Family List (MO) |
Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments |
The Cutting Edge
Volume XXIV, Number 1, January 2017
News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature |
Anderson, C. 2016. Circumscription and nomenclature of Hiraea barclayana, H. reclinata, and H. ternifolia (Malpighiaceae), and of seven species misassigned to them. Blumea 61: 125–146.
The only sp. in this group attributed to Costa Rica is Hiraea reclinata Jacq., so there are essentially no changes mandated for the Manual Malphighiaceae treatment (2007) by the late William R. Anderson. Worth noting, however, is the unusual distribution of H. barclayana Benth., which "skips" Costa Rica (from northern Nicaragua to west-central Panama) and would thus have deserved mention in the Manual. This is a fully realized revision of the 10 spp. in this group, featuring a key (non-indented), synonymy and typology, lengthy descriptions, distribution and phenology summaries, distribution maps, "notes," and an index to exsiccatae. Each sp. is depicted in an excellent composite line-drawing. Numerous names are lecto- or neotypified, including Hiraea reclinata and four of its synonyms.
Applequist, W. L. 2016. Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 68. Taxon 65: 1153–1165.
Among the proposals (many quite preposterous) voted upon by the Committee in this latest round, several warrant attention, from our narrow perspective. A proposal [see under "Greuter," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(4), Oct. 2014] to conserve Palhinhaea Franco & Vasc. (1967) (Lycopodiaceae) against Lepidotis P. Beauv. (1802) is recommended, condemning pteridological splitters to life-long struggles with the spelling of the former genus name. Rejection is recommended for Trichomanes adiantoides L., a name that could have threatened the well-established Asplenium aethiopicum (Burm. f.) Bech. (Aspleniaceae); although A. aethiopicum is here characterized as "widespread in both Asia and Africa," the name has also been widely applied since 1995 (Flora mesoamericana Vol. 1) to New World material previously distinguished as Asplenium praemorsum Sw. Also recommended for rejection is the name Cestrum subsessile Vell. [see under "Knapp," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(4), Oct. 2015], a conceivable threat to C. schlechtendalii G. Don (Solanaceae). And finally, the proposed conservation [see under "Seigler," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(1), Jan. 2016] of Acacia multipinnata Ducke against A. paniculata Willd. (Fabaceae) is not recommended, meaning that Senegalia paniculata (Willd.) Killip must become the correct name for the sp. dubbed S. multipinnata (Ducke) Seigler & Ebinger in Manual Vol. 5.
Barfuss, M. H. J., W. Till, E. M. C. Leme, J. P. Pinzón, J. M. Manzanares, H. Halbritter, R. Samuel & G. K. Brown. 2016. Taxonomic revision of Bromeliaceae subfam. Tillandsioideae based on a multi-locus DNA sequence phylogeny and morphology. Phytotaxa 279: 1–97.
This is not a standard taxonomic revision, rather a revision of supraspecific classification, based largely on molecular analyses and invoking tribes, subtribes, and subgenera, intercalary categories of no particular interest to us. Of course, we are very much more interested in any new developments at the rank of genus. The titular subfamily, the largest of eight in Bromeliaceae, has until recently (as in Manual Vol. 2) been considered to harbor nine genera, including Catopsis, Guzmania, Mezobromelia, Racinaea, Tillandsia, Vriesea, and Werauhia (to mention only those treated in the Manual). But all heck has been unleashed by these workers, who jack the genus total for Tillandsioideae up to 22, mainly on the basis of newly described, oligospecific genera (several named for the authors themselves) segregated from Mezobromelia, Tillandsia, and Vriesea. Most of these newly recognized genera do not concern us, but four are represented in Costa Rica, each by a single sp., as follows: Jagrantia Barfuss & W. Till (honoring Manual correspondent Jason R. Grant), a monotypic genus comprising the former Vriesea monstrum (Mez) L. B. Sm.; Josemania W. Till & Barfuss, with five spp., including the former Tillandsia singularis Mez & Wercklé; Lemeltonia Barfuss & W. Till, a genus of seven spp., including the former Tillandsia monadelpha (E. Morren) Baker; and Wallisia (Regel) E. Morren, with four spp., including the former Tillandsia anceps G. Lodd. Additionally, the sp. treated in the Manual as Tillandsia venusta Mez & Wercklé is transferred to Racinaea (now with "more than 70 species"). Needless to say, all the necessary new combinations are validated by the authors, in one permutation or another. Certain issues remain unsettled; for example, the possibility exists that the name Mezobromelia could eventually be synonymized under Cipuropsis Ule, an obscure name currently applied to a single Peruvian sp. that could not be included in the study. The accepted intercalary taxa for subfam. Tillandsioideae comprise four tribes (two of which are monogeneric) and two subtribes (both described as new); in addition, seven subgenera (two newly proposed) are provisionally recognized for Tillandsia, though about 27% of its "more than 650" spp. remain unclassified in that system. Features a key (non-indented) to genera, synonymy, typology, diagnoses, and notes (often just a total of subordinate taxa) for each accepted taxon, and distribution summaries for each genus. The introductory portion (well-illustrated with color photos) focuses on taxonomic history and (mainly) phylogeny. In addition to the many new combinations, numerous new typifications are proposed, mainly for names published at intercalary ranks.
Barrie, F. R., M. González-Elizondo & M. S. González-Elizondo. 2016. (2474) Proposal to reject the name Aristolochia cordata (Aristolochiaceae). Taxon 65: 1176–1177.
Aristolochia cordata L. (1759), a name that "has never been used other than in its original publication," evidently applies to the same sp. as A. odoratissima L. (1763), "the name that has been used persistently, and constistently, for this taxon" (which occurs in Costa Rica) for over 250 years. Nevertheless, rejection of this proposal would mandate the adoption of the earlier name. This one seems like a slam-dunk!
Bogarín, D. & A. P. Karremans. 2016. A new Brachionidium (Orchidaceae: Pleurothallidinae) from the first botanical expedition to the Volcán Cacho Negro, Costa Rica. Syst. Bot. 41: 919–923.
The epithet of Brachionidium cornu-nigricum Bogarín & Karremans, described here as new, is a Latin translation of the name of the titular "volcán," whence the type (and only known specimen) was obtained during a daring 2008 helicopter expedition [see The Cutting Edge 15(3): 3, Jul. 2008] involving both of the authors. But let's set the record straight here and now: although the site in question is indeed remote and rarely visited, theirs was not "the first botanical expedition" to go there. The immediate Cacho Negro region (if not the summit itself) was traversed, arduously and on foot, ca. May, 1969, by the late Luis Diego Gómez (see, e.g., his numbers 2149–2195, dated 1 May), just 24 years old at the time, who (according to his labels) ascended to at least 1800 m (the summit lies at ca. 2150 m). As we understand it, this venture was something of a forced march, and the botanical collections suffered accordingly, as to both quantity and quality; but the fact remains that Luis Diego's 1969 expedition was botanical in nature, and preceded the 2008 caper by nearly 40 years. Moving on from that: the new sp., depicted in a superb composite line drawing by the first author, was collected at ca. 1150 m elevation on the slopes of Cacho Negro. It is compared most closely with Brachionidium filamentosum Luer & Hirtz, which ranges from eastern Panama to northwestern Ecuador. Distribution maps are provided, as well as a photo of the expedition participants.
——, F. Pupulin, E. Smets & B. Gravendeel. 2016. Evolutionary diversification and historical biogeography of the Orchidaceae in Central America with emphasis on Costa Rica and Panama. Lankesteriana 16: 189–200.
Some interesting statistical updates on the Costa Rican (and Panamanian) orchid flora are presented here, together with a rather incongruous account of pollination in Lepanthes, and a generous helping of color photos. The Costa Rican sp. total for Orchidaceae is now estimated at 1574, a 19% increase from the 1318 spp. treated in Manual Vol. 3 (2003). Epidendrum and Pleurothallis had been the two largest orchid genera in the country, with 158 and 152 spp., respectively; but while Epidendrum has surged to 207 spp. and remains at the top, Pleurothallis has plunged to just 54 spp., good enough for only fourth place behind Stelis (88 spp.) and Lepanthes (66 spp.). (We find ourselves momentarily at a loss to explain the dropoff for Lepanthes, which had 93 spp. according to the Manual treatment.) Orchid spp. endemic to Costa Rica number 485 (31% of the total), with Telipogon and Lepanthes leading the way (in terms of percentages, not absolute numbers). Panama, by the way, can boast just 1372 spp. of Orchidaceae, a scant 22% of which are endemic. This paper is one of several in this issue from the V Scientific Conference on Andean Orchids, held on 19–21 November, 2015, in Cali, Colombia (see also the first entry under "Karremans," this column, in the present issue); certain others may be of interest to our readers. The conference papers were edited by Nicola S. Flanagan, Alec M. Pridgeon (K), and Franco Pupulin (JBL).
Carrizo García, C., M. H. J. Barfuss, E. M. Sehr, G. E. Barboza, R. Samuel, E. A. Moscone & F. Ehrendorfer. 2016. Phylogenetic relationships, diversification and expansion of chili peppers (Capsicum, Solanaceae). Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 118: 35–51.
Most of this deals with infrageneric relationships, thus passing under our radar. The authors conclude that "Capsicum forms a monophyletic clade, with Lycianthes as a sister group." This statement seems at odds with their observation (cited from other sources) that, "if Capsicum is recognized as a distinct genus, Lycianthes is paraphyletic." Within Capsicum, "eleven well-supported clades" were discriminated, and—as suggested by comments in the Manual Solanaceae account by Lynn Bohs (UT)—the three most commonly cultivated spp., C. annuum L., C. chinense Jacq., and C. frutescens L., have especially "close affinities" (occupying the same clade). Illustrated with lots of fine (albeit reduced) color photos of interesting and exotic Capsicum spp.
Cetzal-Ix, W., G. Carnevali & G. Romero-González. 2016. Synopsis of the Trichocentrum-clade (Orchidaceae, Oncidiinae). Harvard Pap. Bot. 21: 141–160.
The "Trichocentrum-clade" of these authors is confined to the Neotropics, and comprises four genera: Cohniella (with 23 spp. and two natural hybrids), Lophiarella (three spp.), Lophiaris (27 spp. and eight natural hybrids), and Trichocentrum sensu stricto (27 spp. and two subspp.). This system runs contrary to a recently updated consensus classification of Orchidaceae [see under "Chase," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015] that lumps all the aforementioned genera into Trichocentrum sensu lato, and will thus be rejected by many workers (including ourselves); nonetheless, the main features of this synopsis will inevitably prove useful. Formal descriptions are lacking, but dichotomous (though non-indented) keys are provided for the genera, spp., and hybrids, as well as synonymy, typology, and distribution summaries at all ranks, a distribution map for each genus, and a generous array of color photos from life (mostly depicting flowers). Lophiarella is absent from Costa Rica and Lophiaris is represented there by just one sp., but four spp. of Cohniella (one a hybrid) and eight of Trichocentrum (plus one subsp.) are attributed to the country. Several new synonymies are proposed.
Côrtes, A. L. A., T. F. Daniel & A. Rapini. 2016. Recircumscription and two new species of Pachystachys (Tetramerium lineage: Justicieae: Acanthaceae). Nordic J. Bot. 34: 522–528.
This storm has been brewing for at least eight years now [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 15(3): 4–5, Jul. 2008], but in the final analysis, its impact on Costa Rican floristic is minimal. Several spp. assigned traditionally to the genus Streblacanthus have been shown by molecular analyses to be intermingled with members of Pachystachys (known in Costa Rica principally on account of P. lutea Nees, a gaudy and conspicuous South American sp. that is commonly cultivated in the country as an ornamental). The spp. in question are thus transferred to Pachystachys, but only one of these occurs (very rarely) in Costa Rica (see under "Leaps and bounds" in the present issue): the former Streblacanthus cordatus Lindau, now Pachystachys cordata (Nees) A. L. A. Côrtes (the parenthetical authorities are correct; this is a complicated situation!). Streblacanthus is now restricted to its type sp., S. monospermus Kuntze, also present in Costa Rica; though not included in the present study, S. monospermus has been established elsewhere as "not closely related to the other species of Streblacanthus."
Darbyshire, I., M. P. Simmons, J. J. Cappa, F. J. Breteler & S. Buerki. 2016. Pleurostylia serrulata and two allied new species from Africa are actually members of the New World Crossopetalum (Celastraceae). Syst. Bot. 41: 851–864.
Molecular and/or morphological evidence establishes that the three African spp. alluded to in the title are members in good standing of the otherwise neotropical genus Crossopetalum. Whether they are nested within the New World contingent or sister to it could not be concluded confidently. Interestingly, the African spp. of Crossopetalum are apparently dioecious, with functionally unisexual flowers (vs. ostensibly bisexual in the New World). But stay tuned on this: the Manual treatment of Celastraceae (currently being edited) suggests that at least some of the Costa Rican spp. of this genus may also be cryptically dioecious. A rigorous taxonomic treatment of African Crossopetalum is provided, but the range extension istelf is our principal concern.
Davidse, G., M. H. Grayum & C. Ulloa Ulloa. 2016. (49) Request for a binding decision on whether Mimosa inga L. and Mimosa ynga Vell. (Fabaceae) are sufficiently alike to be confused. Taxon 65: 1438–1439.
Martius clearly judged the epithets to be effectively homonymous when he created the now familiar and widely accepted nomen novum Inga edulis Mart. to replace Mimosa ynga Vell.—ostensibly to avoid the quasi-tautonym "Inga ynga." Yet, the last-mentioned combination is not a true tautonym, because its two elements are not spelled exactly alike. Therefore, the correct name for Inga edulis should be I. ynga (Vell.) J. W. Moore. This fact was acknowledged in Manual Vol. 5 (2010), but ignored all the same, because we calculated that Inga edulis would inevitably be conserved in some manner. And now we—often explicitly opposed to conservation in these rantings—are party to the whole thing! This proposal takes a counterintuitive approach to the problem, seeking to neuter Mimosa ynga Vell. by branding it as confusable with the prior M. inga L. (the effective basionym of Inga vera Willd.).
Deanna, R., S. Leiva González & G. E. Barboza. 2016. A key and three new species for the re-circumscribed genus Deprea (Solanaceae). Syst. Bot. 41: 1028–1041.
Regarding the recent recircumscription of Deprea, see under "Deanna," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(3), Jul. 2015. We cite this article only because of the comprehensive key (dichotomous and indented!) to spp., which naturally includes Deprea sylvarum (Standl. & C. V. Morton) Hunz., the only sp. of this mainly Andean genus that reaches Central America (including Costa Rica). The new spp. are South American, and do not interest us.
Doucette, A., J. Timyan, I. Henrys & K. M. Cameron. 2016. A tiny new species of Specklinia from Haiti's Parc National Naturel Macaya and new combinations in Acianthera (Pleurothallidinae, Epidendreae, Epidendroideae, Orchidaceae). Phytotaxa 275: 263–276.
The tiny sp. is of no concern to us, but much of the rest is. Two sizeable blocs of spp. are transferred to the genus Acianthera as sections, with all the new combinations at sp. rank validated by the first author. One of these new sections is strictly Caribbean, but the other ranges widely through Central and South America, and is thus relevant to Costa Rican floristics. The taxon in question was previously (as in Manual Vol. 3) treated as a subgenus of Pleurothallis, and later [see, e.g., under "Chase," in The Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015] elevated to generic rank under the name Kraenzlinella. It seems that only two spp. occur in Costa Rica: those treated in the Manual under the names Pleurothallis erinacea Rchb. f. and P. sigmoidea Ames & C. Schweinf. A third sp. arguably from Costa Rica, Kraenzlinella rinkei Luer, is here subsumed under Specklinia montezumae (Luer) Luer in a so-called "new synonymy"; however, the authors were scooped on this (and in the same journal!) by a matter of weeks (see under "Karremans," this column, in our last issue). For further insights, see the second entry under "Karremans" in the present issue.
Dressler, R. L., M. Acuña & F. Pupulin. 2016. Sobralia turrialbina (Orchidaceae: Sobralieae): long cultivated and now described. Harvard Pap. Bot. 21: 251–261.
If this issue is any indication, it would appear that Harvard Papers in Botany is destined for the same fate as Lankesteriana: orchids only! As to the one described in this paper, Sobralia turrialbina Dressler, M. Acuña & Pupulin is known almost exclusively from cultivation, mainly in the vicinity of Turrialba. The authors note that "there seem to be more plants of this...species in gardens than in nature," a statement that, in our experience, applies in Costa Rica to many orchid spp. with large, gaudy flowers. In the present case, just "one large plant that was collected in nature" can be claimed with any confidence. The new sp., evidently endemic to Costa Rica, is compared with Sobralia chrysostoma Dressler, from which it differs in various (mainly floral) details. The authors (who ought to know) boast "nearly 40 recorded species" of Sobralia for the Costa Rica flora, vs. just 27 according to Manual Vol. 3 (2003). Features two distribution maps and (too!) many color photos from life.
Espinoza, P., E. Chacón-Madrigal, E. Sánchez & J. Gómez-Laurito. 2016. Key to the species of the genus Scleria (Cyperaceae) in Costa Rica based on the morphology of achenes. Phytotaxa 282: 81–107.
The key itself is dichotomous but, according to the lamentable practice of this journal, non-indented. Time (in conjunction with a wholesale transcription) will tell how useful it may be. Of more immediate interest to us are the sp. accounts—although their utility is also compromised, in our opinion, because they are ordered randomly (or at least, non-alphabetically). Each entry inlcudes brief descriptions and diagnoses (relevant only to the achenes), photomicrographs, and (generally) selected specimen citations. The sp. total, 21, is the same indicated in the Manual Cyperaceae treatment (2003) by the recently departed fourth author of this paper. However, there is one significant difference: we do not recognize one of the names, Scleria gaertneri Raddi. The authors make no comment on their usage of that name, but circumstantial evidence suggests that it replaces S. melaleuca Rchb. ex Schltdl. & Cham. (the only Scleria name accepted in the Manual that is MIA in this paper). Subsequent sleuthing by MO curator Gerrit Davidse has verified this hypothesis and established this to be a case of simple priority, S. gaertneri being the older of the two names (for further enlightenment, see under "Longhi-Wagner," this column, in the present issue).
Falcão Junior, M. J. A., R. B. Pinto & V. F. Mansano. 2016. A taxonomic revision of the genus Dialium (Leguminosae: Bialiinae) in the Neotropics. Phytotaxa 283: 123–142.
Dialium, estimated here to comprise "about 40" spp., is nominally paleotropical, but has been considered to be represented in the Neotropics by a single sp., the widespread D. guianense (Aubl.) Sandwith. The stated objective of the present study was "to determine if species diversity of the genus in [the Neotropics] is underestimated"; and, inevitably, they conclude that it indeed has been. The result is that three new spp. are described, all South American. The effect for Costa Rica is thus nil: we still have just one Dialium sp., correctly named D. guianense, and with an overall geographic range as indicated in the Manual Fabaceae treatment (2010) by co-PI Nelson Zamora. This is a standard revision, with all the usual features, plus distribution maps, composite drawings, and some close-up color photos, as well as a seemingly pointless and (as far as we can discern) completely unordered "list of analyzed specimens" (with no indication of their determinations).
Gagnon, E., A. Bruneau, C. E. Hughes, L. P. de Queiroz & G. P. Lewis. 2016. A new generic system for the pantropical Caesalpinia group (Leguminosae). PhytoKeys 71: 1–160.
The so-called Caesalpinia group (the authors do not italicize the name) is a pantropical assemblage of about 205 spp., many of which were included traditionally in the genus Caesalpinia (in Costa Rica, the only other long-recognized genus is Haematoxylum). During the preparation of his Manual Fabaceae treatment (2010), co-PI Nelson Zamora paid careful heed to the book Legumes of the world (2005), helmed by one of the authors of the present paper (Lewis), and adopted the appropriate Caesalpinia segregates proposed therein (Caesalpinia s. str., Coulteria, Guilandina, Libidibia, and Poincianella)—even though some had been qualified as provisional. The present contribution updates and refines that system based on more and better molecular and cladistic evidence, with the result that 26 genera are now recognized in the group (vs. 21, in the earlier work), including four described as new. Fortunately for us, the changes relevant to Costa Rican floristics are minimal and affect just one of the genera accepted by Nelson, i.e., Poincianella. Not only did Poincianella prove polyphyletic, but its only two Costa Rican representatives were resolved in different clades, and hence have wound up in different genera. Moreover, the genus name Poincianella is lost altogether, to the synonymy of Erythrostemon Klotzsch. The final result is this: Poincianella eriostachys (Benth.) Britton & Rose of the Manual is henceforth Cenostigma eriostachys (Benth.) Gagnon & G. P. Lewis, while P. exostemma (DC.) Britton & Rose is now Erythrostemon exostemma (DC.) Gagnon & G. P. Lewis (both new combinations, along with many others, being validated herein). Cenostigma Tul. (with 14 spp.) and Erythrostemon (with 31 spp.), both ranging essentially throughout the Neotropics, are apparently best distinguished by the generally alternate to subopposite leaflets of the former, vs. consistently opposite in the latter; however, for Costa Rican purposes, the sp.-level distinctions employed in Nelson's treatment will suffice quite nicely. Another development, of somewhat lesser impact to us, is that Caesalpinia s. str. (i.e., in the sense of the Manual) has itself proved non-monophyletic, and is now reduced to only about nine, strictly neotropical spp. (vs. ca. 25 spp., and occurring also in Africa, Madagascar, and Arabia, according to the Manual). However, the (mainly) cultivated C. pulcherrima (L.) Sw., the only sp. in Costa Rica, is one of the nine stalwarts. Features a key to genera (sadly, non-indented) and synoptic treatments for each. The latter, ordered non-alphabetically (according to some abstruse algorithm that is not evident to us), include synonymy, diagnoses, type citations, descriptions, distribution summaries, enumerations (alphabetical this time) of accepted spp., and illustrations (a composite line-drawing and one or more color photos from life). The introductory pages are devoted mainly to the presentation and evaluation of phylogenetic analyses. Intriguingly, a revision of Coulteria is indicated as having "been submitted," and "all [the] names associated with the genus...will be reduced" (as if that were a logical expectation for any revision); see under "Sotuyo," this column, in the present issue, for a contribution from this same group that may (or may not) represent the promised revision.
Garwood, N. C. 2016. Revisiting the lectotype of Rhamnus micranthus (Rhamnaceae). Phytotaxa 284: 293–295.
Rhamnus micranthus L. is actually the basionym of Trema micrantha (L.) Blume (Cannabaceae), the familiar name of a common and widespread neotropical tree. Previous lectotypifications of R. micranthus having been "incomplete or incorrect," the author carefully and laboriously designates a new lectotype (a Browne illustration of a presumably Jamaican plant). But it is the premise of this effort that we find intriguing: largely unpublished molecular analyses involving T. micrantha have revealed that "this taxon is not monophyletic and will require considerable revisionary work in the future to establish species boundaries" (with proper typification of the name being an "important first step"). Having studied mountains of specimens of T. micrantha, we are not surprised to learn that it is a hodge-podge; however, it remains to be seen whether a resolution will be available in time for the publication of Manual Vol. 4.
Gasper, A. L. de, V. A. O. Dittrich, A. R. Smith & A. Salino. 2016. A classification for Blechnaceae (Polypodiales: Polypodiopsida): new genera, resurrected names, and combinations. Phytotaxa 275: 191–227.
Here is the cart, coming before the horse: the molecular data on which this new classification is based remain (as of this writing) "in press." No matter, we are generally more interested in the cart anyway. The new system debuted in this paper recognizes 24 genera in Blechnaceae, a cosmopolitan family of about 250 spp. Traditionally, just three genera have been accepted for the New World: Blechnum, Salpichlaena, and Woodwardia (all of which occur in Costa Rica). Salpichlaena survives this onslaught intact, but the other two genera have been split up. Woodwardia spinulosa M. Martens & Galeotti, the only member of its genus in Costa Rica, remains in place, but our ca. 25 spp. traditionally assigned to Blechnum are now distributed among seven genera (including three described here as new). The card-house began to tumble a few years ago [see under, "Perrie," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(4), Oct. 2014], when a molecular study from another lab portrayed Blechnum as polyphyletic and resulted in the segregation of two spp. (including the former B. serrulatum Rich., known from Costa Rica) into the newly created Telmatoblechnum. However, that study left other problems in Blechnaceae unresolved. Enter the present authors, who retain Telmatoblechnum and produce five other new-fangled (at least, to us) genus names pertinent to Costa Rica from the ashes of Blechnum: Austroblechnum Gasper & V. A. O. Dittrich [with at least three spp. in Costa Rica, including the former Blechnum divergens (Kunze) Mett.]; Cranfillia Gasper & V. A. O. Dittrich, honoring our comrade Ray Cranfill (with the former Blechnum sprucei C. Chr. in Costa Rica); Lomaridium C. Presl [with at least three spp. in Costa Rica, including the former Blechnum ensiforme (Liebm.) C. Chr.]; Lomariocycas (J. Sm.) Gasper & A. R. Sm. [with the spp. known formerly as Blechnum buchtienii Rosenst. and B. werckleanum (Christ) C. Chr. in Costa Rica]; and Parablechnum C. Presl [with at least nine spp. in Costa Rica, including the former Blechnum schiedeanum (Schltdl. ex C. Presl) Hieron.]. That leaves, for us, only Blechnum s. str., now reduced from a total of ca. 150 spp., in its glory days, to a mere 30 (four of which are hybrids); about three of these occur in Costa Rica, including B. occidentale L. The authors also circumscribe three new subfamilies, and while these are of less interest to us, it is worth noting that Telmatoblechnum is assigned to a subfamily (along with Salpichlaena) separate from that housing the remaining genera here segregated from Blechnum. Technical descriptions and distribution summaries are provided for all major taxa (along with synonymy and typology for the subfamilies and genera), and there is also a key to "Blechnaceae taxa" (clearly artificial and non-indented) plus enumerations of the spp. and infraspecific taxa accepted for each genus (with new combinations validated, as necessary, by selected authors). All of the genera are depicted with reduced images from herbarium specimens.
Hágsater, E. 2010. The genus Epidendrum. Part 9. "Species new & old in Epidendrum." Icon. Orchid. 13: I–XXII, pl. 1301–1400.
——. 2013.. The genus Epidendrum. Part. 10. "Species new & old in Epidendrum." Icon. Orchid. 14: I–III, pl. 1401–1500.
Somehow the installments of this series keep evading our best efforts, and we have Manual correspondent Adam P. Karremans (JBL) to thank for bringing these particular oversights to our attention. For us, Part 9 offers just two, relatively minor name-changes [with respect to the Manual account of Epidendrum (Orchidaceae), helmed by Eric Hágsater (AMO) himself]: the sp. called Epidendrum peperomia Rchb. f. in the Manual now becomes E. porpax Rchb. f., which name was cited as a synonym in the Manual (E. peperomia s. str. now denotes a sp. of Colombia and Venezuela); and the name Epidendrum sancti-ramoni Kraenzl., accepted in the Manual, becomes a synonym of E. paranthicum Rchb. f. (which was cited as a "sensu" synonym in the Manual). Part 10 is meatier, for our purposes, yielding three new spp. for Costa Rica (each known only by its type): Epidendrum bogarinii Karremans & C. M. Sm., collected at 1163 m elevation on the Atlantic slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca, and compared with E. anastasioi Hágsater; Epidendrum inhibitiosum Karremans & Mel. Fernández, collected on the Península de Osa, and compared with E. singuliflorum Schltr. (of northern Mesoamerica); and Epidendrum microanoglossum Hágsater & Karremans, collected at 2205 m elevation on the Pacific slope of the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca (exactly on the Panamanian border), and compared (inevitably) with E. anoglossum Schltr. Additionally, Epidendrum sandiorum Hágsater, Karremans & L. Sánchez, proposed originally as a natural hybrid ("Epidendrum ×sandiorum") putatively involving E. ciliare L. and E. oerstedii Rchb. f. [see the second entry under "Karremans," this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(3), Jul. 2012], is reinterpreted as a conventional sp. on the basis of supplementary field observations. However, the would-be new combination proposed to acknowledge this change of status is wholly redundant (deletion of the "×" being all that is required). As usual for this series, each sp. treated is afforded a distribution map, composite line-drawing, and color photo from life, in addition to a full page of text.
Iamonico, D. 2016. Nomenclature survey of the genus Amaranthus (Amaranthaceae) 3. Names linked to the Italian flora. Pl. Biosyst. 150: 519–531.
Among the names perfunctorily typified are several that pertain to spp. occurring (at least potentially) in Costa Rica, i.e., Amaranthus blitum L. and A. hybridus L. The author did not see (or at least, does not cite) a recent revision [see under "Bayón," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(1), Jan. 2016] that contains additional information (some of it conflicting) regarding the typification of these names.
——. 2016. A new name in Sagina, Sagina alexandrae (Caryophyllaceae). Phytotaxa 282: 164–165.
Sagina subulata (Sw.) C. Presl (1826), the name long in use for a European sp. that has become naturalized in the New World, is preoccupied by S. subulata d'Urv. (1825). The latter is the basionym of Colobanthus subulatus (d'Urv.) Hook. f., the accepted name for a sp. of the Falkland Islands and Tierra del Fuego region. We have been aware of this for some time, and our modifications in TROPICOS may (or may not) have alerted this author to the situation. His response is to validate a nomen novum, Sagina alexandrae Iamonico (honoring the author's "faithful partner...in life"), to replace the posterior version of S. subulata. Our immediate reaction, on the other hand, was to look first for available synonyms, and Sagina revelierei Jord. & Fourr. (1866) appeared to fit the bill. If it is indeed synonymous with the 1826 S. subulata (as indicated in the most recent revision of Sagina), S. revelierei would have priority by 150 years over Iamonico's nomen novum; therefore, we will proceed with our plan to deploy the name S. revelierei in our Manual treatment of Caryophyllaceae, until convinced otherwise. According to molecular evidence cited in this paper, the largely subantarctic Colobanthus (one of exceedingly few angiosperm genera found on the Antarctic continent) may have to be merged with Sagina (which has the older name), rendering any duplication of epithets all the more untenable. Incidentally, Iamonico does not himself cite Sagina revelierei in synonymy, so his nomen novum is at least legitimate (if perhaps superfluous).
Jiménez-Mejías, P., M. Fabbroni, S. Donadío, G. E. Rodríguez-Palacios, A. Hilpold, S. Martín-Bravo, M. J. Waterway & E. H. Roalson. 2016. Taxonomic and distribution notes on Carex (Cyperaceae) from the Neotropics. Bol. Soc. Argent. Bot. 51: 727–739.
Not long ago we reported on the formal absorption of (among other things) the genus Uncinia into Carex [see under "Global Carex Group," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(4), Oct. 2015]. This involved (among other things) the validation of the combination Carex koyamae (Gómez-Laur.) J. R. Starr for the sp. treated as Uncinia koyamae Gómez-Laur. in Manual Vol. 2 (2003). Now the obliteration of Lauro's name is complete, if we are to believe these authors, who consign both Carex koyamae and Uncinia koyamae to synonymy under Carex phleoides Cav. And just like that we lose another (ostensible) endemic, as C. phleoides ranges southward to Chile and Argentina (and perhaps, as indicated in the Manual, northward to Mexico). We are obliged to sharp-eyed Manual contributor Daniel Santamaría (MO) for ferreting out this obscure item. Of lesser import to us is a lectotype designation for Carex polysticha Boeck., which also occurs in Costa Rica.
Junikka, L., P. J. M. Maas, H. Maas-van de Kamer & L. Y. T. Westra. 2016. Revision of Oxandra (Annonaceae). Blumea 61: 215–266.
The neotropical genus Oxandra, of which 27 spp. are accepted by these authors, is largely South American, with just six spp. in the Mesoamerican region and two recorded from Costa Rica: O. longipetala R. E. Fr. and O. venezuelana R. E. Fr. This affirms the notions that have prevailed among regional botanists over the past several decades, so there is very little here that is new to us. Nonetheless, we are intrigued by the mention under O. venezuelana of Poveda Á. 3889 (F), "a sterile collection from Costa Rica...aberrant in having the young twigs densely covered with erect, brown hairs." Leave it to Pove! Features synonymy and typology, technical descriptions, and distribution summaries at all ranks, a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp., distribution maps, sections on "Unplaced specimens" and "Excluded names," and indices to exsiccatae, scientific names, and common names. The relatively brief introductory portion focuses on taxonomic history, morphology, and distribution. All but a few of the spp. are illustrated, minimally with a photo of a herbarium specimen, sometimes with color photos from life. Four new spp. are described, but these are of no concern to us.
Karremans, A. P. 2016. Genera Pleurothallidinarum: an updated phylogenetic overview of Pleurothallidinae. Lankesteriana 16: 219–241.
A valuable and easily readable review of recent and ongoing developments concerning the phylogeny and classification of subtribe Pleurothallidinae, with detailed considerations of particular groups ("affinities") and lots of the requisite color photos. Pleurothallis, once the largest genus by far with an estimated 1500 spp. (in 2003, at the publication of Manual Vol. 3), has now shrunk to a mere 465 spp., surpassed by Lepanthes (1120 spp.), Stelis (1027 spp.), and even Masdevallia (623 spp.). The author no longer recognizes Dracontia as distinct from Stelis (in which it is "deeply embedded"), putting to rest an apparent contradiction we had noted (with unwarranted cynicism) in previous papers [see, e.g., under "Karremans," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015]. Trichosalpinx is reaffirmed as polyphyletic [see under "Karremans," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(3), Jul. 2014], with unpublished DNA data suggesting that it "contains at the very least seven unrelated clades." The paper by Doucette et al. (reviewed above, in this column) is not cited, and presumably is too recent to have been considered; the genus Kraenzlinella "is for now accepted" (but see the following entry!).
——, D. Bogarín, M. Díaz-Morales, M. Fernández, L. Oses & F. Pupulin. 2016. Phylogenetic reassessment of Acianthera (Orchidaceae: Pleurothallidinae). Harvard Pap. Bot. 21: 171–187.
Analyses of nrITS and chloroplast matK sequence data mandate, or at least condone, the inclusion in Acianthera of the following generic concepts: Aberrantia (Luer) Luer, Antilla (Luer) Luer, Apoda-prorepentia (Luer) Luer, Arthrosia Luer, Brenesia Schltr., Cryptophoranthus Barb. Rodr., Didactylus (Luer) Luer, Dondodia Luer, Kraenzlinella Kuntze, Ogygia Luer, Pleurobotryum Barb. Rodr., Proctoria Luer, Sarracenella Luer, and Unguella Luer. This result agrees broadly with a recent consensus classification of Orchidaceae [see under "Chase," in The Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015], which accepted only Kraenzlinella from the foregoing list. As we interpret the lone cladogram included in the paper under review, Kraenzlinella could actually be maintained as a distinct genus, with one minor modification, but only if Antilla and Brenesia were also recognized as such. The indicated modification is, in fact, effected by these authors, but Antilla, Brenesia, and Kraenzlinella are ranked only as subgenera (the new combinations for which are validated in the name of the first author). Deviation from the aforementioned consensus being unavoidable, this would seem the most conservative option. Most of the new combinations in Acianthera for spp. in subgen. Kraenzlinella were recently published elsewhere (see under "Doucette," this column), but numerous others are validated in the present paper, including the following three that pertain to Costa Rica: Acianthera costaricensis (Schltr.) Pupulin & Karremans (based on Brenesia costaricensis Schltr.), Acianthera brunnescens (Schltr.) Karremans (based on Pleurothallis brunnescens Schltr.), and Acianthera cachensis (Ames) Karremans (based on Pleurothallis cachensis Ames). The last of these is straightforward, but the other two require brief explanations. Brenesia costaricensis has been treated (as in Manual Vol. 3) as a synonym of Pleurothallis johnsonii Ames, but these authors make a convincing case (well-supported by photos) that the two entities are quite distinct (with both occurring in Costa Rica). Similarly, Pleurothallis brunnescens (based on Costa Rican material) has been synonymized (as in Manual Vol. 3) under P. lojae Schltr. (the type of which is from Ecuador), but is deemed distinct by these authors (with P. lojae excluded from Costa Rica); here, however, their case is less compelling, and based principally on biogeography ("The two localities have little flora in common, and...it is hard to believe that they represent the same species..."). Acianthera in the sense of this paper comprises 299 spp., of which 268 belong to the autonymic subgenus (subgenera Antilla, Brenesia, and Kraenzlinella harbor 18, four, and nine spp., respectively). Synonymy is provided for the genus, and synonymy and typology for each subgenus, and the spp. of each subgenus save the autonymic one are enumerated. Features two plates of color photos from living material.
León, B. 2016. (2480) Proposal to conserve Campyloneurum densifolium against Polypodium ccallahualla ("P. calaguala") (Polypodiaceae). Taxon 65: 1424–1425.
The name Polypodium ccallahualla Ruiz (1796), later (1805) "corrected" by its author to P. calaguala (a change not accepted by the author of this proposal), has rarely been mentioned (and never by its original spelling) in subsequent literature, and no combination exists in Campyloneurum. Yet, should this proposal fail, such a combination would have to replace Camplyoneurum densifolium (Hieron.) Lellinger, which name applies to the same sp. (as the author has concluded rather astutely). But so what? The sp. in question is rather obscure (we did not even recognize its prevailing name, and had quite forgotten that it occurs in Costa Rica), and the older name is rather colorful (the epithet being a local Andean common name). Why deny old Ruiz his due?
Leong-Škorničková, J. & O. Šida. 2016. (2482) Proposal to conserve the name Cheilocostus against Hellenia and Tsiana (Costaceae). Taxon 65: 1426–1427.
Let's briefly review the history of this situation which, in the case of Costa Rica, affects only the introduced, Asian sp. that was treated under the name Costus speciosus (J. Koenig) Sm. in Manual Vol. 2 (2003). About a decade ago, said sp. (along with several Asian relatives) was removed from Costus on the basis of molecular evidence, becoming Cheilocostus speciosus (J. Koenig) C. D. Specht [see The Cutting Edge 13(3): 13–14, Jul. 2006]. Sometime thereafter, a much older genus name was discovered [see under "Govaerts," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(1), Jan. 2014], and our guy became Hellenia speciosa (J. Koenig) Govaerts—the name we have been using (in unpublished checklists) for the past several years. Now these authors propose to backtrack and restore the genus name Cheilocostus (published only in 2006), and they'd better have a darn good reason. They do indeed have a mildly compelling argument, which goes something like this: in resurrecting Hellenia, Govaerts overlooked another synonym (Tsiana J. F. Gmel.) of (effectively) the same vintage, while disdaining conservation of Cheilocostus on false pretenses (i.e., that the name Hellenia had been used for the genus in the past, a notion debunked by these authors). Meanwhile, it seems that the name Cheilocostus has gained wide acceptance since its publication, while nobody (except sus servidores) has adopted Hellenia. So we'll see how these chips fall, though obviously, if Hellenia is to be retained, it will have to be conserved over Tsiana (or the reverse could be effected, and Tsiana implemented as the accepted genus name—an option considered, but rejected, by these authors). To us traditionalists, it seems sheer madness to reject names more than two centuries old in favor of a name invented a mere decade ago.
Longhi-Wagner, H. M., R. M. Baldini & A. C. Araújo. 2010. Cyperaceae Raddianae: a nomenclatural and taxonomic study of the Cyperaceae published in G. Raddi's Agrostografia brasiliensis. Kew Bull. 65: 449–461.
This is an older paper, we know, but it contains a bombshell that we (and many others) overlooked: the abundant, weedy, and widely distributed sp. known most recently (e.g., in Manual Vol. 2) as Scleria melaleuca Rchb. ex Schltdl. & Cham. (1831) must now be called Scleria gaertneri Raddi (1823), revealed here as "the oldest valid name for this species" (see also under "Espinoza," this column, in the present issue). At the time this paper was published, the name S. gaertneri was not even recorded in IPNI or TROPICOS (it has since been added to those databases). We have no doubt that conservation of S. melaleuca will be proposed by someone with nothing better to do, but it is instructive to recall that the last-mentioned name itself has enjoyed a relatively brief reign; many of us learned the sp., just a few decades back, as Scleria pterota C. Presl, ultimately unmasked as a nomen nudum. Most of the other obscure Raddi names dealt with in this paper are relegated to synonymy under older names yet, with no apparent consequences for us.
Loss-Oliveira, L., C. Sakuragui, M. L. Soares & C. G. Schrago. 2016. Evolution of Philodendron (Araceae) species in Neotropical biomes. PeerJ 4: 31744(1–18).
Prior molecular studies of Philodendron and allies from a different lab portrayed the the genus Homalomena as diphyletic, with its New World spp. [i.e. sect. Curmeria (André) Engl.] sister to Philodendron subgen. Pteromischum (Schott) Mayo. This led to the elevation of Homalomena sect. Curmeria to generic rank under the name Adelonema [see under "Wong," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(2), Apr. 2016], while strongly suggesting that Philodendron subgen. Pteromischum would eventually have to be either included in Adelonema, or itself elevated to the rank of genus (under the name Elopium). This new study corroborates the status of Adelonema (as more closely related to Philodendron than to Old World Homalomena), but not that of subgen. Pteromischum, which appears to be not only nested within Philodendron subgen. Philodendron, but polyphyletic as well! So the jury remains out on the status of subgen. Pteromischum, and more extensive sampling is clearly to be desired. The authors' graphic showing the varying relationships among all these taxa as proposed by past molecular studies says much more about methodology than phylogeny.
Lucas, E., C. E. Wilson, D. F. Lima, M. Sobral & K. Matsumoto. 2016. A conspectus of Myrcia sect. Aulomyrcia (Myrtaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 101: 648–698.
We had high hopes for this paper, as we are aware that the genera Calyptranthes and Marlierea are slated for incorporation into Myrcia [see, e.g., under "Wilson," this column, in our last issue], and expected to find new combinations for at least some of the Costa Rican spp. treated under the two former genus names in Manual Vol. 6 (2007). But still we get no satisfaction! Myrcia, in its newly expanded circumscription, now harbors ca. 750 spp., 124 of which belong to sect. Aulomyrcia (O. Berg) Griseb. However, as far as we can determine from the comprehensive enumeration presented here, the only Costa Rican representative of the last-mentioned taxon is Myrcia amazonica DC. None of the 28 new combinations, 21 replacement names, or 64 new lectotype designations validated or effected in this paper concerns us in any way, and we must thus remain in a holding pattern.
Miller, J. S. 2016. New Boraginales from tropical America 8. Two new species of Tournefortia (Heliotropiaceae) from Costa Rica. Novon 25: 47–50.
Both of these novelties stem from the author's work on the Boraginaceae treatment for the impending Manual Vol. 4 (we cannot accommodate segregates such as Heliotropiaceae at this late date), in conjunction with his recent tour of Costa Rican herbaria [see under "News and notes" in The Cutting Edge 22(3), Jul. 2015]. Tournefortia albifolia J. S. Mill., known to personnel at the Estación Biológica La Selva for several decades now, finally receives a proper (and very apt) name. Compared most closely with T. hirsutissima L., the new sp. is known by just four collections from the Costa Rican Atlantic coastal plain (0–100 m elevation), plus, rather surprisingly, a single collection from Chiapas (at 1000 m). Tournefortia longipedicellata J. S. Mill., compared with T. johnstonii Standl. and T. ramonensis Standl., is comparatively widespread in Costa Rica (at 1000–2400 m), though endemic there. Both new spp. are depicted in excellent composite line drawings.
Mina-Vargas, A. M., P. C. McKeown, N. S. Flanagan, D. G. Debouck, A. Kilian, T. R. Hodkinson & C. Spillane. 2016. Origin of year-long bean (Phaseolus dumosus Macfady [sic], Fabaceae) from reticulated hybridization events between multiple Phaseolus species. Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 118: 957–969.
Who knew that Phaseolus dumosus Macfad.—a popular bean in Costa Rica, where it is known as cubá or (its plural) cubaces—was called "year-long bean" in English? The significance of that name is not explained, however. In any case, this molecular study suggests that P. dumosus "has a reticulate origin involving a hybridization event between P. coccineus and P. vulgaris and several backcrossing events to P. coccineus, and in which P. costaricensis was also involved." It is not clear (to us) whether the authors believe these occurrences to have been natural or mediated by human intervention. In an incidental development, Phaseolus costaricensis Freytag & Debouck was resolved as diphyletic. The authors state that "wild P. dumosus currently has a small geographic range restricted to central and south Guatemala" (it was alleged to be native also in southern Mexico in the Manual Fabaceae treatment by co-PI Nelson Zamora).
Monteiro, R. F. & R. C. Forzza. 2016. Typification of Bromelia karatas, the type of the genus Bromelia (Bromeliaceae). Taxon 65: 1101–1106.
Bromelia karatas L., as previously pointed out in these pages [see The Cutting Edge 11(1): 13, Jan. 2004], is the correct name for the sp. erroneously called "Bromelia plumieri (E. Morren) L. B. Sm." in Manual Vol. 2 (2003). Apparently, the last-mentioned combination was never properly validated, though it would, in any case, have been superfluous. These authors "lecotypify and epitypify B. karatas,...and clarify the application of [the] name." This latter aspect is not entirely clear to us (did we get it right in the Manual?); however, according to the geographic range provided, the sp. in question must certainly occur in Costa Rica.
Narzary, D., S. A. Ranade, P. K. Divakar & T. S. Rana. 2016. Molecular differentiation and phylogenetic relationship of the genus Punica (Punicaceae) with other taxa of the order Myrtales. Rheedea 26: 37–51.
According to the authors, their study "revealed that the genus Punica is distinct under the family Lythraceae" (whatever that means!). Actually, their cladograms show the dispecific Punica (with one sp. sparingly cultivated in Costa Rica) as rather firmly nested among other, more "typical" genera of Lythraceae. This suits us, because Punica granatum L. was mentioned under Lythraceae in Manual Vol. 6 (2007). The genus has often been segregated in its own family.
Nikulin, V. Y., S. B. Gontcharova, R. Stephenson & A. A. Gontcharov. 2016. Phylogenetic relationships between Sedum L. and related genera (Crassulaceae) based on ITS rDNA sequence comparisons. Flora 224: 218–229.
Readers of this paper would be well-advised to look first at the final sentence: "Unfortunately, our understanding of Sedum phylogeny has not advanced significantly over the last 20 years, and we are still at the beginning of shaping the phylogenetic tree of the crassulacean crown group." The problem is that a host of genera traditionally regarded as distinct (e.g., Aeonium, Dudleya, Echeveria, Graptopetalum, Sempervivum, and Villadia) are embedded promiscuously among spp. that have traditionally been included in Sedum. The core group (tribe Sedeae) resolves into three major subclades, and the authors are torn between reducing the mass "to three highly polymorphic and species-rich genera" and "splitting [it] into smaller and preferably monophyletic lineages (genera)." However, a final decision does not appear close at hand. According to our desultory analysis, the operative genus names for the three major subclades would be Dudleya, Echeveria, and Sedum; of the affected spp. occuring in (though not necessarily native to) Costa Rica, Sedum griseum Praeger falls into the Echeveria subclade (along with, we presume, Echeveria australis Rose), while S. mexicanum Britton (to which the name S. dendroideum DC. was applied erroneously in Manual Vol. 5) comes out in the Sedum clade (rather near the type sp., S. acre L.). Speculating as much further as we dare, should these (or some other) authors opt for yet smaller genera, Sedum griseum could find itself in Villadia. Given the well-documented futility of classification in this group, we wonder that the single-genus option has not received serious consideration. One thing only is certain: this card-house will be tumbling down fast and hard!
Ormerod, P. 2016. Neotropical orchid miscellanea. Harvard Pap. Bot. 21: 231–245.
The title is apt, if uninformative; the miscellany involves not only the range of taxa considered, but also variety of operations undertaken (descriptions of new spp., lecto- and neotypifications, and new synonymies). That said, there appears to be little here of direct relevance to Costa Rican floristics. For us, the consequential activity is confined to the genus Fernandezia, as recently expanded to include the likes of Pachyphyllum [see under "Chase," this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(2), Apr. 2011]. The author points out a serious problem involving the typification of Fernandezia Ruiz & Pav. (1794): the generic type sp., F. laxa Ruiz & Pav. is, in fact, a sp. of Dichaea! Strict adherence to typification and priority in this situation would set the dominoes in motion, requiring that the name Fernandezia replace Dichaea Lindl. (1833)—the latter solidly established for a highly distinctive taxon—and that Pachyphyllum Kunth (1816) replace Fernandezia (in its expanded sense). This author considers that "it will be necessary to propose conservation of the type of Fernandezia," and continues to use the name as though said conservation were a done deed. But for us, the bombshell is this: Fernandezia tica Mora-Ret. & García-Castro, the only Costa Rican member of old Fernandezia sensu stricto (and an erstwhile country endemic), falls prey to F. sanguinea (Lindl.) Garay & Dunst., entailing a southward range extension to Ecuador (or even Peru) and Venezuela.
Ortiz-Rodriguez, A. E., E. Ruiz-Sanchez & J. F. Ornelas. 2016. Phylogenetic relationships among members of the Neotropical clade of Miliuseae (Annonaceae): generic non-monophyly of Desmopsis and Stenanona. Syst. Bot. 41: 815–822.
To brush up a little on the systematics of Annonaceae: tribe Miliuseae, with 25 genera and 510 spp., is the largest of the seven tribes that compose subfam. Malmeoideae. The latter taxon, which itself harbors 50 genera and 700 spp., is one of four subfamilies recognized in Annonaceae. The "Neotropical clade" of tribe Miliuseae consists of Desmopsis (with 18 spp.), Sapranthus (9 spp.), Stenanona (15 spp.), and Tridimeris (3 spp.), plus two Mexican spp. representing putatively undescribed genera; only the first three of these entities occur in Costa Rica. These analyses confirm the "Neotropical clade" as monophyletic, prompting the authors to award it subtribal status under the freshly validated name Sapranthinae Ortiz-Rodr., Ruiz-Sanchez & Ornelas. Within subtribe Sapranthinae, Sapranthus presents no problems, evincing a sister-group relationship with Tridimeris in a clade basal to the other taxa. However, as suggested in the title, trouble looms for both Desmopsis and Stenanona. The bulk of subtribe Sapranthinae resolves into three main clades, with little regard for traditional generic boundaries: "subclade A," with various spp. of Stenanona from northern Mesoamerica, one of the putatively undescribed genera, and two spp. of Desmopsis, including D. schippii Standl. (the only member of the subclade extending to Costa Rica); "subclade B," with a mixture of Desmopsis and Stenanona spp., including the type sp. of each genus [D. panamensis (B. L. Rob.) Saff. and S. panamensis Standl., respectively], as well as D bibracteata (B. L. Rob.) Saff., D. microcarpa R. E. Fr., and S. costaricensis R. E. Fr. (to mention only the spp. occurring in Costa Rica); and "subclade C," with various Mexican Desmopsis spp., as well as the other of the putatively undescribed genera. We can imagine various taxonomic resolutions to this situation, such as: lumping Desmopsis and Stenanona under the older name (Desmopsis, which would have to also include the two putatively undescribed genera); conferring generic status upon each of the three subclades (which would also result in the loss of the name Stenanona and both of the putatively undescribed genera); or dividing the group even more finely so as to preserve the generic status of the undescribed entities. The authors betray an inclination toward the first of these options ("...Desmopsis and Stenanona...are probably congeneric..."), but take no formal taxonomic action at the present time, in part because numerous critical spp. have yet to be sampled.
Oses Salas, L. & A. P. Karremans. 2016. A note on Masdevallia zahlbruckneri and M. utriculata (Orchidaceae). Harvard Pap. Bot. 21: 325–336.
This, at least for us, boils down to a range extension, although one would not glean as much from either the title or the text. Masdevallia zahlbruckneri Kraenzl. has long been a member in good standing of the Costa Rican flora and, indeed, is based on a Costa Rican type. On the other hand, M. utriculata Luer has been considered endemic to western Panama, and was not treated in Manual Vol. 3 (2003); to our knowledge, this constitutes the first published report for Costa Rica, though it is possible that the JBL crew has included it in another of their innumerable publications. Whatever the case, all the cited Costa Rican collections (from 1750–2400 m, on both slopes of the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca) have accrued since 2010 (and all were made by JBL gang). Here, the two similar (though "not closely related at all") spp. are compared and contrasted by means of detailed descriptions, distribution and phenology summaries, specimen citations, an insightful discussion, a distribution map and an altitudinal graph, and numerous color photos from life. In addition, we get two portraits and a brief biography of Alexander Zahlbruckner, an Austrian lichenologist(!) who "supplied Fritz Kraenzlin with many specimens from Reichenbach's herbarium."
Pellegrini, M. O. O., R. B. Faden & R. F. Almeida. 2016. Taxonomic revision of Neotropical Murdannia Royle (Commelinaceae). PhytoKeys 74: 35–78.
Murdannia is a pantropical genus of "ca. 60" spp. (according to these authors), but the neotropical spp. accepted in this publication total just eight. Furthermore, two of the latter are themselves adventive from tropical Asia (or ostensibly so; one of them is provisionally identified). That leaves six native New World Murdannia spp., all exclusively South American (and mainly Brazilian). For Costa Rica, it all comes down to business as usual: the introduced (though throroughly naturalized) Murdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan retains its status as our sole representative of the genus. The genus is broadly characterized as "aquatic," but that is certainly not the case for M. nudiflora in Costa Rica (where it may fluorish in relatively dry sites, though only in the rainy season). Includes synonymy, typology, and generous descriptions as all ranks, a (non-indented) key to spp., specimen citations (except for M. nudiflora), distribution and phenology summaries, conservation assessments, discussions, and a single distribution map (that omits M. nudiflora). There are no indices. The brief introduction mainly addresses taxonomic history, but includes a tabularized morphological comparison of the eight treated spp. One new sp., one new combination, and several new typifications are proposed, but none of these affects us. Each sp. is illustrated with at least one color photo of living and/or herbarium material (the former, in the case of M. nudiflora).
Peraza-Flores, L. N., G. Carnevali & C. van den Berg. 2016. A molecular phylogeny of the Laelia alliance (Orchidaceae) and a reassessment of Laelia and Schomburgkia. Taxon 65: 1249–1262.
Assuming that everyone is on board with monophyletic taxa, classification becomes arbitrary. Stability of nomenclature will never be achieved until everyone buys into a consensus classification. This goes not only for major groups (APG being the most widely accepted consensus classification of angiosperms), but also for particular families. In the case of Orchidaceae, we (as non-specialists) are very happy to adopt a recent consensus classification [see under "Chase," this column, inThe Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015] in which Schomburgkia is included in Laelia (to cite the example most germane to the present paper). These authors, hoewever, "[prefer] to recognize them as separate genera." We would maintain that personal preferences and unilateral dissent should not be indulged, but recognize that taxonomists are independent and strong-willed souls who cannot be reined in easily. It seems to us that, when these authors express a preference for "separate genera," what they really want to maintain are the names, not the taxa. This is evidenced by the fact that the taxa themselves have had to be reconfigured as a result of these analyses. Inevitably, "the existence of two clades" is confirmed, but these fail to correspond to the traditional concepts of Laelia and Schomburgkia. Thus, in order to preserve both cherished genus names, five spp. had to be transferred from the former genus to the latter, the combinations being validated here in the names of the first two authors. As luck would have it, the only sp. of traditional Laelia occurring in Costa Rica, long known as Laelia rubescens Lindl., becomes Schomburgkia rubescens (Lindl.) Peraza & Carnevali under this plan [on the other hand, the sp. known lately as Laelia lueddemannii (Prill.) L. O. Williams would revert to Schomburgkia lueddemannii Prill., the name used in Manual Vol. 3]. We look at all of this from a different perspective: this study resolves traditional Laelia as paraphyletic with respect to traditional Schomburgkia, supporting the recent consensus classification, and we are having none of this revisionism. For those inclined to cling to the names Laelia and Schomburgkia under whatever circumscriptions may be required to do so, this paper provides a tabular comparison of the two entities, as here redefined.
Pessoa, E. & M. Alves. 2016. Taxonomic revision of Campylocentrum (Orchidaceae–Vandeae–Angraecinae): species with terete leaves. Syst. Bot. 41: 700–713.
Six of the seven spp. recognized by the authors in the titular subset are exclusively Brazilian, or very nearly so (a single collection from Paraguay is cited). The exception is the wide-ranging Campylocentrum poeppigii (Rchb. f.) Rolfe, distributed from southern Mexico south to Peru, Venezuela, Trinidad, and Brazil, as well as in the Greater Antilles (the range given in the Manual requires minor tweaking). Two Costa Rican specimens of C. poeppigii are cited, both from the Llanura de San Carlos. Essentially, there is very little here that is new to us. Includes synonymy, typology, and descriptions for the genus and each treated sp. (the genus descripton serving only for the terete-leaved spp.), an indented key to spp., disrtibution summaries, conservation assessments, notes, representative specimen citations, and distribution maps, as well as a tabularized comparison of the spp. The brief introduction deals mainly with taxonomic history and biogeography. All seven spp. are illustrated with composite line drawings and (in the introduction) photos of roots and fruits. One new (Brazilian) sp. is described, and various names (including the basionym of C. poeppigii) are newly typified.
—— & ——. 2016. Taxonomical revision of Campylocentrum sect. Dendrophylopsis Cogn. (Orchidaceae-Vandeae-Angraecinae). Phytotaxa 286: 131–152.
The section indicated above comprises the leafless spp. of Camyplocentrum, two of which were attributed to Costa Rica in Manual Vol. 3 (2003): C. fasciola (Lindl.) Cogn. and C. tyrridion Garay & Dunst. The latter name, however, was later alleged to have been misapplied to Costa Rican material and was supplanted by C. multiflorum Schltr., while a new leafless sp., Camplyocentrum generalense Bogarín & Pupulin, was described from Costa Rica [see under "Bogarín," this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(2), Apr. 2011]. The present revision recognizes 13 spp. of sect. Dendrophylopsis, and a quick scan of the key reveals that C. multiflorum is not among them. Delving more deeply, we are gratified to learn that these authors have fully restored Manual usage in this regard, with C. multiflorum returned to the synonymy of C. fasciola and C. tyrridion back in the saddle. It remains to be seen whether the JBL crew will acquiesce to this! Campylocentrum generalense is, by the way, accepted by these authors, but their citation of a single Panamanian specimen costs us another endemic. We detect no other major changes affecting Costa Rica. Features synonymy and typology at all ranks, keys (non-indented) to the sections and to the spp. of sect. Dendrophylopsis, technical descriptions of the latter and all its spp., distribution summaries, assessments of conservation status, notes, specimen citations, and distribution maps. There are no indices. The very brief introductory part touches upon taxonomic history, phylogeny, distribution, and morphology. All the spp. are compared morphologically in a table and depicted in basic composite line drawings.
Philbrick, C. T., P. K. B. Philbrick & C. P. Bove. 2016. Nomenclatural changes in Neotropical riverweeds (Podostemaceae). Novon 25: 51–56.
Just one tiny crumb here for us: the citation of two new synonyms under Marathrum tenue Liebm. extends the range of that sp. southward (discontinuously, it would seem) to Peru and Bolivia. The geographic range given in Manual Vol. 7 (2014) did not include South America.
Pool, A. & I. M. Coronado. 2016. A new species of Casimiroa (Rutaceae) from Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Novon 25: 64–68.
Casimiroa dura A. Pool & Coronado, sp. nov., corresponds to C. sp. A of Manual Vol. 7 (2014), for which we are very pleased to now have an actual name. The new sp. is compared most intimately with Casimiroa sapota Oerst, from which it differs in the leaf-pubescence character utilized in the Manual, as well as the thicker and harder epicarp of its fruits (whence, presumably, the epithet). It is important to point out that the Manual account of Casimiroa sp. A is incorrect in one significant detail (employed even in the key): the mesocarp of its fruits is not "granuloso-fibroso" (an error for which the first author of this paper assumes responsibility), rather "creamy and not at all grainy or fibrous." Illustrated with a black-and-white image of a paratype, plus color photos of living material.
Pruski, J. F. 2016. Compositae of Central America–VI. Perymenium hondurense, Podachaenium salvadorense, and Verbesina monteverdensis, three new woody species of Heliantheae. Phytoneuron 2016-83: 1–21.
The epithets in the title are sufficient to indicate that only one of the three new spp. occurs in Costa Rica, and that Verbesina monteverdensis Pruski must be our guy. The latter is restricted to the Monteverde region of the Cordillera de Tilarán, on the Pacific slope and near the Continental Divide, where it has been collected at elevations of 1500–1850 m. The most similar sp. would seem to be V. oerstediana Benth., with which the new sp. has often been confused. Several photographs (apparently from herbarium material) of V. monteverdensis are provided, along with a distribution map and a key to the four Central American genera of Asteraceae subtribe Verbesininae Benth. & Hook. f. In the bargain, we get keys to the Mesoamerican spp. of Perymenium and Podachaenium, the former with two spp. and the later with a single sp. attributed to Costa Rica.
——, J. E. Jiménez & D. Rodríguez. 2016. Compositae of Central America–V. The genus Brickellia (Eupatorieae) in Costa Rica. Phytoneuron 2016-84: 1–11.
The big story here is Brickellia kellermanii Greenm., reported for the first time from Costa Rica on the basis of a collection by co-author Esteban Jiménez from the high (988 m) savannas of Volcán Miravalles, in the Cordillera de Guanacaste. The sp., otherwise known from southern Mexico (Chiapas) to Nicaragua, is also reported for the first time from El Salvador in this paper. Two other Brickellia spp. occur in Costa Rica, B. argyrolepis B. L. Rob and B. diffusa (Vahl) A. Gray, but we already knew about those. Although this is essentially a range-extension report, the authors seize the opportunity to provide a taxonomic treatment of the genus for the country, with synonymy at all ranks (including two sections), descriptions of the genus and each sp., a key to spp., representative specimen citations, distribution summaries, discussions (as needed), and a distribution map. The spp. are all depicted in basic line drawings and/or photographs of herbarium or (B. kellermanii) living material. Incidentally, Brickellia kellermanii belongs to the same section (sect. Bulbostylis A. Gray) as B. argyrolepis.
Pupulin, F., D. Bogarín, M. Fernández, M. Díaz-Morales, J. Aguilar & C. Ossenbach. 2016. Orchidaceae tonduzianae: typification of Costa Rican Orchidaceae described from collections of Adolphe Tonduz. Harvard Pap. Bot. 21: 263–320.
More interesting to us than the typifications is the introductory portion of this paper, which features a wealth of often juicy biographical information about the errant collector of the title, supplemented by numerous historical photos. To be sure, much of this has been published previously by this crew, but it never gets old. The authors also expend considerable verbiage on a very useful explication of the complex numbering system used by the Costa Rican national herbarium during the era of Pittier and Tonduz. Although "the orchid family was not one of Tonduz's favorite groups" (comprising only "about 2.8%" of his collections), 64 sp. names (by our count) in Orchidaceae were based on Tonduz collections. The vast majority of these (56) were validated by the late Rudolf Schlechter (B), whose specimens, drawings, and notes were mostly destroyed during World War II. Thus, much lectotypification is effected in this paper, along with a modicum of neo- and epitypification. All but one of the aforementioned 64 names are typified (often lavishly), along with one subsp. name. Our only comment on the typifications is a very general one: many of the so-called "lectotypes" designated in this paper (along with some designated by previous authors) comprise tracings or photos of original drawings or specimens, and it is debatable whether these elements actually comprise original material (see., e.g., Ross, 2002; Taxon 51: 523–524). If they do not, then they would not qualify as potential lectotypes, according to ICN Art. 9.2; even so, in most cases they would be eligible as neotypes, so this is probably not a serious issue. Nomenclaturally speaking, the only apparent consequence for Costa Rican floristics involves the name Rodriguezia inconspicua Kraenzl., the single case treated under the heading "Excluded names" at the end of the paper. Although long considered as typified by a Tonduz specimen, this name was actually an avowed substitute for Trichocentrum candidum Lindl., based on Kränzlin's mistaken belief that the epithet inconspicuum was preocuppied in Trichocentrum. Therefore, R. inconspicua is an illegitimate name, and not fodder for this paper; rather, it is perforce a synonym of Trichocentrum candidum, as are its homotypic (and likewise illegitimate) synonyms, Hybochilus inconspicuus Schltr. and Leochilus inconspicuus M. W. Chase & N. H. Williams. Now, Hybochilus inconspicuus is the type sp. of the (monospecific) genus Hybochilus which, by extension, must now be regarded as a synonym of Trichocentrum. So, what does this all mean for the sp. that was treated erroneously under the name Hybochilus inconspicuus in the Manual? The correct name for that entity is not divulged in this paper, but we may hazard a guess. First, recall that the genus Hybochilus (in the sense of the Manual, not of its type) was recently submerged into Leochilus [see under "Chase," this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(2), Apr. 2010], occasioning the publication of the intended combination L. inconspicuus, now known to be inapplicable to the sp. in question. With that in mind, a little sleuthing suggests that the correct name for the sp. called Hybochilus inconspicuus in the Manual is most likely a combination (as yet unpublished) in Leochilus based on Rodriguezia candelariae Kraenzl. (1916), apparently the oldest available synonym. Aren't orchids fun?
Rodríguez del Castillo, A. M., C. García-Dávila, K. Mejía & J.-C. Pintaud. 2016. Attalea: insights into the diversity and phylogeny of an intriguing genus. Palms (1999+) 60: 109–124.
A popularization, with lots of nice color photos, perhaps spun off from (or at least inspired by) a more scholarly recent paper (see under "Freitas," this column, in our last issue) involving one of the same authors. We do learn a few things: Attalea s. l. (including Maximiliana, Orbignya, and Scheelea) "is well-defined by a single character: the asymmetrical tip of the pinna"; and, it has "commonly 3–6 seeds per fruit in many species...and up to 8 in some species" (demolishing our notion that all palm fruits are single-seeded). Also of interest is the authors' implicit recognition of Attalea rostrata Oerst. as a sp. distinct from A. butyracea (Mutis ex L. f.) Wess. Boer, supporting (at least for the moment) the taxonomy adopted in the Manual Arecaceae treatment (2003) by co-PI Mike Grayum.
Salazar, G. A., T. J. Hernández-López, J. Sharma, R. Jiménez-Machorro, L. I. Cabrera & J. Treviño-Carreón. 2016. Greenwoodiella, a new genus of Spiranthinae (Orchidaceae) from North and Central America and the Greater Antilles, with a new species from the Chihuahuan Desert. Syst. Bot. 41: 823–838.
The orchids just never stop piling on. Greenwoodiella Salazar, Hern.-López & J. Sharma gen. nov. is typified by a newly described sp. from northeastern Mexico and southern Texas, but also absorbs two previously described spp. that have been included most recently in the genus Schiedeella. At least one of the latter occurs in Costa Rica: Greenwoodiella wercklei (Schltr.) Salazar & R. Jiménez (comb. nov.), treated as Schiedeella wercklei (Schltr.) Garay in Manual Vol. 3 (2003). The remaining sp. of Greenwoodiella, G. micrantha (Lex.) Salazar & R. Jiménez (comb. nov.), with two vars., is a bit problematic for us, both nomenclaturally and taxonomically. Nomenclaturally speaking, G. micrantha is a homotypic and prior synonym of Schiedeella llaveana (Lindl.) Schltr., a superfluous name that was used erroneously in the Manual (and elsewhere) as an accepted sp. name. The correct name in Schiedeella for the taxon in question would be a combination (apparently never-published) based on Neottia micrantha Lex. A taxonomic problem is suggested by the assertion of these authors that Greenwoodiella micrantha (including both vars.) is endemic to Mexico. This raises the question: what, then, is the correct name for Schiedeella llaveana in the sense of the Manual? Could it really be Greenwoodiella micrantha, based on a disjunct occurrence of which the authors of this paper are ignorant? Or could it be Schiedeella transversalis (A. Rich. & Galeotti) Schltr. which, according to these authors, is the correct name for a "distinctive species" to which the name Schiedeella llaveana "has long been misapplied"? The sole basis for the Costa Rican record is apparently Brade & Brade 1134 (HB), an historical specimen (cited in a revision) that we have not seen (not that our seeing it would help!). As it turns out, that specimen is the type of Schiedeella petiolata Schltr., cited in synonymy under S. llaveana in the Manual (but not under Greenwoodiella micrantha, or anywhere else, in the paper under review). So at least we have some accountability here (a major reason we cite vouchers): wherever Schiedeella petiolata winds up, so goes S. llaveana in the sense of the Manual (and if everything else fails, we'll always have the name S. petiolata itself to fall back on; perhaps it is a good sp. afer all!). And to whomever may be interested: a fine isotype of Schiedeella petiolata is imaged on JSTOR, so have at it!
So much for all that. This contribution qualifies as a synoptic treatment of Greenwoodiella, lacking formal descriptions (except for the new sp.) but providing synonymy and typology at all ranks, a combined key to spp. and vars., distribution and phenology summaries, "remarks," and specimen citations. The very brief introductory portion is concerned mainly with taxonomic history. All the subordinate taxa (and two spp. in related genera) are depicted in color photos from life, and the new sp. in an excellent composite line drawing by the fourth author. Another composite line drawing represents a floral analysis of the neotype (designated here) of Neottia micrantha.
Sotuyo, S., J. L. Contreras, E. Gagnon & G. P. Lewis. 2017. A synopsis of Coulteria (Leguminosae), including new names and synonyms. Phytotaxa 291: 33–42.
We hope that this is not the revision of Coulteria said to be forthcoming in a previous paper by this group (see under "Gagnon," this column, in the present issue), but we'll make do with whatever comes our way. Unfortunately, for our purposes, this paper raises more questions than it answers. Seven spp. are recognized by the authors (vs. "9 ó 10" in the Manual Fabaceae treatment by co-PI Nelson Zamora), most of which require new combinations that are validated herein. A combination that is not required is Coulteria platyloba (S. Watson) N. Zamora, which was validated in the Manual for the sole Costa Rican member of the genus and is used by these authors for an accepted sp. But if Nelson's nomenclature has passed muster, it seems likely that his taxonomy has not fared as well: C. platyloba, according to this source, is a Mexican endemic! Indeed, not a single Coulteria sp. is attributed to Costa Rica in this work; we cannot find the country mentioned anywhere in the paper, and Nelson's treatment is not even cited. So what gives? Is "Coulteria platyloba" in the sense of the Manual actually a member of a different genus? Or did these authors overlook the Manual attribution, and/or not have access to Costa Rican material? Among the accepted spp. of Coulteria, the one most likely to extend to Costa Rica would figure to be C. velutina (Britton & Rose) Sotuyo & G. P. Lewis, which alone reaches southwestern Nicaragua; moreover, Caesalpinia velutina (Britton & Rose) Standl. was cited in synonymy under C. platyloba in the Manual. Nevertheless, some features of Coulteria velutina (as given in the key) do not agree with Nelson's description of C. platyloba, so we'll have to wait and see how this plays out. Features synonymy, typology, and distribution summaries at all ranks, a description of the genus, a (non-indented) key to spp., selected specimen citations, a distribution map, and a section on "Excluded names." The introductory part briefly considers morphology, taxonomic history, and phylogeny. A representative sp., Coulteria mollis Kunth (the type), is illustrated with a fine composite line drawing and color photos from life.
Svoboda, H. T., J. M. MacDougal & H. E. Ballard, Jr. 2016. Typifications and nomenclatural notes in Passiflora section Dysosmia (Passifloraceae). Phytotaxa 288: 101–119.
This nomenclatural miscellany touches lightly on a few names germane to the Costa Rica flora (e.g., Passiflora ciliata Aiton, which is neotypified), but without noteworthy consequences.
Taylor, C. M. & V. C. Hollowell. 2016. Rubiacearum americanarum magna hama pars XXXV: the new group Palicourea sect. Nonatelia, with five new species (Palicoureeae). Novon 25: 69–110.
The expansion of Palicourea at the expense of Psychotria [see under "Taylor," this column, in the Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015] forges ahead, as the former Psychotria sect. Nonatelia (Aubl.) Müll. Arg. becomes Palicourea sect. Nonatelia (Aubl.) C. M. Taylor (comb. nov.), with "several additional species" added to the mix. This action creates a novel taxonomic concept, comprising 26 spp., widely distributed in the Neotropics, that are "grouped together here for the first time." The section "is diagnosed by its stipule morphology, distinctive leaf venation, and inflorescence arrangement," attributes that are elaborated upon in the introduction. Costa Rica can claim five spp. in this new sect. Nonatelia, of which three receive new combinations in Palicourea in the name of the first author: the former Psychotria carnosocarpa Dwyer & M. V. Hayden, P. tsakiana C. M. Taylor, and P. valerioana Standl. The two other Costa Rican representatives of the group, the former Psychotria racemosa (Aubl.) Raeusch. and P. veracruzensis Lorence & Dwyer, already possessed combinations in Palicourea that were cited as synonyms in Manual Vol. 7 (2014). A synoptic but rigorous taxonomic treatment of sect. Nonatelia is provided, with synonymy, typology, and distribution summaries for the section and each sp., an exhaustive description of the section, a dichotomous and indented key to spp., discussions, and sections on "Problematic names" and "Excluded species " (which do not concern us). For whatever reason, Palicourea carnosocarpa is not attributed to Costa Rica (though the Manual voucher remains so determined in TROPICOS). The illustrated introductory portion conflates taxonomic history and morphology. Five new spp. (all South American) are described and numerous lectotypes designated.
Terra-Araujo, M. H., A. D. Faria & U. Swenson. 2016. A taxonomic update of neotropical Pradosia (Sapotaceae, Chrysophylloideae). Syst. Bot. 41: 634–650.
The title is slightly redundant because Pradosia, a genus of 23 spp., is exclusively neotropical (following the exclusion of an African sp. on the basis of molecular evidence). This treatment, rather synoptic in nature (specimens are not cited, apart from types), is branded an "update" with respect to Terry Pennington's (1990) Flora Neotropica Monographs account of Sapotaceae. The only noteworthy taxonomic changes are the synonymization of two names accepted by Pennington, and (wouldn't you know it), one of these involves one of the two spp. of Pradosia recorded from Costa Rica: P. atroviolacea Ducke, here subordinated to P. grisebachii (Pierre) T. D. Penn. The type of the latter is from Trinidad, so extend the geographic range given in the Manual accordingly. The Manual Sapotaceae treatment (2015) by Francisco Morales(UBT) also recognized an ostensibly endemic sp. under the provisional name "Pradosia sp. A"; however, because Chico's work was not considered by these authors and specimens are not cited, we cannot know how (or even if) this second entity was dispatched. Features synonymy, typology, and descriptions for the genus and each sp., distribution maps, an indented (!) key to spp., distribution summaries and identification tips, and a "Doubtful taxon" addendum. The short introductory portion is largely confined to taxonomic history. Illustrated with composite plates of color photos from life.
Testoni, D. & H. P. Linder. 2017. Synoptic taxonomy of Cortaderia Stapf (Danthonioideae, Poaceae). PhytoKeys 76: 39–69.
"Synoptic" is perhaps an overly charitable descriptor for this contribution, which barely exceeds (and in some respects falls short of) the standards of an annotated checklist. The authors accept 17 spp. of Cortaderia (as opposed to 23, fide the Manual Poaceae account), including all three of those treated in Manual Vol. 3 (2003): Cortaderia bifida Pilg., C. hapalotricha (Pilg.) Conert, and C. nitida (Kunth) Pilg. We want to believe that they are using those three names in the same sense as Manual contributor Francisco Morales (UBT), and that all three of those spp.—and no others—are attributable to Costa Rica. Unfortunately, however, there is no way to be certain of any of those things, because no specimens are cited (other than types) and virtually no geographic information of any sort is provided. This has every appearance of one of those old "Materials toward a revision..." papers. We do get synonymy and typology at all formal ranks, a detailed description and brief distribution summary for the genus (only), and a (non-indented) key to spp. The sp. entries, in addition to the features already mentioned, feature only etymology (which we can do without), nomenclatural and/or taxonomic comments, and common names. This paper may prove useful to selected grass specialists, but it doesn't meet our needs.
Trofimov, D., B. Rudolph & J. G. Rohwer. 2016. Phylogenetic study of the genus Nectandra (Lauraceae), and reinstatement of Damburneya. Taxon 65: 980–996.
The genera of Lauraceae have always seemed suspicious to us, defined as they are by such characters as stamen number, the number of valves per anther, and the arrangement of those valves. Finally they have begun to crumble, with Nectandra (the second-largest genus in the Neotropics) the first major casualty. This study reveals Nectandra as diphyletic, with one group sister to Pleurothyrium and the other to the so-called "Ocotea helicterifolia group," characterized in part by bisexual flowers—and which has sometimes been included in Nectandra. As usual, various classificatory resolutions would be defensible cladistically, but the authors decide on the most straightforward one, i.e., separate generic status for both major clades of "Nectandra." Nectandra sanguinea Rol. ex Rottbl., the type sp. of Nectandra, was not included in the study, but "is morphologically clearly a member" of the group that is sister to Pleurothyrium, which consequently retains the former genus name. The other group [sister to Ocotea helicterifolia (Meisn.) Hemsl. and allies] inherits the long-dormant genus name Damburneya Raf. (bravo for old Rafinesque!), under which 20 new combinations are validated in the name of Trofimov (sometimes with Rohwer). Seven of the 16 spp. treated under Nectandra in Manual Vol. 6 (2007) now find themselves in Damburneya, viz., the former N. cufodontisii (O. C. Schmidt) C. K. Allen, N. longipetiolata van der Werff, N. martinicensis Mez, N. purpurea (Ruiz & Pav.) Mez, N. salicina C. K. Allen, N. smithii C. K. Allen, and N. umbrosa (Kunth) Mez. A technical description and distribution summary are provided for the newly revivified genus. Not surprisingly, the cladogram suggests that big trouble lies ahead for other genera of Lauraceae, in particular, Ocotea.
Turner, I. M. 2016. Rather for the nomenclaturist than for the scientific botanist: the Botanical Cabinet of Conrad Loddiges & Sons. Taxon 65: 1107–1149.
The first clause of the title aptly describes much of the material published in this journal. Only one tidbit in this article seems to be of potential (in)significance to us: the new combination Pseuderanthemum maculatum (G. Lodd.) I. M. Turner, based on Justicia maculata G. Lodd., described (barely!) from a cultivated plant, of unknown origin, with variegated leaves. This name could conceivably apply to some entity occurring in Costa Rica, most likely Pseuderanthemum carruthersii (Seem.) Guillaumin, an Old World native cultivated sparingly in the country as an ornamental. Should that prove to be the case, P. maculatum has priority.
Urtubey, E., A. López, M. A. Chemisquy, A. A. Anderberg, C. M. Baeza, N. D. Bayón, L. P. Deble, A. Moreira-Muñoz, G. L. Nesom, M. H. Alford, L. Salomón & S. E. Freire. 2016. New circumscription of the genus Gamochaeta (Asteraceae, Gnaphalieae) inferred from nuclear and plastid DNA sequences. Pl. Syst. Evol. 302: 1047–1066.
Gamochaeta—a Gnaphalium segregate, to us old-timers—is a neotropcial genus of about 60 spp., at least four of which have been recorded from Costa Rica. The results of this study establish it as paraphyletic with respect to two oligospecific South American genera, which are accordingly subsumed. The effects for us are negligible.
Valdespino, I. A. & B. Zimmer. 2016. Typification of selected Neotropical Selaginella (Lycopodiophyta: Selaginellaceae) taxon names and some nomenclatural innovations. Taxon 65: 1391–1408.
Most of the astute typification action here is beyond the pale for us, but we are informed (or reminded?) of a few name-changes vis-à-vis Flora mesoamericana Vol. 1 (1995). With respect to spp. occurring in Costa Rica, the most straightforward of these involve the former Selaginella cladorrhizans A. Braun and S. tarapotensis Baker, for which S. tenella (P. Beauv.) Spring and S. flexuosa Spring (respectively) have emerged as prior synonyms. A somewhat more complicated case is that of Selaginella moritziana Spring, two (of the three) vars. of which are attributed to Costa Rica: S. m. var. moritziana and S. m. var. pearcei (Baker) Valdespino (comb. nov., based on Selaginella pearcei Baker). None of the aforementioned names (or any of their cited synonyms) is so much as mentioned in Flora mesoamericana, even though one of them, Selaginella moritziana var. suberecta A. Braun, is based on Costa Rican material. The last-mentioned name is synonymized under the autonymic var., and its two syntypes (from Volcán Barva and the Montes del Aguacate) comprise the sole evidence provided for the occurrence of that taxon in Costa Rica. A single Costa Rican specimen is cited under S. m. var. pearcei: Wilbur 29529 (US) from 1950 m on Cerro de La Muerte. The authors note that the name Selaginella pearcei has been incorrectly synonymized under S. novae-hollandiae (Sw.) Spring (based on a Colombian type), but this information only serves to obfuscate matters; does genuine S. novae-hollandiae occur at all in Costa Rica (or Mesoamerica?), or does all (or only some) of the material identified by that name in regional floras (e.g., Flora mesoamericana) actually correspond to S. moritziana var. pearcei? Perhaps these preliminaries will culminate in a fully realized taxonomic contribution somewhere down the line.
Wilson, K. L. 2016. Report of the General Committee: 15. Taxon 65: 1150–1151.
In which the vast majority of decisions rendered by the Nomenclature Committee on Vascular Plants (NCVP) in its last go-round are unanimously ratified by the General Committee (GC). We also get a final(?) ruling on a somewhat dated proposal to "super-conserve" the family name Adoxaceae over Viburnaceae [see The Cutting Edge 15(2): 10, Apr. 2008], on which the NCVP had waffled a bit: the GC rejects this proposal, meaning that "the correct name for the combined family is Viburnaceae, nom. cons." This is unfortunate news for the Manual, as it will require us to defy either APG (by combining Caprifoliaceae and "Viburnaceae") or IAPT (by using the name Adoxaceae, instead of Viburnaceae); our alphabetical arrangement of families, in conjunction with the fact that we are now down to our final dicot volume (Acanthaceae–Clethraceae), will not permit us to use Viburnaceae as an accepted family name.
Zemagho, L., S. Liede-Schumann, B. Sonké, S. Janssens, O. Lachenaud, B. Verstraete & S. Dessein. 2016. Phylogenetics of tribe Sabiceeae (Ixoroideae, Rubiaceae) revisited, with a new subgeneric classification for Sabicea. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 182: 551–580.
The expansion of Sabicea through the absorption of four oligotypic Old World genera, briefly noted in these pages [see The Cutting Edge 15(2): 7, Apr. 2008], is reaffirmed by the present study. The new subgeneric classification is of no interest to us, but we do get an amended description of the genus.