www.mobot.org Research Home | Search | Contact | Site Map  

North America
South America
General Taxonomy
Photo Essays
Training in Latin

Wm. L. Brown Center
Graduate Studies
Research Experiences
  for Undergraduates

Imaging Lab
MBG Press
Climate Change
Catalog Fossil Plants
Image Index
Rare Books

Res Botanica
All Databases
What's New?
People at MO
Visitor's Guide
Jobs & Fellowships
Research Links
Site Map


Manual de Plantas de Costa Rica

Main | Family List (MO) | Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments | Guidelines | Checklist | Citing | Editors

The Cutting Edge

Volume XVII, Number 3, July 2010

News and Notes | Germane Literature | Season's Pick

Andrade, M. J. G., A. M. Giuletti, A. Rapini, L. P. Queiroz, A. S. Conceição, P. R. M. Almeida & C. van den Berg. 2010. A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of Eriocaulaceae: evidence from nuclear (ITS) and plastid (psbA-trnH and trnL-F) DNA sequences. Taxon 59: 379–388.

Of the four genera in this small family represented in Costa Rica, two are non-monophyletic: Paepalanthus and Syngonanthus. The authors suggest that the former genus be made monophyletic via the incorporation of several smaller genera, including the monospecific Tonina (no combination in Paepalanthus yet exists for Tonina fluviatilis Aubl., which occurs in Costa Rica). On the other hand, they recommend that Syngonanthus be split in twain; one group, including the type sp., will be combined with the dispecific genus Philodice, while another group will be segregated (in a paper that is “in press”) under the genus name Comanthera L. B. Sm. A complication here is that the name Philodice is actually older than Syngonanthus, which has already prompted a conservation proposal involving some of these same authors [see under Giuletti et al., The Cutting Edge 16(4), Oct. 2009, this column]. Syngonanthus caulescens (Poir.) Ruhland, the only Costa Rican representative of the genus in the broad sense, groups with the type sp., hence will not suffer a name change if the conservation proposal is approved (though it is an extremely obscure sp., and a name change would be no burden). Eriocaulon, the fourth genus in Costa Rica, is monophyletic and not affected by any of this.

Bräuchler, C., H. Meimberg & G. Heubl. 2010. Molecular phylogeny of Menthinae (Lamiaceae, Nepetoideae, Mentheae) – taxonomy, biogeography and conflicts. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 55: 501–523.

The Manual Lamiaceae treatment by Amy Pool (MO) addresses, under the genus name Clinopodium, three spp. (one native and two introduced) that had previously been classed in Micromeria and/or Satureja. The latter genus, especially, had long been a trash-basket taxon that was eventually restricted to comparatively few spp. This study, however, reveals latent polyphyly even in the new, narrowed circumscription of Satureja—of little concern to us, as both Micromeria and Satureja have lately been limited to Old World spp Much more relevant for our purposes is the authors’ determination that “typical Clinopodium is absent from the Americas” as well; moreover, “the New World species currently included in Clinopodium...do not form a monopyletic group, but are scattered throughout [a] large New World clade” comprising spp. from 22 genera (including Cunila). Thus it is clear that the name Clinopodium will have a short tenure in Costa Rican floristics (indeed, these authors liken its current circumscription “to the earlier treatments of Satureja”). Though it was not included in this study, our one native sp., Clinopodium foliolosum (Benth.) Govaerts, seems likely to become Gardoquia discolor Kunth; however, the ultimate fate of the cultivated C. brownei (Sw.) Kuntze and C. vimineum (L.) Kuntze is anyone’s guess.

Christenhusz, M. J. M. 2010. Typification of ornamental plants 4: Impatiens walleriana (Balsaminaceae). Phytotaxa 3: 62.
——. 2010. Typification of ornamental plants 5: Philadelphus mexicanus (Hydrangeaceae). Phytotaxa 3: 63.
—— & C. Jarvis. 2010.Typification of ornamental plants 3: Impatiens balsamina (Balsaminaceae). Phytotaxa 3: 61.

They are typified (for whatever types may be worth anymore). Conventional usage is upheld. Yawn.

Daniel, T. F. 2010. Catalog of Guatemalan Acanthaceae: taxonomy, ecology, and conservation. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 61: 291–379.

This account is overwhelmingly peripheral to Costa Rican floristics, but does inevitably cast a few morsels in our direction: the elevation of the Guatemalan Justicia macrantha Benth. var. piliformis D. N. Gibson to sp. rank obviates continued use of the autonymic var. name for Costa Rican material, and a lectotype is designated for Mendoncia lindavii Rusby (with no attending change of usage).

Denham, S. S., O. Morrone & F. O. Zuloaga. 2010. Estudios en el género Paspalum (Poaceae, Panicoideae, Paniceae): Paspalum denticulatum y especies afines. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 97: 11–33.

This is somewhat of a strange revision, in that it treats a group that is acknowledged by the authors as artificial; however, that fact became clear only after the study was underway. Just one of the 11 spp. treated occurs in Costa Rica, although there is nothing in this paper to suggest even that. The sp. in question is the widespread Paspalum denticulatum Trin., treated in the Manual under the name P. lividum Trin. ex Schltdl., here relegated to synonymy. No specimens of P. denticulatum are cited or mapped in this revision from anywhere between Honduras and Colombia, despite the fact that the Manual voucher for P. lividum (along with one other Costa Rican collection) was so determined by the second author in 2008. So be it. This is, in all other respects, an exemplary piece of work, with a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp., synonymy and typology, detailed descriptions, distribution summaries, discussions of varying length, representative (mostly) specimen citations, and distribution maps. Six of the spp. (P. denticulatum being one of the exceptions) are depicted in superb composite line drawings. No new taxa are described.

Dobeš, C. & J. Paule. 2010. A comprehensive chloroplast DNA-based phylogeny of the genus Potentilla (Rosaceae): implications for its geographic origin, phylogeography and generic circumscription. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 56: 156–175.

In our last issue (see under Mabberley, this column), we belatedly reported on the merger of Fragaria into Potentilla. But hold your horses! According to the results of this new study, Fragaria (as well as Alchemilla) can and should be maintained as distinct from Potentilla. As for Potentilla itself, the future is less clear: scenarios exist in which it could be divided up into a variable number of smaller genera. The authors withhold “a timely concept for the classification” of the group, and it is difficult for us to speculate on the fate of P. heterosepala Fritsch, the sole Costa Rican representative, which was not included in the study.

Hágsater, E. 2009. The genus Epidendrum. Part 8. Species new & old in Epidendrum. Icon. Orchid. 12: pl. 1201–1300.

This latest century of Epidendrum (Orchidaceae) plates features 43 spp. described as new, mostly South American, but with three from Mesoamerica. One of the latter is Guatemalan, leaving the following two novelties for Costa Rica: Epidendrum grayumii Hágsater & E. Santiago and E. pterocaulum Hágsater & E. Santiago, both of which were first collected by A. R. Endres (see under Ossenbach et al., this column), at unknown sites, in the 1860’s; the former sp., compared with E. lankesteri Ames, has been found one time since (at 700–950 m elevation on the Atlantic slope of Volcán Barva), while E. pterocaulum is of uncertain affinity and has yet to be rediscovered. Among the 57 previously described spp. are two that occur in Costa Rica, Epidendrum chlorocorymbos Schltr. and E. coriifolium Lindl., for both of which supplemental specimen citations are provided (these being very extensive, in the case of the former sp.). With respect to the information given in the Manual, the overall range of E. chlorocorymbos may be extended southward into Colombia, and the range of Costa Rica modified rather alarmingly to: “Bosque húmedo, muy húmedo, pluvial y de roble, 0–2400 m; vert. Carib. Cords. de Tilarán y de Talamanca, ambas verts. Cord. Central, Cerros de La Carpintera, Valle Central, vert. Pac. N Cord. de Talamanca, Cerros de Escazú, Pen. de Nicoya, cuenca del Río Grande de Candelaria, vecindad de San Mateo, N Valle de General, Pen. de Osa.” The overall range of E. coriifolium should be curtailed slightly to “CR y O Pan.,” and its in-country range also changes negligibly (delete the “S” before “Fila Costeña” in the Manual distribution summary). As the rule for this fine series, each sp. is illustrated with an excellent composite line drawing, described exhaustively, and provided with a distribution map.

Hinchliff, C. E., A. E. Lliully A., T. Carey & E. H. Roalson. 2010. The origins of Eleocharis (Cyperaceae) and the status of Websteria, Egleria, and Chillania. Taxon 59: 709–719.

Websteria, included in Jorge Gomez-Laurito’s (USJ) Manual treatment of Cyperaceae as a distinct, monospecific genus, is shown by cladistic analysis of DNA sequence data to be nested within Eleocharis. The combination Eleocharis confervoides (Poir.) Steud. is already available for immediate deployment (though it was not referenced in the Manual).

Lehnert, M. 2010. On the recognition of varieties in the grammitid fern genus Melpomene (Polypodiaceae). Phytotaxa 5: 47–63.

Six new vars. are described in four different spp. of Melpomene, automatically creating four additional, autonymic vars. Three of the new vars. occur in Costa Rica (together, in both cases, with the autonymic var. of the same sp.): Melpomene moniliformis (Lag. ex Sw.) A. R. Sm. & R. C. Moran var. adnata (Kunze) Lehnert, M. m. var. minor (Christ) Lehnert, and M. pilosissima (M. Martens & Galeotti) A. R. Sm. & R. C. Moran var. tsatchelae (Labiak) Lehnert. In addition, new South American vars. of Melpomene flabelliformis (Poir.) A. R. Sm. & R. C. Moran and M. xiphopteroides (Liebm.) A. C. Sm. & R. C. Moran consign Costa Rican material of those spp. to the respective autonymic var. Keys are provided to distinguish the component vars. of each spp., and composite line drawings depict all of the vars. (including the autonymic ones).

Maurin, O., M. W. Chase, M. Jordaan & M. van der Bank. 2010. Phylogenetic relationships of Combretaceae inferred from nuclear and plastid DNA sequence data: implications for generic classification. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 162: 453–476.

Two conclusions from this study are of some relevance to Costa Rican floristics. First, the genus Quisqualis (with the Asian Q. indica L. occasionally cultivated in Costa Rica) is nested within Combretum subgen. Cacoucia (Aubl.) Exell & Stace, and thus must be included in Combretum. This we had already gotten wind of, somehow, and the name Combretum indicum (L.) Jongkind is duly deployed in the soon-to-be-published Manual Combretaceae treatment. The second development is new to us, though not surprising: several genera are nested within Terminalia, including Buchenavia (with two spp. in Costa Rica), and “should be included in an expanded circumscription” of that genus. The indicated synonymies are formalized at genus rank, but no new combinations are validated for the spp. involved. It is much too late for us to respond to this, where the Manual is concerned.

Medina, H. & F. Pupulin. 2010. A note on the genus Dresslerella. Orchid Digest 74(2): 60–67.

This is a popular article, with an informal (though informative) narrative text and lots of illustrations. A dichotomous, indented key to all the spp. (now totalling 13) of Dresslerella (Orchidaceae) is provided.

Moran, R. C., P. H. Labiak & M. Sundue. 2010. Phylogeny and character evolution of the bolbitidoid ferns (Dryopteridaceae). Int. J. Pl. Sci. 171: 547–559.

Of primary interest to us, among the many results of this study, is the cladistic confirmation of previous indications that the genus Bolbitis is polyphyletic. One group, here termed the “Bolbitis nicotianifolia clade,” is sister to Elaphoglossum and distant from the remainder of Bolbitis (including the type sp.). Although they “found no morphological synapomorphies” to define it, the authors assert that “the B. nicotianifolia clade represents a new genus,” comprising ca. 10 spp. restricted to the Neotropics. A synopsis, including all the necessary new combinations, is said to be forthcoming. In addition to Bolbitis nicotianifolia (Sw.) Alston, the members of this group occurring in Costa Rica are: B. bernoullii (Kuhn ex Christ) Ching, B. hemiotis (Maxon) Ching, B. lindigii (Mett.) C. Chr., B. oligarchica (Baker) Hennipman, and B. pergamentacea (Maxon) Ching.

Nickrent, D. L., V. Malécot, R. Vidal-Russell & J. P. Der. 2010. A revised classification of Santalales. Taxon 59: 538–558.

This has been bubbling just under the surface for quite some time [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 15(3): 5, 8–9, Jul. 2008], but now it is upon us and can no longer be ignored. So let’s cut right to the chase: Olacaceae, as we knew it is defunct; the family that will henceforth bear that name consists of just three genera, none of which reach Central America. The genera in Costa Rica formerly included in Olacaceae are now apportioned among five different families, as follows: Aptandraceae (Chaunochiton), Coulaceae (Minquartia), Erythropalaceae (Heisteria), Schoepfiaceae (Schoepfia), and Ximeniaceae (Ximenia). That’s right, each genus in a separate family. On a more positive note, Loranthaceae and Opiliaceae are retained, and Viscaceae is resurrected, though only at the expense of Santalaceae, which decays into five smaller families. Santalaceae in the new, restricted sense is represented in Costa Rica only by the genus Antidaphne, formerly of Eremolepidaceae. The genus Acanthosyris, traditionally included in Santalaceae and only recently discovered in Costa Rica [see The Cutting Edge 7(2): 5, Apr. 2000], is now assigned to Cervantesiaceae. A new tribal and subtribal classification of Loranthaceae is also presented (this being of no interest to us). Each family, tribe, and subtribe is briefly characterized.

Could all of this splitting have been avoided? Speaking strictly in cladistic terms, and based on the authors’ own cladogram (Fig. 1), we would venture that some of it could have been. There would appear to be no cladistic necessity for the fragmentation of Santalaceae, apart from that occasioned by the recognition of Viscaceae as distinct (and let it be said that we had already gotten used to Viscaceae as part of Santalaceae). Olacaceae is quite another story: a family circumscribed so as to contain all the former constituents of Olacaceae s. l. would necessarily be congruent with the entire order (which, come to think of it, might well be preferable to what we are stuck with now).

Ogundipe, O. T. & M. W. Chase. 2009. Phylogenetic analyses of Amaranthaceae based on matK DNA sequence data with emphasis on West African species. Turk. J. Bot. 33: 153–161.

Celosia and Gomphrena appear to be polyphyletic, corroborating previous indications to that effect. The authors contend that their study also suggests that “Chenopodiaceae should be merged with Amaranthaceae,” but their consensus tree would not appear to mandate this.

Oliveira, R. P., H. M. Longhi-Wagner & S. A. Renvoize. 2009. Some lectotypifications in the tribe Olyreae (Poaceae: Bambusoideae). Kew Bull. 64: 735–738.

Only one of the seven lectotypifications proposed in this paper is of potential importance to us: that of Strephium strictiflorum E. Fourn., the basionym of Cryptochloa strictiflora (E. Fourn.) Swallen. The potential, however, is not realized, as the prevailing application of the name would appear to be upheld.

Ossenbach, C., F. Pupulin & R. Jenny. 2010. Orchid itineraries of Augustus R. Endrés in Central America: a biographic and geographic sketch. Lankesteriana 10: 19–47.

Assiduous research into private archives and European municipal records has finally lifted the veil on the long-mysterious A. R. Endres, collector of many important specimens (especially orchids) in Costa Rica during the period 1866–1874. To begin with, we now know the full and correct rendition of his name (see the title). Also revealed are the dates and circumstances of his birth and death (27 November1838–late 1874) and myriad details concerning his collecting itineraries in Costa Rica (as well as Panama), described in narrative form and also mapped. Much of this critical information was derived from correspondence (deposited at the Cornell University Library) between Endres and “his friend and mentor” Captain John Melmoth Dow, a relationship that is not further elucidated. Endres’s collecting localities are compiled in an invaluable gazetteer (Appendix 1). The account is illustrated with depictions of specimens collected by Endres and scenes from the period of his explorations (but none specific to Endres or his associates).

Peterson, P. M., K. Romaschenko & G. Johnson. 2010. A classification of the Chloridoideae (Poaceae) based on multi-gene phylogenetic trees. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 55: 580–598.

The main concern of this paper is tribal and subtribal classification, which does not interest us. However, we are intrigued by indications (evidently of a preliminary nature) that numerous generic concepts may be threatened. Fifteen genera are portrayed as polyphyletic, including Chloris, Cynodon, Enteropogon, Eragrostis, Eustachys, Leptochloa, Muhlenbergia, and Sporobolus (to mention only those occurring in Costa Rica). Aegopogon, though monophyletic, is nested within Muhlenbergia. We gather that increased sampling will be needed to resolve these issues. On the positive side, 22 genera, including Bouteloua, Dactyloctenium, Uniola, and Zoysia, evince no cladistic compromises.

Pupulin, F. 2010. Family #39 Orchidaceae: tribe Cymbidieae: subtribe Zygopetalinae. In Flora costaricensis. Fieldiana, Bot. n. s., 49: 1–60.

This marks the 53rd installment of Flora costaricensis, and the second dealing with a subset of Orchidaceae. So what has changed? We don’t find any mention of William Burger, the founder and long-time guiding light of this respected series. It seems that he wasn’t kidding when he announced his retirement! The genera treated in this scholarly and beautifully illustrated fascicle are as follows: Benzingia, Chaubardiella, Chondroscaphe, Cochleanthes, Cryptarrhena, Daiotyla, Dichaea, Galeottia, Huntleya, Kefersteinia, Pescatoria, Stenotyla, Warczewiczella, Warrea, and Warreopsis, as well as the nothogenus ×Bensteinia (involving Benzingia and Kefersteinia). Manual users may be unfamiliar with the names Benzingia, Daiotyla, and Stenotyla (all segregates from Chondrorrhyncha, in the sense of the Manual), as well as the spelling Pescatoria (vs. Pescatorea, in the Manual; this a deliberate reversion by the author to the original spelling). Most of these departures from Manual usage, as well as many others encountered in this contribution, were debuted in earlier publications and have already been addressed in this newsletter—truth be told, we were unable to find any that had not, so we will refrain from repeating ourselves. Still, it is convenient to have everything in one place, with keys, etc. This account is highly rigorous, with synonymy and typology, keys to genera and spp., detailed descriptions at all levels, distribution summaries, and diagnostic paragraphs (very well executed!) for each sp. All of the spp. are illustrated with the author’s uniformly excellent line drawings. We lament only the general use of non-indented keys (though somebody slipped up on Kefersteinia!) and the lack of specimen citations, idiosyncracies of the overall series. There are no taxonomic novelties.

——. 2010. Orchidaceae werckleanae: typification of Costa Rican orchid species described from collections by K. Wercklé. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 163: 111–154.

Typification is critically addressed for the names of 84 orchid spp. described by the German orchidologist Rudolf Schlechter on the basis of specimens collected in Costa Rica from 1897–1922 by the erratic Alsatian Karl (Carlos) Wercklé. In all cases, the original holo- or syntypes of these names were destroyed at B during World War II, requiring lecto- or neotypification. Such had already been achieved for 13 of the names. For most of the remainder, the task is dispatched in this paper, wherein 60 lectotypes and eight neotypes are designated, mostly (47 of the 68 total) comprising illustrations. Typification of three names was prudently foregone, for the time being. No changes in established usage are definitively proposed on the basis of these new type designations, however, in at least three cases, the possibility is alluded to. The introduction relates interesting biographical details for Wercklé and discusses complications involving his collecting numbers, which featured some duplication, requiring that the date always be cited with the number. All of Wercklé’s collections cited by Schlechter are enumerated in tabular form, with accepted names, localities, and dates. Almost all of the lectotypes (including most previously designated ones) are depicted in photographic illustrations (but none of the neotypes are).

Qian, G.-Z., L.-F. Liu & G.-G. Tang. 2010. (1933) Proposal to conserve the name Malus domestica against M. pumila, M. communis, M. frutescens, and Pyrus dioica (Rosaceae). Taxon 59: 650–652.

The authors contend that Malus domestica Borkh. is much more widely used for the cultivated apple than the other names mentioned in the title of the proposal, all of which are earlier.

Ronse, A. C., Z. A. Popper, J. C. Preston & M. F. Watson. 2010. Taxonomic revision of European Apium L. s.l.: Helosciadium W. D. J. Koch restored. Pl. Syst. Evol. 287: 1–17.

Conventional morphological and anatomical investigations “confirm” that most of the European spp. traditionally assigned to Apium (excepting A. graveolens L., the type sp.) belong to a different genus, Helosciadium, and that the placement of Cyclospermum leptophyllum (Pers.) Sprague ex Britton & P. Wilson (occurring as a weed in Costa Rica) in a separate genus is warranted. A key to the genera in the group is provided, together with a brief synopsis of the spp. represented in Europe. We submit that the generic classification of the family Apiaceae is overripe for a sweeping overhaul on the basis of molecular/cladistic analyses.

Salariato, D. L., F. O. Zuloaga, L. M. Giussani & O. Morrone. 2010. Molecular phylogeny of the subtribe Melinidinae (Poaceae: Panicoideae: Paniceae) and evolutionary trends in the homogenization of inflorescences. Molec. Phylogen.. Evol. 56: 355–369.

This study shows Urochloa to be paraphyletic, with several smaller genera (including Brachiaria, Chaetium, most of Eriochloa, and Megathyrsus) nested therein. The usual options present themselves, i.e., whether to lump these smaller genera into Urochloa, or maintain them by dividing up Urochloa even further. Eriochloa is also polyphyletic, and one sp., E. distachya Kunth (represented in Costa Rica) falls outside even Urochloa s. l. and “could represent [an] independent” genus. The authors “consider that additional evidence is needed” before these issues can be conclusively resolved.

Sass, C. & C. D. Specht. 2010. Phylogenetic estimation of the core Bromelioids with an emphasis on the genus Aechmea (Bromeliaceae). Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 55: 559–571.

Based upon these analyses of DNA sequences, Aechmea, in the traditional sense, is in a world of trouble, along with most of the other genera in Bromeliaceae subfam. Bromelioideae. To begin on a positive note: Ananas and Bromelia, isolated in a clade basal to the rest of the subfamily, appear to be safe, with a few negligible caveats. However, the remainder of the subfamily tree features wall-to-wall Aechmea spp., among which are nested most of the other genera (including Androlepis, Araeococcus, Billbergia, and Ronnbergia). Thus arises a now-familiar “taxonomic challenge”: “to determine if the whole core Bromelioideae should be subsumed by the genus Aechmea, or if Aechmea should be divided into many segregate genera.” No resolution is ventured in this paper.

Simões, A. O., M. E. Endress & E. Conti. 2010. Systematics and character evolution of Tabernaemontanae (Apocynaceae, Rauvolfioideae) based on molecular and morphological evidence. Taxon 59: 772–790.

The molecular evidence demonstrates that Stemmadenia is nested within Tabernaemontana, together with various other occasional segregate genera including Bonafousia, Peschiera, and Stenosolen. Classificatory options include lumping all of these segregates into a broadly defined Tabernaemontana, or narrowing the definition of the latter genus and recognizing the segregates. This is where the morphological evidence comes into play, the authors finding “no reliable synapomorphies...to justify generic recognition of the various subclades” of Tabernaemontana. Seems sensible to us. New combinations in Tabernaemontana are consequently validated, as needed, in the names of “A. O. Simões & M. E. Endress.” In the case of Stemmadenia pubescens Benth. [see The Cutting Edge 13(1): 9–10, Jan. 2006], a nomen novum (Tabernaemontana odontadeniiflora A. O. Simões & M. E. Endress) was deemed necessary, due to the preexistence of the name Tabernaemontana pubescens R. Br.

Ståhl, B. 2010. Theophrastaceae. Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 105: 1–161.

All seven genera and 95 spp. of Theophrastaceae are neotropical, hence this is a monopraph of the entire family (recently submerged into Primulaceae by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group). By far the largest genus is Clavija (56 spp.), followed by Bonellia (20 spp.) and Jacquinia (13 spp.). There are no surprises for Costa Rica, due mainly to the recent publication of the Flora mesoamericana treatment of the family by the same author [see Davidse et al., The Cutting Edge 17(2), Apr. 2010, this column]. Just four spp. occur in the country: two of Clavija, and one each of Bonellia and Deherainia. None is endemic. This is a deluxe account, with dichotomous, indented keys, full synonymy and typology, detailed descriptions, representative (mostly) specimen citations, and indices to exsiccatae and common and scientific names. The well-illustrated introductory part addresses taxonomic history, morphology and anatomy, phylogeny, phytogeography, reproductive biology, and conservation. Distributions are mapped for most spp., and selected spp. are depicted in composite line drawings.

Szlachetko, D. L. & P. Rutkowski. 2008. Classification of Spiranthinae, Stenorrhynchidinae and Cyclopogoninae. Pp. 130–222 in, P. Rutkowski, D. L. Szlachetko & M. Górniak (eds.), Phylogeny and taxonomy of the subtribes Spiranthinae, Stenorrhynchidinae and Cyclopogoninae (Spirantheae, Orchidaceae) in Central and South America. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Gdańsk, Poland. 348 pp.

The authors present the latest incarnation of their finely divided classification of these three Orchidaceae subtribes (which, taken together, comprise subtribe Spiranthinae in the sense of the Manual, e.g., as characterized under the genus Spiranthes). Deviations from the Manual system are legion, but most were explained in our review of a prior contribution by this same group [see The Cutting Edge 13(2): 14–15, Apr. 2006]. There is only one noteworthy revelation for us in this most recent work: the genus Callistanthos Szlach. is newly described to accommodate two spp., one of which is C. roseoalbus (Rchb. f.) Szlach., treated in the Manual under the name Eltroplectris roseoalba (Rchb. f.) Hamer & Garay (though the authors still do not acknowledge this as occurring in Costa Rica). The authors (who pay scant heed to gender throughout this enumeration) retain the feminine ending for the epithet, but Callistanthos must be treated as masculine, according to ICBN Art. 62.2(c), hence our correction. The other chapters in the book present limited morphological, cladistic, and biogeographical data, with a view to bolster the classification. Each genus is represented by a plate, near the end of the volume, featuring a composite line drawing (emphasizing floral details), color distribution map, and (irregularly), one or more color photos of living and/or herbarium material. Several other new taxa are proposed, at generic or infrageneric rank, as well as new combinations at sp. rank, but none of these is of particular interest to us

Werff, H. van der & N. A. Zamora V. 2010. Notes on Tachigali (Leguminosae) in Central America with the description of a new species. Harvard Pap. Bot. 15: 149–153.

This paper arrives just in the nick of time for our upcoming Manual volume, which includes Fabaceae. It provides two distinct services for Costa Rican floristics: validation of the combination Tachigali costaricensis (N. Zamora & Poveda) N. Zamora & van der Werff (based on Sclerolobium costaricense N. Zamora & Poveda) and the description of a new sp., T. panamensis van der Werff & N. Zamora, based on Panamanian material previously included in T. versicolor Standl. & L. O. Williams—rendering the latter a Costa Rican endemic! Includes a key to the three aforementioned spp. (the only Central American representatives of their genus). The new sp. and Tachigali versicolor are depicted in excellent composite line drawings by INBio’s Claudia Aragón.

Yurtseva, O. V., A. V. Troitsky, V. K. Bobrova & V. N. Voylokova. 2010. On taxonomical revision of Polygonum s. str. (Polygonaceae): phylogenetic and morphological data. Bot. Zhurn. (Moscow & Leningrad) 95: 226–247.

Well, we can’t penetrate most of this, because it is in Russian, and are not much interested anyway, since it pertains largely to taxa not occurring in Costa Rica. However, we do glean the following with respect to the “segregate” genus Persicaria, which accounts for all but one of the spp. of Polygonum s. l. known from Costa Rica: taking the cladograms in ths paper at face value, Persicaria cannot be included in Polygonum unless the latter genus is expanded to also include Rumex!


© 1995-2022 Missouri Botanical Garden, All Rights Reserved
4344 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63110
(314) 577-5100

Technical Support