada, in the San Carlos region. Much of this article is devoted to rationalizing the description of such a trivial taxon! It is unclear why the authors did not class this novelty in the genus Maxillariella (according to the taxonomy championed by their close colleague, Mario Blanco), mentioned only obliquely as a "phylogenetically related group of species." Illustrated with color photos of living material.
Samain, M.-S., C. Granados Mendoza & E. M. Martínez Salas. 2021. On Hydrangea peruviana, an endangered species from Ecuador, and Hydrangea oerstedii, very common in Costa Rica and Panama, and seven threatened Central and South American Hydrangeas, which have been confounded with these. PhytoKeys 171: 91–153.
We had some advance warning of these developments [see under "Samain," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015], but now we have the full story. We had gleaned that the name Hydrangea oerstedii Briq. would be resurrected from synonymy under H. peruviana Moric. ex Ser. (where it resided in the Manual Hydrangeaceae treatment) and applied to material from southern Central America that had been subsumed under the latter name. That is indeed the case, with the name H. peruviana being now restricted to a sp. endemic to (oddly) Ecuador. Both spp. belong to Hydrangea sect. Cornidia Ruiz & Pav., which comprises 26 spp. (as accepted by these authors) of root-climbing lianas ranging from northern Mexico to southern Chile and Argentina, as well as in Southeast Asia (one sp.). This study focuses on the two previously mentioned spp., plus seven others with names that have generally been synonymized under Hydrangea peruviana. The authors' taxonomy is solidly underpinned by field work in Costa Rica, Panama, Ecuador, and Peru; surprisingly (to us), their two visits to Costa Rica included an excursion to isolated and little-known Cerro Anguciana [see The Cutting Edge 1(1): 6, Jan. 1994]. Among the nine spp. discriminated in this study, two are represented in Costa Rica (as well as Panama): not only Hydrangea oerstedii, but also H. panamensis Standl. All the Costa Rican material of both spp. was included within the Manual concept of H. peruviana. Working backward in the authors' tediously non-indented key to spp., we learn that these two spp. are separated on the basis of leaf size: 8–25 × 4–14 cm in H. oerstedii, vs. 5–12 × 3–6 cm in H. panamensis. As suggested in the title, H. oerstedii is by far the more common of the two; distilling the authors' six-plus pages of Costa Rican specimen citations to Manualese yields the following: "Bosque muy húmedo, pluvial, nuboso y de roble, 800–2500+ m; ambas verts. Cords. de Tilarán, Central y de Talamanca, Cerros de La Carpintera, vert. Pac. Cord. de Guanacaste, Tablazo, Cerros de Escazú, Cerro Turrubares, S Fila Costeña (Fila Cruces). Fl. ene.–abr., jun., ago., oct.–dic." By contrast, just five Costa Rican collections of Hydrangea panamensis are cited, documenting the following parameters: "Bosque muy húmedo, 50–700 m; vert. Pac., S Fila Costeña (Cerro Anguciana), región de Golfo Dulce. Fl. jun." In addition to the aforementioned key and comprehensive specimen citations, this contribution features synonymy and typology, lengthy technical descriptions, distribution and phenology summaries, "notes," conservation assessments, and distribution maps. There are no indices. The introductory material (much of which is deferred to the end of the paper) discusses taxonomic history, infrasectional classification, distribution patterns, and assorted more ill-defined topics. No taxonomic novelties are published, but two "second-step" lectotypes and one epitype are designated. Each of the nine treated spp. is illustrated by one or more color photos of herbarium or (more often) living material.
Sukhorukov, A. P., A. Sennikov, M. C. Veranso-Libalah, M. Kushunina, M. V. Nilova, R. Heath, A. Heath, Y. Mazei & M. A. Zaika. 2021. Evolutionary relationships, biogeography and morphological characters of Glinus (Molluginaceae), with special emphasis on the genus composition in Sub-Saharan Africa. PhytoKeys 173: 1–92.
This has every appearance of an exemplary piece of work but, owing principally to its "special emphasis," is scarcely applicable to Costa Rican floristics. Just two minor adjustments to the Manual Molluginaceae treatment (2007) are necessitated. First, the global sp. total for Glinus, six according to the Manual, should be upped to "8–10." And second, Glinus radiatus (Ruiz & Pav.) Rohrb., the only representative of its genus occurring in Costa Rica, has evidently not been "introd. en O África," as reported in the Manual; rather, all the African material so identified that was examined by these authors is deemed to belong to a different sp. (newly resurrected and endemic to Africa), and G. radiatus is thus restricted to the New World.