Family List (MO) |
Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments |
The Cutting Edge
Volume XXII, Number 3, July 2015
News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature |
Bernal, R., S. R. Gradstein & M. Celis (eds.). 2015. New names and new combinations for the Catalogue of the Plants and Lichens of Colombia. Phytoneuron 2015-22: 1–6.
We had overlooked this paper when it first appeared, but it does contain several new combinations relevant to Costa Rica floristics, namely, those validated in the genus Zanthoxylum (Rutaceae) by former MO associate Carlos Reynel (MOL). The most significant of these is Zanthoxylum schreberi (J. F. Gmel.) Reynel (based on Curtisia schreberi J. F. Gmel.), which has priority over and will thus replace Z. monophyllum (Lam.) P. Wilson, the name that was accepted for the same taxon in Manual Vol. 7 (2014) (wherein an allusion was made to the prospective new combination). Three additional new combinations, at subsp. rank, will also come into play for us (if only by virtue of the autonyms they establish): Zanthoxylum acuminatum (Sw.) Sw. subsp. juniperinum (Poepp.) Reynel, Z. fagara (L.) Sarg. subsp. culantrillo (Kunth) Reynel, and Z. riedelanum Engl. subsp. kellermanii (P. Wilson) Reynel. We wonder whether the editors' insistence that the combinations in this paper "should be attributed exclusively to the authors mentioned for each of them" satisfies the requirement in ICN Art. 46.5 for a statement that said authors "contributed in some way" to the publication, in order to avoid "ex" ascriptions.
Daniel, T. F. 2015. Synopsis of Trichanthera (Acanthaceae: Ruellieae: Trichantherinae). Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. ser. 4, 62: 1–23.
Well, we had thought this was a germane paper, but now we're not so sure. We were aware that Trichanthera gigantea (Bonpl.) Nees, one of the two spp. of this neotropical tree genus, had been attributed to Costa Rica, but those attributions are here revealed to be suspect. The author cites two collections at US from the Guanacaste region, one sterile, the other with immature inflorescences, and neither recent. While acknowledging that "both appear superficially similar to Trichanthera gigantea," he notes that "they lack the very conspicuous foliar cystoliths, triangular bracts, and feltlike pubescence of the young stems of the latter species," and thus remains "unconvinced that either of these specimens represents T. gigantea..." Our databases reveal just one additional Costa Rican specimen determined as T. gigantea that was not seen (or at least not cited) by this author: Hammel 26921 (CR), a flowering collection from 1600–1645 m elevation on the Pacific slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca; however, even assuming the identification to be correct, this specimen was prepared from a cultivated plant (see Hammel's Flickr site). Thus we have no grounds to dispute the natural range of the sp. as indicated in this paper, viz., central Panama to Peru and northern Brazil. And we remain in limbo as to the proper treatment of the Costa Rican material discussed above. It is not clear to us why this contribution is labeled a "synopsis"; we would say that it qualifies as a revision, and a rather generous one at that. It features keys to the genera of subtribe Trichantherinae (which includes also Bravaisia, Louteridium, and Sanchezia, among others) and the spp. of Trichanthera, synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions of Trichanthera and both of its spp., and for the latter, distribution and phenology summaries, local names, uses, conservation assessments, discussions, extensive specimen citations, and distribution maps. Trichanthera gigantea is depicted in an excellent composite line drawing (and the other, exclusively South American sp. with color photos). The brief introductory portion discusses taxonomic history and palynology (with superb SEM micrographs). Incidentally: it turns out that the name Trichanthera Kunth (1818) was never validly published, the oldest legitimate name for the genus that is the subject of this paper being Trixanthera Raf. (1838); however, "a proposal for the conservation of the acanthaceous name Trichanthera is currently being prepared" (poor old Rafinesque just can't catch a break!).
Davidse, G., M. Sousa S., S. Knapp & F. Chiang (editores generales). 2015. Flora mesoamericana. Vol. 2, Parte 3. Saururaceae a Zygophyllaceae. Univ. Nac. Autón. México, Mexico City/Missouri Bot. Gard., St. Louis/Nat. Hist. Mus. (London). 347 pp.
Our review [see under "Davidse," this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(2), Apr. 2010] of a previous Flora mesoamericana (FM) contribution commented on its large size, compared with its predecessors. This most recent book—the fifth to be published in a projected total of 13—is conspicuous for the opposite reason: it is less than 75% the size of any other that has appeared so far. The reason for this appears obvious: the major family Piperaceae, which would logically come next to Saururaceae in any phylogenetic arrangement, had to be omitted (presumably it will appear in Parte 2 of Vol. 2, which was not originally intended to be subdivided into "Partes"). Our readers may recall that Piperaceae provoked a reorganization of Manual volumes as well. Having said all of that, let's turn to the positives: this represents another substantial contribution to regional floristics, covering 31 families, with a total of 176 genera and 841 spp. Three of the families treated here do not occur in Costa Rica, though qualifications are appropriate in each case: Altingiaceae includes Liquidambar styraciflua L., which was mentioned under Hamamelidaceae in Manual Vol. 6 (2007) as rarely cultivated in Costa Rica; Bataceae includes the littoral Batis maritima L., which has been collected in both Nicaragua and Panama and certainly ought to turn up somewhere in Costa Rica; and Resedaceae here includes the genus Forchhammeria, which was assigned to Stixaceae in Manual Vol. 8 (2015). It is to be noted that Manual Vol. 8 appeared just a month or so before this FM installment, so we were unable to provide cross-references for the families common to both works; these are (in addition to Resedaceae/Stixaceae): Saururaceae, Tovariaceae, Tropaeolaceae, Ulmaceae, Urticaceae, Vitaceae, and Zygophyllaceae. The following families included in this FM book were covered in earlier Manual volumes: Coriariaceae, Crassulaceae, Elaeagnaceae, Grossulariaceae, Hamamelidaceae, Hydnoraceae, Krameriaceae, Lepidobotryaceae, Moraceae, Moringaceae, Rhamnaceae, and Rosaceae. And finally, this FM "Parte" beats us to the punch on nine families remaining to be dealt with in our final Manual volume (Vol. 4): Apodanthaceae, Aristolochiaceae, Begoniaceae, Brassicaceae, Cannabaceae, Capparaceae, Caricaceae, Celastraceae, and Cleomaceae. Apart from Hamamelidaceae, the circumscription of at least one other family differs from that in the Manual: Grossulariaceae, here reduced to just Ribes; in Manual Vol. 5 (2010) it included both Escallonia and Phyllonoma, which will be treated in their own eponymous families in future FM volumes. At lower taxonomic levels, the following new (to us) developments are worth noting: Costa Rican material identified as Sedum dendroideum DC. (Crassulaceae) in Manual Vol. 5 is here called S. mexicanum Britton; Lachemilla and Malacomeles (Rosaceae) are recognized as segregate genera from Alchemilla and Amelanchier (respectively), which were the taxa accepted in Manual Vol. 7 (2014). A radical new treatment of Prunus (Rosaceae) by Jorge A. Pérez-Zabala (DAV) attributes 12 spp. to Costa Rica (vs. eight in Manual Vol. 7), including five with provisional names; P. fortunensis McPherson is accepted as distinct (it was synonymized under P. annularis Koehne in the Manual), while Costa Rican material assigned to P. subcorymbosa Ruiz ex Koehne in the Manual is shoehorned into P. occidentalis Sw. And four sp. names in Ficus (Moraceae) that were accepted in Manual Vol. 6 yield to older (ostensible) synonyms: Ficus bullenei I. M. Johnst. becomes F. matiziana Dugand; F. hondurensis Standl. & L. O. Williams becomes F. rensoniana S. Calderón & Standl.; F. lasiosyce J. Á. González & Poveda becomes F. romeroi Dugand; and F. ovalis (Liebm.) Miq. becomes F. crassinervia Desf. ex Willd. There are a few other similar changes in Ficus (and elsewhere) vis-a-vis the Manual, but we knew about them beforehand and (in most cases) alluded to them in one way or another. It is also our sad duty to point out that FM has hopped on board in perpetuating the by-now preposterous error regarding the supposed occurrence of Pilostyles blanchetii (Gardner) R. Br. (Apodanthaceae) in Costa Rica [see under "González," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(1), Jan. 2015]. These things really do take on lives of their own! We promise to crush this baseless rumor like a bug in Manual Vol. 4. Finally, we must acknowledge an error of our own: as carefully elucidated in the "Addenda" to this FM volume, Fragaria ×ananassa Duchesne ex Rozier must be accepted as the correct rendition of the name of the cultivated strawberry, sans "Weston" as a parenthetical authority (the way we had it in the Manual Rosaceae treatment). In our feeble defense, we had interpreted the situation according to Art. 33.3 of the Vienna Code (2006), later substantially reworded in the Melbourne Code (2012; as Art. 41.4). The "Addenda" also cite the recent publication of Ficus plectonervata N. Medina [see under "Medina," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(1), Jan. 2015], but neglect to point out that it corresponds to the entity treated under the name F. richteri Dugand on p. 105 of the same volume.
Deanna, R., S. Leiva González & G. E. Barboza. 2015. Changes in the circumscription of Deprea (Physalideae, Solanaceae): thirty two new combinations. PhytoKeys 46: 73–87.
Acting on molecular evidence that we have not seen, these authors recombine the genera Deprea and Larnax (under the former name), yielding the new combinations alluded to in the title. The only member of this group that occurs in Costa Rica was treated as Larnax sylvarum (Standl. & C. V. Morton) N. W. Sawyer subsp. sylvarum by Solanaceae contributor Lynn Bohs (UT) in Manual Vol. 8 (2015). While we might have seen this article prior to the publication of that volume, it would have been too late to make any changes. In any case, the combination Deprea sylvarum (Standl. & C. V. Morton) Hunz. was already available, and is cited as a synonym in Lynn's treatment. We first learned this sp. in the genus Deprea, albeit under the misapplied name D. orinocensis (Kunth) Raf.
Dertien, J. R. & M. R. Duvall. 2014. Perspectives on the systematics and phylogenetics of Guaiacum (Zygophyllaceae): complexities in conservation of endangered hardwoods due to fragmentation, introgression, and intermittent gene flow/Perspectiva en la sistemática y filogenia de Guaiacum (Zygophyllaceae): dificultad en la conservación de maderas duras económicamente importantes debido a fragmentación, introgresión y flujo intermitente de genes. Revista Mex. Biodivers. 85: 808–822.
In the Manual treatment of Zygophyllaceae (2015) by co-PI Nelson Zamora (INBio), the genus Guaiacum was said to comprise "3 o 4 spp." If we get their drift, these authors would endorse the larger figure, accepting G. coulteri A. Gray, G. officinale L., G. sanctum L. (the sole Costa Rican representative), and G. unijugum Brandegee as distinct.
Egan, A. N. & B. Pan. 2015. Resolution of polyphyly in Pueraria (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae): the creation of two new genera, Haymondia and Toxicopueraria, the resurrection of Neustanthus, and a new combination in Teyleria. Phytotaxa 218: 201–226.
Based on their own "in prep." phylogenetic studies confirming "the existence of...five separate lineages assigned to Pueraria s.l.," the authors waste no time in implementing the implied taxonomic changes. Of those specified in the title, it is the resurrection of Neustanthus that most concerns us. That apparently monospecific genus will be the new home for Pueraria phaseoloides (Roxb.) Benth., the only member of this complex so far recorded from Costa Rica. The combination Neustanthus phaseoloides (Roxb.) Benth. is already available (old Bentham had all the bases covered), but N. p. var. javanicus (Benth.) A. N. Egan & B. Pan is validated anew (though misspelled as "javanica") for the infraspecific taxon to which Costa Rican material was tentatively assigned in Manual Vol. 5 (2010). It would appear that the infamous Kudzu, Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr., mentioned in the Manual (as having been collected in Panama), will remain in Pueraria sensu stricto, now pruned to 10–12 spp. We are not allowed to see a cladogram (yet), but do get a tabular morphological comparison of the five segregate genera. Generously illustrated with composite line drawings and color photos from life, all of uniformly excellent quality.
Fonseca, L. H. M., S. M. Cabral, M. F. Agra & L. G. Lohmann. 2015. Taxonomic updates in Dolichandra Cham. (Bignonieae, Bignoniaceae). PhytoKeys 46: 35–43.
A South American element is removed from synonymy under Dolichandra uncata (Andrews) L. G. Lohmann [which most of our readers will have learned under the name Macfadyena uncata (Andrews) Sprague & Sandwith] and recognized as a distinct sp. We cite this paper only for its inclusion of a key to all nine spp. of the genus Dolichandra (which, in addition to Macfadyena, now subsumes Melloa and Parabignonia).
Gamba, D. & F. Almeda. 2015. Miconia solearis, a new combination to replace the illegitimate Miconia magnifolia (Melastomataceae: Miconieae) in tropical America. Phytotaxa 219: 199–200.
The combination Miconia solearis (Naudin) Gamba & Almeda (based on Clidemia solearis Naudin) is validated to replace an illegitimate nomen novum perpetrated by the same authors [see under "Gamba," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(1), Jan. 2015]. It becomes the accepted name for the sp. formerly well-known as Ossaea macrophylla (Benth.) Cogn.
Ignowski, H., A. L. V. Toscano de Brito, C. Bona & E. C. Smidt. 2015. Nomenclatural notes on Stelis ciliaris (Pleurothallidinae, Orchidaceae). Phytotaxa 218: 30–38.
Three names based on Brazilian types are added to the synonymy of Stelis ciliaris Lindl., the range of which was indicated in Manual Vol. 3 (2003) as having its southern limit in Panama. Also included (without comment) as a synonym of S. ciliaris is Stelis jimenezii Schltr., which was accepted as distinct (though with discussion of its close resemblance to S. ciliaris) by Manual Pleurothallidinae contributor Carlyle Luer. The holotype of S. jimenezii was destroyed at B, so the name is lectotypified based on an extant (though fragmentary) isotype.
Karremans, A. P., D. Bogarín & B. Gravendeel. 2015. Specklinia lugduno-batavae (Pleurothallidinae: Orchidaceae), a new species in the S. digitalis group. Blumea 59: 180–184.
The entity hitherto known as Specklinia grobyi (Bateman ex Lindl.) F. Barros (i.e, Pleurothallis grobyi Bateman ex Lindl. of Manual Vol. 3) is evidently (at least, according to these authors) in reality a sp. complex; indeed, so complex is it that entire sp. groups may be discerned within, viz., that of the title centered on Specklinia digitalis (Luer) Pridgeon & M. W. Chase (type from southern Mexico). The new sp. here described, Specklinia lugduno-batavae Karremans, Bogarín & Gravend., is restricted to northern Costa Rica, at 200–350 m elevation in the Sarapiquí lowlands (E.B. La Selva) and the foothills of the Cordillera Central (Rara Avis). The Costa Rican distribution of P. grobyi as given in the Manual being much broader than this, we may assume that at least one additional sp. in the S. grobyi complex occurs in the country; however, from this source, it is unclear whether the name S. grobyi (type from Guyana) will continue to be used for any Costa Rican material, and we also cannot tell whether any other spp. in the complex occur within the range of S. lugduno-batavae. The new sp. is depicted in a fine composite line drawing (as its one of its relatives) and color photos from life (together with three of its relatives). Incidentally, the stange and cumbersome epithet "honours the Academia Lugduno Batava, nowadays Leiden University, and its Hortus Academicus Lugduno-Batavus, the current Hortus botanicus Leiden"; no doubt this has something to do with the fact that two of the authors are associated with Leiden, as is the journal in which this article appears.
——, ——, F. Pupulin, C. A. Luer & B. Gravendeel. 2015. The glandulous Specklinia: morphological convergence versus phylogenetic divergence. Phytotaxa 218: 101–127.
Specklinia glandulosa (Ames) Pridgeon & M. W. Chase (i.e., Pleurothallis glandulosa Ames of Manual Vol. 3) has traditionally (as in the Manual) "been considered a widely distributed and variable species, ranging from Mexico to the Guiana Shield." Here, six spp. are discriminated from this complex, although one of these, Specklinia chontalensis (A. H. Heller & A. D. Hawkes) Luer, was already accepted as distinct in the Manual (as Pleurothallis chontalensis A. H. Heller & A. D. Hawkes, the elevational range of which should be adjusted downward to 300 m). Of the five remaining spp., only the South American Specklinia pertenuis (C. Schweinf.) Karremans & Gravend. (comb. nov.) does not occur in Costa Rica. The four that do include the mainly Panamanian Specklinia glandulosa sensu stricto, apparently quite rare in Costa Rica (the only specimen cited with locality data being from Parque Nacional Carara), and S. vittariifolia (Schltr.) Pridgeon & M. W. Chase (the basionym of which was cited in synonymy under Pleurothallis glandulosa in the Manual), as well as two spp. described as new. Specklinia vittariifolia has been collected at elevations of ca. 100–1200 m on the Atlantic slope of the Cordillera Central and at Parque Nacional La Cangreja on the Pacific slope, and also occurs in Mexico, El Salvador, and Panama. The two new spp. are Specklinia alajuelensis Karremans & Pupulin, known also from eastern Nicaragua, and the endemic S. gersonii Bogarín & Karremans. Collections of the former sp. are assigned to either of two "morphs": "morph 1" (which includes the holotype) is restricted to 1050–1250 m elevation on the Pacific slope of the Cordillera de Tilarán and the Montes del Aguacate, in the vicinity of San Ramón, while "morph 2" (which "could represent a distinct species") occurs at lower elevations (300–750 m) on the Atlantic slope of the Cordilleras de Guanacaste, de Tilarán, and Central. Specklinia gersonii (honoring "Costa Rican orchid enthusiast" Gerson Villalobos) is known from just one population, at ca. 600 m elevation at a remote site in the northeastern foothills of Volcán Turrialba. Includes a key to the spp. of the complex, a cladogram (which omits two of the spp.), and distribution maps. All six spp. are illustrated with color photos of living material and the excellent composite line drawings we have come to expect from this crew; in addition, floral details of selected spp. are depicted in SEM micrographs.
Katinas, L., M. S. Vitali & M. J. Apodaca. 2014. Sinonimias en el género Chaptalia (Asteraceae), con una clave actualizada de las especies argentinas. Bol. Soc. Argent. Bot. 49: 605–612.
The recent (re)discovery of Chaptalia runcinata Kunth in Costa Rica [see The Cutting Edge 14(4): 2, Oct. 2007] has rendered us vulnerable to the taxonomic conclusions of these authors, who judge the name C. runcinata (type from Colombia) to be synonymous with the prior Chaptalia piloselloides (Vahl) Baker (type from Uruguay). So compounded (and with several other synonyms swept up in the imbroglio), the sp. in question ranges from Mexico to northwestern South America, thence disjunctly from Bolivia to Argentina and southeastern Brazil. A revised description of C. piloselloides is provided, along with a key to the Argentinean spp. of the genus [which reveals that the venerable Chaptalia nutans (L.) Pol. remains intact].
Kolanowska, M. 2014. Third species of Monophyllorchis (Orchidaceae) discovered in Panama. Polish Bot. J. 59: 177–180.
This paper concerns us only tangentially. Monophyllorchis was characterized in Manual Vol. 3 (2003) as a genus of "1 o 2 spp.," with only M. microstyloides (Rchb. f.) Garay attributed to Costa Rica. The name Monophyllorchis maculata Garay (type from Ecuador) was included as a synonym of M. microstyloides. The present paper describes a new sp. from Panama and resurrects M. maculata, yielding a total of three spp. for the genus. These are separated by means of a dichotomous key. As far as we can tell, the Costa Rican sp. total and the nomenclature of our single sp. are unaffected.
—— & D. Szlachetko. 2014. Notes on Elleanthus muscicola (Orchidaceae) and description of a new Epilyna species from Panama. Polish Bot. J. 59: 173–176.
The segregate genus Epilyna, though acknowledged by these authors as sister to Elleanthus, is nonetheless accepted by them as distinct [as it is also in the most recent consensus classification of Orchidaceae; see under "Chase," et al., this column, in our last issue]. According to a previous paper involving the second author of this one [see under "Dudek," this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(2), Apr. 2011], only Epilyna jimenezii Schltr. [treated as Elleanthus jimenezii (Schltr.) C. Schweinf. in Manual Vol. 3 (2003)] could be ascribed to Costa Rica; Elleanthus muscicola Schltr., accepted for a distinct sp. in the Manual, was newly regarded as a synonym of Epilyna jimenezii. The present paper reconsiders the latter issue and backtracks, reinstating Elleanthus muscicola as a distinct sp. (wisely, we think) and formally transferring it to Epilyna as E. muscicola (Schltr.) Kolan. & Szlach. (comb. nov.). Then the authors go one step further and discriminate yet a third sp. from the same complex (but it is Panamanian, and does not appear to concern us in any way). A key to the five Epilyna spp. recognized by the authors is provided.
Kuijt, J. 2015. Lectotypification of Viscum latifolium Lamarck. Phytologia 97: 137–138.
The protologue of Viscum latifolium Lam. attributed the sp. to Hispaniola, and the name has traditionally been regarded as a synonym of the widespread Phoradendron racemosum (Aubl.) Krug & Urb. (Santalaceae). However, the only actual specimen explicitly mentioned by Lamarck corresponds to the sp. presently known as Passovia pyrifolia (Kunth) Tiegh. (Loranthaceae)—i.e., Phthirusa pyrifolia (Kunth) Eichler of Manual Vol. 6 (2007). Construing that specimen as the type of Viscum latifolium would require a name change for Passovia pyrifolia (which, by the way, is now known from Hispaniola). That "calamitous" development is averted by lectotypification on a Plumier plate depicting Phoradendron racemosum. All ist gut!
Lombardi, J. A. 2015. Corrections for Flora Neotropica Monograph 114: Celastraceae (Hippocrateoideae e Salacioideae). Brittonia 67: 173.
In which the author acknowledges (among other things) his incorrect usage of a feminine epithet ("aspera") in the neuter genus Prionostemma in the recent work referenced in the title.
Mazine, F. F. & V. C. Sousa. 2015. Lectotypifications and a new combination in Eugenia sect. Racemosae (Myrtaceae). Phytotaxa 205: 157–167.
Two of the lectotypifications apply to acknowledged synonyms of Eugenia biflora (L.) DC. and E. florida DC., accepted names for spp. occurring in Costa Rica. Also, the Panamanian Eugenia coloradoensis Standl., treated as distinct in Flora mesoamericana Vol. 4(1) (2009), is synonymized under E. florida. Nothing else here appears germane to our interests.
Medeiros, M. C. M. P. & L. G. Lohmann. 2015. Taxonomic revision of Tynanthus (Bignonieae, Bignoniaceae). Phytotaxa 216: 1–60.
While this is clearly a vital and well-executed piece of work, it would appear relatively inconsequential for Costa Rican floristics. Of the 14 spp. recognized in this neotropical genus of lianas, just two are recorded from Costa Rica: Tynanthus croatianus A. H. Gentry and T. macranthus L. O. Williams. Both are quite rare in the country (the former known by a single collection). That said, none of this is new to us. Features synonymy, typology, and lengthy descriptions for the genus and each sp., a dichotomous (though unindented) key to spp., distribution and phenology summaries, specimen citations (sometimes exhaustive), taxonomic and (as required) nomenclatural notes, distribution maps, a section on "Doubtful and excluded names," and an index to exsiccatae. The very brief introductory portion addresses taxonomic history, morphology, and phylogeny. Ten names are lecto- or neotypified, but these do not concern us. Composite line drawings are used to illustrate each sp.
Meisel, J. E., R. S. Kaufmann & F. Pupulin. 2014. Orchids of tropical America: an introduction and guide. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. 260 pp.
The "introduction" segment of this economical volume consists, essentially, of a single, unillustrated chapter on "Orchid ecology, diversity, and conservation." The meat of the book is the "guide" portion, which, of necessity, focuses on identification at the genus level. An illustrated glossary and key precedes formal accounts of "122 of the most common, widespread, and eye-catching genera of orchids in the American tropics" (we were unable to get a handle on the total number). It is only these selected genera that are featured in the key, which is polychotomous (though indented!) with 12 principal divisions. The majority of the alphabetically-ordered genus entries consist of a single page, with two to four color photos from life and three paragraphs of text: a description, a summary of "Distribution and diversity" (i.e., sp. total), and remarks on "Ecology and history"; large and/or habitally diverse genera are often allotted two or more pages (with photos accounting for the excess). A chapter on "Where to see orchids" in tropical American countries closes out the volume. We expect this guide will be of some utility, mainly on account of the photos. The nomenclature appears to be cutting edge, no doubt due to the expertise of co-author Franco Pupulin (JVR).
Morillo, G. 2015. Aportes al conocimiento de las Gonolobinae Parte III (Apocynaceae, Asclepiadoideae)/Contributions to the knowledge of the Gonolobinae (Apocynaceae, Asclepiadoideae) Part III. Pittieria 39: 191–258.
Yet more monkeying with genera in Apocynaceae subfam. Asclepiadoideae: morphological correlations in conjunction with cladistic analysis of sequence data from three chloroplast and nuclear chromosomal regions for 55 spp. suggest that, while Fischeria is perhaps monophyletic, Gonolobus and Matelea are not. Based on these considerations, the author decides to grant recognition to 11 mono- or oligospecific splinter genera, nine of which are described as new (and the new combinations at rank duly validated). At least three of these new genera come home to roost for us: the monospecific Bruceholstia Morillo (dedicated to our long-time amigo at SEL), with B. magnifolia (Pittier) Morillo [most recently Matelea magnifolia (Pittier) Woodson] in Costa Rica; Chloropetalum Morillo, with four spp., including the widespread C. denticulatum (Vahl) Morillo [most recently Matelea denticulata (Vahl) Fontella & E. A. Schwarz] in Costa Rica; and the monospecific Rotundanthus Morillo, with R. fulvidus (F. Ballard) Morillo [most recently Matelea fulvida (F. Ballard) W. D. Stevens] in Costa Rica. We find it curious that many of the spp. transferred to these splinter genera cannot be found in either of the two published cladograms. Whatever. Features revised descriptions for both Gonolobus and Matelea, plus synonymy and typology and representative specimen citations for each sp. Every sp. in the newly described genera is illustrated with at least one color photo and/or composite line drawing.
Nicola, M. V., L. Salomón, F. O. Zuloaga & O. Morrone. 2014. Revisión de Paspalum grupo Gardneriana (Poaceae, Paspaleae). Darwiniana n. s., 2: 154–173.
The study group comprises seven spp., according to this revision, and ranges widely from Costa Rica to Argentina. It is characterized by solitary or paired spikelets arranged in unilateral racemes, with the first glume generally absent and the second glume (generally present) and lower lemma herbaceous or membranaceous, the palea and lower floret usually absent, and the upper anthecium hardened (our crude translation!). The sole Costa Rican representative is Paspalum pictum Ekman, widely distributed in South America but long known from Mesoamerica by a single collection gathered (near Boruca, by Henri Pittier) in 1891. Features a dichotomous (though unindented) key to spp., synonymy and typology, technical descriptions (including one for the group), distribution summaries, "Observaciones," and representative specimen citations. There are no maps or indices. The short introductory section deals mainly with infrageneric classification and morphology. Each sp. is illustrated by an excellent composite line drawing.
Pedraza-Peñalosa, P., N. R. Salinas, A. L. S. Virnig & W. C. Wheeler. 2015. Preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the Andean clade and the placement of new Colombian blueberries (Ericaceae, Vaccinieae). PhytoKeys 49: 13–31.
This contribution is rather too "preliminary" for our taste. Anthopterus and Gonocalyx are among the genera affirmed as monophyletic, though only two spp. of each were included in the study. The eight genera characterized as non-monophlyetic include Cavendishia, Macleania, Psammisia, Satyria, and (especially) Thibaudia; however, Cavendishia and Macleania are nearly monophyletic (each being paraphyletic with respect to a single sp.). All the Costa Rican representatives of Satyria are found in the "Satyria s. s." clade with the type sp., S. warszewiczii Klotzsch (which itself occurs in Costa Rica), and that clade is sister to Thibaudia costaricensis Hoerold (the sole Costa Rican representative of its genus). Only one sp. of Themistoclesia was included in the analysis, so its disposition could not be assessed. No taxonomic changes are implemented, pending the usual "more exhaustive analyses," "further phylogenetic work," increased representation, etc.
Pupulin, F. & D. Bogarín. 2014. Illustrations and studies in Neotropical Orchidaceae. 6. The Lepanthes guatemalensis group (Pleurothallidinae) in Costa Rica. Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 71(1): e001(1–17).
Here is yet another practically uncitable electronic publication; the editors of these journals need to think hard before taking the plunge on this sort of thing. We have invented our own ad hoc system (see above), but have little confidence that it will stand the test of time. Anyway, moving along: the group specified in the title comprises "very small plants provided with successive inflorescences distinctly longer than the leaves, proportionally large flowers, the sepals mostly caudate, the blades of the lip narrow and long, and a characteristically helmet-shaped, apically deeply bilobed anther cap." The authors recognize eight spp. in Costa Rica (Lepanthes guatemalensis Schltr. not among them), of which just three—Lepanthes edwardsii Ames, L. guanacastensis Ames & C. Schweinf., and L. ruberrima Pupulin—were treated in the Manual account of the genus (Vol. 3, 2003) by Carlyle Luer (the third under its basionym, Lepanthes johnsonii Ames subsp. costaricensis Pupulin). Of the remaining five Costa Rican spp., three are described as new in this paper, while two others were described (by this same team) in the intervening years, viz.: Lepanthes schugii Pupulin [see The Cutting Edge 11(2): 12, Apr. 2004] and L. tapantiensis Pupulin & Bogarín [see the second entry under "Pupulin," this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(2), Apr. 2012]. The three new spp. described in the paper under discussion are: Lepanthes durikaensis Bogarín & Pupulin, from 2000–2250 m elevation on the Pacific slope of the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca (right up to the Panamanian border), compared with L. edwardsii; L. leporina Pupulin & Bogarín, known only from the type locality at 1336 m elevation near Parque Nacional Tapantí, compared with L. ruberrima; and L. sanctiorum Bogarín & Pupulin, from 1750–1800 m elevation on the Pacific slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca and the Cerros de La Carpintera, compared with L. tapantiensis. A dichotomous (though non-indented) key is provided for all eight spp., together with typology, generous technical descriptions, distribution summaries, specimen citations, and discussions of varying length. The brief but illustrated) introductory section is mainly concerned with taxonomic history and morphology. Each sp. is illustrated by a fine composite line drawing and color photo of a flower (two apiece in the case of Lepanthes sanctiorum, which has an "autogamous form"). By the way: we have intentionally removed the diaeresis from the authors' "Lepanthes durikäensis" because it was placed over the wrong letter ("durikaënsis" would have been correct); though diaereses are permissible under the Code (ICN Art. 60.6), they are not required, and we are uncertain as to whether their placement is correctable.
Adding the three new spp. from this paper to three others featured in this issue (see both entries under "Karremans," this column) boosts our running count of new orchid spp. described from Costa Rica since 1994 to 355.
Rakosy, D., M. Speckmaier, A. Weber, W. Huber & A. Weissenhofer (eds.). 2013. Orchids: botanical jewels of the Golfo Dulce region, Costa Rica. Verein zur Förderung der Tropenstation La Gamba, Vienna, Austria. 204 pp.
This trim volume is another fine product of the Austrian team that has accomplished so much during the past quarter century at the old "Esquinas forest" of Paul Allen fame [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 16(2): 13–14, Apr. 2009]. The first fifth of the book is introductory in nature, comprising eleven well-illustrated chapters on topics such as regional vegetation, morphology, pollination, and classification of orchids (the last co-authored by Franco Pupulin), relationships with ants, and orchid cultivation. The body of the work, entitled "Selected orchids of the Golfo Dulce region," features "around 70" orchid spp. from said region (of "over 230" total), selected presumably on the basis of abundance and/or conspicuousness. Typically, each sp. is allotted two pages, on which are presented two or three color photos from life, a description, distribution and phenology summaries, information (if available) on pollination, and "Remarks," as well as an explanation of the etymology of the scientific name, classification within the family Orchidaceae, and references. The sp. entries are ordered alphabetically. A comprehensive regional orchid checklist is provided at the end of the volume, together with a glossary cum list of abbreviations. There are no keys. It goes without saying that any biologist or plant enthusiast working in or visiting the Golfo Dulce region will need to own this handsome book.
Rojas-Alvarado, A. F. 2015. A new species of Asplenium L. (Filicales: Aspleniaceae) from the neotropics. Mét. Ecol. Sist. 10: 109–113.
Asplenium lobulopartitum A. Rojas is teased away from the complex of A. cirrhatum Rich. ex Willd. and A. radicans L. on the basis of frond dimensions and architecture. The new sp., illustrated with a composite line drawing, has been collected at 1060–1900 m elevation in the Cordilleras de Guanacaste, Central, and de Talamanca of Costa Rica, as well as in Colombia and Venezuela.
——. 2015. Two new species in the genus Enterosora Baker (Filicales: Polypodiaceae) from Costa Rica. Mét. Ecol. Sist. 10: 114–120.
The new spp. described here, Enterosora amplifolia A. Rojas and E. lobulata A. Rojas, seem to have been confused most frequently (even by this author) with E. bishopii A. Rojas and E. percrassa (Baker) L. E. Bishop, respectively; nonetheless, both are compared principally with Enterosora trifurcata (L.) L. E. Bishop, from which they are separated by various details of frond morphology (what else do these things have going on?). Both new spp. are endemic to Costa Rica, where they occur at elevations of 500–1700 m (E. amplifolia) or 1150–2000 m (E. lobulata) in the Cordilleras de Tilarán and de Talamanca (as well as the Cordillera Central, in the case of E. amplifolia). Each is depicted in a composite line drawing.
—— & D. Sanín. 2014. Dos especies nuevas de Tectaria (Tectariaceae) para Costa Rica, Panamá y Colombia. Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 71(1): e004(1–6).
Tectaria pardalina A. Rojas, the only one of these novelties of interest to us, is another segregate from the T. incisa Cav. morass. It is distinguished from the latter sp. (however that may now be defined) by various details of frond morphology and pubescence, and occurs at higher elevations (1200–1950 m, vs. generally 0–1200 m). The new sp. has been collected on both slopes of the Cordillera de Talamanca, and disjunctly in the Fortuna region of western Panama. A dichotomous key is helpfully provided for the entire genus Tectaria in the countries mentioned in the title (though it would be much more helpful if it were indented). Both new spp. (the other is Colombian) are depicted in rather basic composite line drawings. For comments on our citation of this e-publication, see under "Pupulin" (this column).
Santamaría Aguilar, D., Q. Jiménez-Madrigal & A. K. Monro. 2015. A new species of Ternstroemia (Pentaphylacaceae) from La Amistad Binational Park and World Heritage property, Costa Rica and Panama. Phytotaxa 217: 87–91.
We needn't say much about Ternstroemia amistadensis Q. Jiménez & D. Santam., the subject of this paper, as it was adequately dealt with (albeit as a member of Theaceae) in Manual Vol. 8 (2015) under the provisional name "Ternstroemia sp. A." Here we get a tabular comparison with two similar spp. (both Andean), as well as a composite line drawing and color photos from life.
Sclovich, S. E., L. M. Giussani, A. M. Cialdella & S. M. Sede. 2015. Phylogenetic analysis of Jarava (Poaceae, Pooideae, Stipeae) and related genera: testing the value of the awn indumentum in the circumscription of Jarava. Pl. Syst. Evol. 301: 1625–1641.
The genus Jarava is confirmed as polyphyletic. Its only Costa Rican representative, J. ichu Ruiz. & Pav. [i.e., Stipa ichu (Ruiz & Pav.) Kunth of Manual Vol. 3] is the type sp., so we needn't worry. This all sounds vaguely familiar. Let's move along to something else.
Seigler, D. S. & J. E. Ebinger. 2015. Clarification of Acacia multipinnata, A. paniculata, A. scandens and A. tenuifolia. Phytologia 97: 179–186.
Their argument is extremely involved, but boils down to this: examination of type specimens and other critical material has shown that the four names mentioned in the title apply to two "morphologically distinct species that are difficult to distinguish." The name Acacia tenuifolia (L.) Willd. applies unequivocally to one of these, while A. multipinnata Ducke, A. paniculata Willd., and the illegitimate A. scandens Willd. are all synonyms applying to the second sp. Because of past confusion involving the application of the oldest legitimate name, A. paniculata (1806), the authors "have elected to use the name A. multipinnata" (1925) for the second sp., "in order to maintain nomenclatural stability in anticipation of a proposal to conserve the name against Acacia paniculata." If successful, that proposal will maintain the nomenclature employed by co-PI Nelson Zamora (INBio) in the Manual Fabaceae treatment (2010), wherein the two spp. under discussion were included in the genus Senegalia (as will also be done by the authors of this paper). Nelson actually alluded to the possibility that S. paniculata (Willd.) Killip & Record might be an older name, and referred to S. martiusiana (Steud.) Seigler & Ebinger (nowhere mentioned in this paper) in a similar vein.
——, —— & C. Glass. 2015. Validation of the names Senegalia × turneri, S. × zamudii, and Vachellia × ziggyi. Phytologia 97: 224–225.
The three names for hybrids in Fabaceae mentioned in the title were published invalidly by these authors, by virtue of a technicality. Here they seek to remedy that transgression, but fail to do so, in our estimation, owing to a different technicality (ICN Art. 33.1, which requires "a full and direct reference...to the places where these requirements were previously fulfilled"). We mention this only because one of the hybrids, Vachellia ×ziggyi Seigler & Ebinger, is potentially present in Costa Rica [see under "Seigler," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(1), Jan. 2014].
Sobral, M., F. F. Mazine & A. Giaretta. 2015. Nomenclatural note on Eugenia maritima and Myrcia polyantha (Myrtaceae). Phytoneuron 2015-30: 1–3.
Based on what we believe to be an entirely specious interpretation of ICN Art. 11.4, these authors seek to replace the well-established name Eugenia acapulcensis Steud. with the prior (but long construed as illegitimate) E. maritima (Kunth) DC. Without going into further details (the controversy being bogus in our view), we would submit that the operative rule in this case is ICN Art. 53.6, viz.: "When two or more homonyms have equal priority, the first of them that is adopted in an effectively published text...by an author who simultaneously rejects the other(s) is treated as having priority." In the present case, that precedent was apparently set in 1840 by Ernst Gottlieb von Steudel when he maintained Eugenia maritima DC. and coined the nomen novum Eugenia acapulcensis to replace E. maritima (Kunth) DC. At any rate, that is the notion that has been understood and accepted by all important workers for at least the past half-century, until these folks happened on the scene. The somewhat analogous case of Myrcia polyantha does not concern us.
Staples, G. W., M. T. Buril, A. R. Simões & R. Govaerts. 2015. Nomenclatural corrections in Convolvulaceae diversae. Phytologia 97: 219–223.
Just one development here would appear to have direct consequences for Costa Rican floristics: examination of the French Guianan type specimen of Ipomoea gabrielii Choisy (1845) has revealed that it is conspecific with the sp. (widespread in Costa Rica) that has been generally known (e.g., in Manual Vol. 5) as Jacquemontia ciliata Sandwith (1930). Thus, the new combination Jacquemontia gabrielii (Choisy) Buril is validated to replace J. ciliata. Also of tangential interest: in a context that does not otherwise concern us, the authors mention that "the genus Merremia s.l....will soon be broken up into segregate genera." We'll be keeping our eyes peeled!
Taylor, C. M. 2015. Rubiacearum americanarum magna hama pars XXXIV: the new group Palicourea sect. Tricephalum with eight new species and a new subspecies (Palicoureeae). Novon 24: 55–95.
Palicourea sect. Tricephalum (Müll. Arg.) C. M. Taylor (comb. nov.; based on Mapouria sect. Tricephalum Müll. Arg.) comprises 35 mainly South American spp. that have most recently been included in Psychotria (as in Manual Vol. 7). Here they are transferred to Palicourea in a synoptic treatment of the section that features synonymy and typology at all ranks, a lengthy description of the section, a dichotomous and indented key to spp., distribution summaries, and discussions. The sp. entries are ordered alphabetically within each of three informal groups. Just one sp. ventures into southern Mesoamerica and is recorded from Costa Rica, that being Palicourea schunkei (C. M. Taylor) C. M. Taylor (comb. nov.)—i.e., Psychotria schunkei C. M. Taylor of Manual Vol. 7. Consequently, none of the new taxa concerns us. The relatively extensive introductory portion conflates taxonomic history, morphology, and distribution. Selected spp. (including all but one of those described as new) are illustrated with composite line drawings.
Testo, W. L., J. E. Watkins, J. Pittermann & R. Momin. 2015. Pteris ×caridadiae (Pteridaceae), a new hybrid fern from Costa Rica. Brittonia 67: 138–142.
Pteris ×caridadiae Testo & J. E. Watkins, based on a single specimen from 2200 m elevation on the Pacific slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca, is alleged to be a hybrid involving Pteris livida Mett. and P. podophylla Sw., both of which occur at the type locality (voucher specimens being duly cited). A table and several color photos attest that the ostensible hybrid is intermediate to its putative parent spp. for a (slender) majority of the characters sampled.
Vitali, M. S., G. Sancho & L. Katinas. 2015. A revision of Smallanthus (Asteraceae, Millerieae), the "yacón" genus. Phytotaxa 214: 1–84.
Let's get this out of the way right off the bat: though the word will be unfamiliar to most Mesoamerican botanists, "yacón" refers to Smallanthus sonchifolius (Poepp.) H. Rob., an Andean crop plant valued for its edible tubers, but which is unknown in Costa Rica. Moving along to what concerns us: Smallanthus is a New World genus, ranging from the southeastern United States to Argentina, for which 23 spp. are recognized by these authors. It had sometimes been included in Polymnia, up until 1978, when the prevailing classification was implemented by Harold Robinson (US). For us, this is one of those vexatious revisions that raises more questions than it answers. We had imagined that there were only a couple of Smallanthus spp. in Costa Rica, an impression that is fortified by our perusal of John Pruski's (MO) Flora mesoamericana draft treatment (posted on the Internet) of Asteraceae, wherein only Smallanthus maculatus (Cav.) H. Rob. and S. quichensis (J. M. Coult.) H. Rob. are attributed to our fair land. The authors of the present revision agree on both counts, and so far, so good. But then things go quickly and alarmingly awry: Costa Rican specimens alleged to represent four additional spp. are cited in this revision, yielding a country total of six! The interlopers are: Smallanthus latisquamus (S. F. Blake) H. Rob., the type of which is from Costa Rica, but which is treated as a synonym of S. quichensis by Pruski; S. riparius (Kunth) H. Rob., accepted by Pruski but with specimens cited only from Mexico, Guatemala, and South America (these authors give no indication that the sp. occurs north of Costa Rica); S. sonchifolius (we spoke too soon!), for which two historical collections are cited from Costa Rica (perhaps it was once cultivated on a limited basis); and S. uvedalia (L.) Mack., indicated as occurring widely throughout Mesoamerica (possibly as an adventive?), though omitted altogether by Pruski. How to reconcile these radically different treatments of a smallish genus? We are certainly not up to the task, but trust that Manual Asteraceae contributor Alexánder Rodríguez (CR) will sort it all out. Features synonymy, typology, technical descriptions, distribution summaries, and notes for the genus and all of its spp., a dichotomous (though unindented) key to spp., extensive specimen citations, distribution maps, a brief section on "Excluded species," and indices to exsiccatae and names (scientific and common combined). The well-illustrated introductory pages cover taxonomic history, morphology and anatomy, and distribution. Lectotypes are designated for nine names (including at least one synonym of Smallanthus maculatus). Each sp. is illustrated with a (generally) composite line drawing. N.B.: we have corrected the authors' spelling of Smallanthus uvedalius to S. uvedalia, on the premise that the epithet is a noun used in apposition.
Welker, C. A. D. & M. C. Peichoto. 2015.
Considerations on the genus Schizachyrium (Poaceae–Andropogoneae) in Central America and West Indies, and confirmation of the occurrence of S. glaziovii. Phytotaxa 201: 87–95.
The recent description of Schizachyrium glaziovii Peichoto (2010) did not seem relevant to Costa Rica, as all the specimens cited were from South America. However, these authors allege that there has been considerable confusion, throughout Central America and the West Indies, among three spp. they consider distinct, viz., Schizachyrium condensatum (Kunth) Nees, S. glaziovii, and S. microstachyum (Desv. ex Ham.) Roseng., B. R. Arrill. & Izag. Evidence for this assertion can be seen in the Manual (Vol. 3) treatment of Poaceae by Francisco Morales (UBT), wherein both Andropogon condensatus Kunth (the basionym of Schizachyrium condensatum) and Schizachyrium microstachyum subsp. elongatum (Hack.) Roseng., B. R. Arrill. & Izag. (a synonym of S. glaziovii) are cited as synonyms (the former "sensu") of S. microstachyum. Here, the three spp. are carefully distinguished in a key, and the distribution of S. glaziovii is extended northward to Belize and Guatemala, as well as Trinidad. The specimen citations in support of this extended range include six from Costa Rica, mainly from lowland, dry-forest locales in the northwestern corner of the country (but to above 1000 m on the Pacific slope of the cordilleras). The problem with this paper is that it is half-baked: ideally, authentic specimens from throughout the study region should also have been cited for both Schizachyrium condensatum and S. microstachyum. As it is, we have no way of knowing whether we added a sp., or merely changed a name. All six of the Costa Rican vouchers for S. glaziovii were previously determined as S. microstachyum (indeed, they remain so determined in TROPICOS). Does this mean that S. microstachyum in the sense of the Manual equals S. glaziovii? Or do we have both spp.? The Manual voucher for S. microstachyum is not among the specimens cited under S. glaziovii, which may or may not be significant. Is it even possible that S. condensatum may occur in Costa Rica? The authors state that "the distribution of S. condensatum in Central America and West Indies needs to be revised"; but how could they so effectively winnow S. glaziovii out of the mix without simultaneously revising the distributions of S. condensatum and S. microstachyum? A longer gestation period would have been beneficial to this paper. The "taxonomic treatment" includes (for S. glaziovii) synonymy, typology, a technical description, distribution and phenology summaries, observations, specimen citations, and a distribution map. All three spp. are depicted in a composite line drawing and color photos from life.
Wood, J. R. I., B. R. M. Williams, T. C. Mitchell, M. A. Carine, D. J. Harris & R. W. Scotland. 2015. A foundation monograph of Convolvulus L. (Convolvulaceae). PhytoKeys 51: 1–282.
So here it is already, the promised "foundation monograph" [see under "Williams" et al., this column, in our last issue]. And it's a biggie! The high-sounding moniker is defined in the abstract as combining "the global approach of the traditional monograph with the more pragmatic and identification-focussed approach of most current floras while at the same time being informed by insights from molecular systematics." Cribbing further from the abstract: this effort comprises a global revision of Convolvulus that recognizes 190 spp. (vs. "ca. 100" as according to Manual Vol. 5), "with the greatest diversity in the Irano-Turanian region. All recognised species are described and the majority are illustrated. Distribution details, keys to species identification and taxonomic notes are provided." We will add that there is also a section on "Excluded and poorly understood species" and an index to scientific names. Amazingly, all of this was accomplished in a 12-month period. The authors acknowledge that the largely North American Calystegia is nested within Convolvulus, but exclude it "on pragmatic grounds" (its inclusion would add at least another 25 spp. to the total). Checking first the dichotomous keys to spp., which are "provided on a regional basis," we sense trouble right away: Convolvulus nodiflorus Desr., the only sp. of its genus included in both Flora mesoamericana Vol. 4 (Parte 2) and Manual Vol. 5, is not to be found in either the North America or South America key. Checking next the index leads us directly to the section on "Excluded and poorly understood species," where we learn that C. nodiflorus is considered by these authors as belonging to the genus Jacquemontia! Checking lastly the sections on "Generic delimitation" and "Molecular systematics" in the Introduction does not enlighten on this score. Their source for this information seems to be no more than a checklist of Convolvulaceae maintained at Kew, where the references are all floristic, and in fact more of them accept C. nodiflorus than the Jacquemontia combination! So what gives here? This is by no means a poorly known species, in fact its admitedly problematic disposition between these two genera has been explicitly discussed on several occasions, most recently in Flora mesoamericana, where the pendulum swings in favor of Convolvulus. One would expect some DNA insight here, or minimally, a morphological explanation. We found neither in this paper. Never have we wasted so many words on a publication that, in the final analysis, has nothing to offer us. And now we find ourselves in a quandary as to how to treat the one Costa Rican sp. we had thought (largely on the authority of late family specialist Daniel F. Austin) belonged in Convolvulus; at least the name Jacquemontia nodiflora (Desr.) G. Don was cited as a synonym in the Manual Convolvulaceae treatment! In any case, we are certainly not going to run out to the herbarium and rename our C. nodiflorus collections based on such a weak foundation.
Zuntini, A. R., C. M. Taylor & L. G. Lohmann. 2015. Deciphering the Neotropical Bignonia binata species complex (Bignoniaceae). Phytotaxa 219: 69–77.
The transformation is now complete for the sp. we learned many years ago as Clytostoma binatum (Thunb.) Sandwith. The first phase transpired last year as a result of a wide-ranging generic reclassification of Bignoniaceae [see under "Lohmann," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(3), Jul. 2014] which involved (among many other things) the absorption of the genus Clytostoma into Bignonia. Our guy became Bignonia binata Thunb., and we assumed that would be the end of it. But such assumptions are never safe in our field. This careful study has revealed that "two morphologically distinct groups are clearly distinguishable among the plants now classified in B. binata." One of these groups ranges from southern Mexico to Bolivia and Venezuela, the Guayanas, and northern Brazil, while the other is restricted to southeastern Brazil, Paraguay, and northern Argentina. It is, inevitably, the latter group to which the name Bignonia binata is attached, meaning that a different name had to be found for our group. And the oldest applicable legitimate name (of the eight available!) turns out to be: Bignonia noterophila Mart. ex DC. So get used to it (at least for awhile!). Features a distribution map and tabular morphological comparison of the two spp., as well as full synonymy and typology, a technical description, and a distribution summary for each. Both spp. are illustrated with color photos from life and SEM micrographs (of pollen).