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 XXIII, Number 3, July 2016

News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature | Season's Pick | Annotate your copy

Applequist, W. L. 2016. Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 67. Taxon 65: 169–182.

Recommended once again [see The Cutting Edge 7(3): 4–5, Jul. 2000], albeit not unanimously, is the conservation of the genus name Bidens L. (Asteraceae) with feminine gender. Ho, hum. A two-pronged strategy to preserve Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai (Cucurbitaceae) as the accepted name for the watermelon [see under "Renner," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(4), Oct. 2014] finds more enthusiastic favor with the Committee, as (rather surprisingly) does a proposal to conserve the genus name Sporobolus R. Br. (Poaceae) against sundry competitors, most notably Spartina Schreb. [see under "Peterson," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015]. However, we are left wondering whether new combinations and (especially) nomina nova in Sporobolus published in advance of this ruling may be deemed valid. A proposal [see under "Mazumdar," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015] to conserve the genus name Cyclosorus Link against Meniscium Schreb. (Thelypteridaceae), rendered moot by more recent developments [see under "Salino," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(1), Jan. 2016], has accordingly been withdrawn. Conservation of the name Bambusa vulgaris Schrad. ex J. C. Wendl. (Poaceae) is recommended unanimously, maintaining the status quo for the sp. traditionally known by that name and a close congener [see under "Greuter," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015]. And finally, a proposal that is not recommended: to treat the genus names Sacoglottis Mart. (Humiriaceae) and Sarcoglottis C. Presl (Orchidaceae) as homonyms [see under "Buccaran," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015].

Archila Morales, F., V. Bertolini, D. L. Szlachetko & G. R. Chiron. 2016. Platystele imperialis, la plus petite orchidée du monde. Richardiana 16: 241–247.

The intriguing orchid of the title is not known to occur in Costa Rica, only southern Mexico (Chiapas), Guatemala, and El Salvador. We include this paper among our reviews because it attributes to Costa Rica (without a voucher citation) Platystele ovalifolia (H. Focke) Garay & Dunst., a sp. that was omitted from Carlyle Luer's (2003) Manual account of Platystele and which has not otherwise been on our radar. At first we thought this might be an error for P. ovatilabia (Ames & C. Schweinf.) Garay, known from Costa Rica (by its type), but such does not appear to be the case. Consulting TROPICOS (as these authors probably did), we find, lo and behold, a single Costa Rican record for P. ovalifolia: Haber & Bello 6496, from 800–900 m elevation on the Atlantic slop in the Monteverde region, determined all the way back in 1993 by none other than Luer himself! You can't blame us for these things; this determination could not have been in the system when we edited the Orchidaceae treatment back in the day, and was evidently not entered until 2011.

Areces-Berazain, F. & J. D. Ackerman. 2016. Phylogenetics, delimitation and historical biogeography of the pantropical tree genus Thespesia (Malvaceae, Gossypieae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 181: 171–198.

Thespesia is affirmed by these molecular analyses as diphyletic, and two of its spp. are removed to a separate genus under the reinstated name Azanza Alef. (requiring one new combination). Thespesia populnea (L.) Sol. ex Corrêa, which occurs sparingly in the drier portions of northwestern Costa Rica and is our only representative of this group, is the type sp. of Thespesia and thus unimpacted. The authors speculate that T. populnea originated in Southeast Asia and Oceania, then spread eastward across the Pacific to Central America and the Antilles. Revised genus descriptions are provided for both Azanza and Thespesia.

Arthan, W., P. Traiperm, S. W. Gale, M. Norsaengsri & L. Kethirun. 2016. Re-evaluation of the taxonomic status of Hackelochloa (Poaceae) based on anatomical and phenetic analyses. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 181: 224–245.

We have been aware for some time now that the sp. treated in Manual Vol. 3 (2003) under the name Hackelochloa granularis (L.) Kuntze (Poaceae), a coarse (yet curiously inconspicuous) Asian weed naturalized in the New World (including the drier portions of Costa Rica), had been transferred (even before publication of our Vol. 3) to the genus Mnesithea [see The Cutting Edge 11(1): 13–14, Jan. 2004]—a disposition that is now widely accepted. Based mainly on cluster and principal-component analyses of a wide range of morphological characters, these authors conclude that Hackelochloa merits distinction from Mnesithea after all, and that H. porifera (Hack.) D. Rhind, generally treated as a synonym of H. granularis, likewise should be maintained. They present a synoptic treatment of the newly dispecific genus, with synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions for the genus and each sp., a key to the spp., representative specimen citations, distribution summaries, and illustrations (composite line drawings and color photos). Although no Costa Rican specimens are cited, other evidence makes it clear that our material must represent H. granularis; for whatever it may be worth, H. porifera is strictly Asian, and need not concern us. As for the proposed generic distinction: we are not strongly persuaded by the authors' arguments, and prefer to await the result of the molecular analyses which, as even these authors appear to concede, are much needed in this group.

Asai, I. & K. Miyata. 2016. An emendation of Rhodocactus, a genus segregated from Pereskia (Cactaceae). J. Jap. Bot. 91: 7–12.

Yet more fun with cacti! Noting that Pereskia s. str. (i.e., exclusive of Leuenbergeria) has been resolved by molecular analyses into two clades that "have usually not been treated as independent genera, even though they are sister groups," these authors proceed to treat them as independent genera—even though they are sister groups! As the song says: one man's ceiling is another man's floor. According to the algorithm of this paper, the genus name Rhodocactus (A. Berger) F. M. Knuth must be visited upon five spp., corresponding to the so called "SSA" (i.e., "southern South American") clade of Pereskia s. l., characterized by "brachyblast leaves present" (i.e., areoles giving rise to leaves as well as shoots and spines); with the prior removal of Leuenbergeria [see under "Lodé," this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(2), Apr. 2013], just four spp. (according to our math) remain in Pereskia s. str. (which now corresponds to the so-called "Andean clade"), characterized by "brachyblast leaves absent" (areoles giving rise to shoots and spines). The only sp. of the overall group native in Costa Rica, the former Pereskia lychnidiflora DC., had been assigned to Leuenbergeria, and there it remains under the latest new system. Of the three spp. cultivated in the country, Pereskia aculeata Mill. (the type sp. of Pereskia) and P. bleo (Kunth) DC. (now in Leuenbergeria) are unaffected by the actions of these authors, while the former P. grandifolia Haw. lands in Rhodocactus (of which it is the type sp.) as R. grandifolius (Haw.) F. M. Knuth. Features dichotomous keys to the genera of subfam. Pereskioideae and the spp. of Rhodocactus, synonymy and distribution summaries for all taxa of the latter, and a list of "Species excluded from Rhodocactus, in the sense of present study" (the name having been applied much more broadly in the past).

Baldwin, A. S. & R. H. Webb. 2016. The genus Sansevieria: an introduction to molecular (DNA) analysis and preliminary insights to intrageneric relationships. Sansevieria 34: 14–26.

Somewhere (we cannot presently track the source) we have seen it suggested that the genera Dracaena and Sansevieria (Asparagaceae, or Dracaenaceae in Manual Vol. 2) ought perhaps to be combined (under the former name). The cladograms resulting from this self-described "preliminary" molecular study suggest that either option (lumping or the status quo) is tenable, though only two spp. of Dracaena were included. It is perhaps worth noting that this paper appears in a journal called Sansevieria.

Brainerd, R. E., N. Otting & B. L. Wilson. 2016. New combinations in Bromus sitchensis (Poaceae). Phytoneuron 2016-36: 1–4.

Not long ago, in these pages, we reported on a taxonomic revision [see under "Saarela," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(1), Jan. 2015] that (among other things) recognized two vars. for Bromus carinatus Hook. & Arn.: B. c. var. carinatus and B. c. var. marginatus (Nees) Barkworth & Anderton, both recorded from Costa Rica. The authors of that revision also characterized the distinction between B. carinatus and the more northern B. sitchensis Trin. as "unclear and seemingly arbitrary," and stated that "more detailed study of variation and species boundaries in the entire B. carinatus complex" would be required to resolve the taxonomy and nomenclature of the group (B. sitchensis being the oldest name at sp. rank). The paper presently under review would not appear to qualify as the desired "more detailed study"; rather, it is a self-described "arm's length" taxonomic appraisal, rendered in ad hoc fashion "in preparation for the Bromus treatment for the second edition of the Flora of the Pacific Northwest." The aforementioned revision is not even cited. That said, the result (for better or for worse) is that Bromus carinatus is formally lumped into B. sitchensis, yielding a single sp. with five vars. Three of these vars. require new combinations, obligingly provided by the authors. Virtually nothing is revealed with regard to the geographic distributions of any of these vars., but if we may assume that the two mentioned previously are still the only ones present in Costa Rica, then we must heed the following combinations: Bromus sitchensis var. carinatus (Hook. & Arn.) R. E. Brainerd & Otting and B. s. var. marginatus (Nees) B. Boivin. Includes a dichotomous and indented key to the vars. of Bromus sitchensis.

Cárdenas, G. G., H. Tuomisto & S. Lehtonen. 2016. Newly discovered diversity in the tropical fern genus Metaxya based on morphology and molecular phylogenetic analyses. Kew Bull. 71(1): 5(1–27).

Rather an elliptical title for a taxonomic revision (most could be similarly described), but that's exactly what this is. The "tree-fern" genus Metaxya has, until now, been considered dispecific, with M. rostrata (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) C. Presl the most widespread sp. and the only one occurring in Mesoamerica. This careful study has resulted in the recognition of six spp. in the genus, three of which are here described as new. One of the latter, Metaxya elongata Tuomisto & G. G. Cárdenas, includes all the Mesoamerican populations, as well as some Colombian ones (M. rostrata in the sense of its type being restricted to Amazonian South America). Features a distribution map, technical descriptions of the genus and each of its spp., a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp. (which often seem tenuously separated), synonymy and typology, distribution summaries, specimen citations (clearly represtentative), conservation evaluations, and discussions. The introductory part focuses (briefly) on morphology, infrageneric phylogeny, and distribution. All spp. are illustrated with color photos (from life) and composite line drawings. Fern classification has apparently become so intractable and contentious that the authors carefully refrain (in their title and elsewhere) from explicitly assigning Metaxya to any particular family (and we will gladly follow suit!).

Cruz, M. Á., S. Arias & T. Terrazas. 2016. Molecular phylogeny and taxonomy of the genus Disocactus (Cactaceae), based on the DNA sequences of six chloroplast markers. Willdenowia 46: 145–164.

It's back! Well, for those of us inclined to accept the results of this study. The genus name Disocactus was familiar to Costa Rica botanists during a period of nearly 50 years ending in 2003, when all the spp. occurring in Costa Rica were shunted to Pseudorhipsalis [see The Cutting Edge 11(2): 5, Apr. 2004]—their present repository in the Manual draft treatment of Cactaceae by co-PI Barry Hammel. So restricted, Disocactus could then be said to range from Mexico to Nicaragua. The present paper heralds the return of Disocactus to Costa Rica floristics, but not, as might be imagined, at the expense of Pseudorhipsalis: instead, the victim is the sp. we have hitherto known as Epiphyllum lepidocarpum (F. A. C. Weber) Britton & Rose, revealed as nested within Disocactus s. str. and summarily transferred thereto (along with two other Epiphyllum spp. not represented in Costa Rica). We have a few problems with this taxonomy—not the least of which is the absence of a clear morphological characterization of the newly emended Disocactus—and will probably not be adopting it for the Manual. That said, the new combination Disocactus lepidocarpus (F. A. C. Weber) M. Á. Cruz & S. Arias is now valid (as are several others that do not concern us). Another development may be more indirectly germane to Costa Rica: the dispecific, Mexican genus Aporocactus, often submerged in Disocactus, is affirmed by this study as cladistically distinct. We mention this because A. flagelliformis (L.) Lem. is occasionally cultivated and, indeed, was mentioned [under the name Cereus flagelliformis (L.) Mill.] in Standley's Flora of Costa Rica (1937: 751) as "probably...in cultivation in Costa Rica" (though we have found no concrete evidence to support that conjecture). Several lecto- and neotypes are designated in this paper, but none that interests us. Selected spp. (including both Aporocactus flagelliformis and "Disocactus lepidocarpus") are depicted in a composite plate of color photos from life.

Daniel, T. F. 2016. Avicennia (Acanthaceae: Avicennioideae) in North America and Mesoamerica. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. ser. 4, 63: 163–189.

No surprises here: the mangroves Avicennia bicolor Standl. and A. germinans (L.) L. remain the only spp. of their genus known from Costa Rica and, for that matter, Mesoamerica. All the same, this will be convenient to cite for the Manual Acanthaceae treatment! Includes synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions for the genus and its spp., a key to spp., phenology and distribution summaries, conservation evaluations, discussions, specimen citations (representative for A. germinans), and a distribution map. The introductory portion is very brief and general. All three spp. (including an Old World one naturalized in Southern California) are represented in a plate of pollen micrographs and another of color photos, and A. germinans is also illustrated with a composite line drawing.

Endress, M. E. & B. F. Hansen. 2016. (2421–2322) Proposals to conserve the names Forsteronia and Pinochia (Apocynaceae), the former with a conserved type. Taxon 65: 189.

The genus name Forsteronia was typified by Robert E. Woodson, Jr. in 1935 on F. spicata (Jacq.) G. Mey., a choice that has been followed by all subsequent workers. Nonetheless, it turns out that Woodson's typification was grossly superfluous, a type having been designated in 1820 by Alexandre Cassini, who chose Forsteronia corymbosa (Jacq.) G. Mey. The recent elucidation of this oversight portends dire consequences, particularly with respect to the recent segregation (by the authors of this proposal) of four spp. into Pinochia M. E. Endress & B. F. Hansen [see The Cutting Edge 14(4): 7, Oct. 2007]—the type of which was designated as (effectively) Forsteronia corymbosa! Thus, if the prevailing typifications of these two genus names are to be observed, Pinochia is illegitimate, as it definitely includes the type sp. of Forsteronia. The genus presently known as Pinochia would therefore become Forsteronia, and the one presently known as Forsteronia (with ca. 42 spp.) would inherit the obscure genus name Aptotheca Miers (under which 41 new combinations would be required). These authors aim to preserve the status quo, mainly by restoring Woodson's typification of Forsteronia. Incidentally, just three spp. of Forsteronia and one of Pinochia are known from Costa Rica, so this situation does not worry us, one way or the other.

Flores, R., E. Campos-Pineda, M. D. Correa A. & W. Adsett. 2016. First records of Calathea vinosa (Marantaceae) and Dracontium pittieri (Araceae) from Panama. Phytoneuron 2016-51: 1–4.

Calathea vinosa H. Kenn. and Dracontium pittieri Engl. were both deemed endemic to Costa Rica, so we go down for the count once again. Hardly surprising, though, that these lowland-Pacific denizens popped up on the Panamanian side of the Península de Burica, where this crew encountered them. We expect we can return the favor one day, on the Costa Rican side!

Hauenschild, F., S. Matuszak, A. N. Muellner-Riehl & A. Favre. 2016. Phylogenetic relationships within the cosmopolitan buckthorn family (Rhamnaceae) support the resurrection of Sarcomphalus and the description of Pseudoziziphus gen. nov. Taxon 65: 47–64.

Sequence analyses involving "the largest molecular dataset to date for Rhamnaceae" have demonstrated "the monophyly of most genera, with the exception of Ziziphus which appears to be paraphyletic" (more aptly polyphyletic, we would say, judging from the cladogram presented here). This results in the maneuvering described in the title, with which we have no quarrel on theoretical grounds. However, from a practical standpoint, the new system may prove difficult. All spp. native to the New World that were formerly included in Ziziphus now find themselves in one of the two genera mentioned in the title, of which only Sarcomphalus P. Browne concerns us (Pseudoziziphus Hauenschild comprising just two spp., of the southern United States and northern Mexico). The sp. total for Sarcomphalus is ca. 32, according to this article, and its geographic range is roughly that of Ziziphus, as expressed in the Manual Rhamnaceae treatment (2014), minus the phrase "tróps. y subtróps. del Viejo Mundo." All the Old World spp. remain (at least provisionally) in Ziziphus s. str., and that includes Z. mauritiana Lam., widely introduced in the New World (including Costa Rica). And therein lies a problem (for us): the former Ziziphus guatemalensis Hemsl., quite similar in its gross morphology to Z. mauritiana, now resides in a different genus (Sarcomphalus) from the latter sp., together with the grossly very different (see couplet 1 of the Manual Ziziphus key) sp. formerly known as Ziziphus cinnamomum Triana & Planch.! When we first read that Ziziphus was non-monophyletic, we fully expected that Z. cinnamomum and allies would be separated from the rest, but such is apparently not the case (though we cannot be certain whether any spp. in the Z. cinnamomum group were actually included in the study). So, anyone revising the Manual treatment and accepting these findings will be required to construct keys that separate our three spp. of Ziziphus s. l. in a totally counterintuitive manner. Compounding that problem, nowhere in this paper can we find a clear statement regarding the morphological differences (if any) serving to distinguish Sarcomphalus from Ziziphus s. str.; the two taxa are evidently supported "primarily...by wood anatomical structures," and/or "primarily...by geographical and molecular" evidence. This begs the question of whether some other classificatory stratagem might have been elected, and the authors' cladogram does suggest another clear option: rather than separate 32 spp. as Sarcomphalus, with minimal morphological support, they could have combined the oligotypic (ca. five spp.) Old World genus Paliurus with Ziziphus s. l. (N.B.: the creation of Pseudoziziphus could not have been obviated so easily). In fact, the authors did consider this option, but rejected it, partly because they wish to maintain a diagnostic fruit trait for Paliurus (funny that a much larger group with zero diagnostic traits does not bother them!), and partly because Paliurus is the oldest genus name of the three involved, which would necessitate something on the order of 90 new combinations (though, nowadays, surely conservation would come into play in some manner). Therefore, at least for the time being, we are stuck with Sarcomphalus cinnamomum (Triana & Planch.) Hauenschild and S. guatemalensis (Hemsl.) Hauenschild for our two impacted spp. Diagnoses, descriptions, distribution summaries, and IUCN conservation assessments are provided for both genera of the title, as well as new combinations at sp. and infraspecific ranks, as needed, in the name of the first author. Numerous lectotypes are designated, and a section on "Excluded species" is appended.

Hensold, N. 2016. The Andean Paepalanthus pilosus complex (Eriocaulaceae): a revision with three new taxa. PhytoKeys 64: 1–57.

This contribution from Manual Eriocaulaceae co-author Nancy Hensold (F) treats five spp. comprising Paepalanthus subsect. Cryptanthella Suess., two of which—P. dendroides (Kunth) Kunth and P. pilosus (Kunth) Kunth—occur disjunctly in Costa Rica and westernmost Panama. A sixth entity (Colombian) is appended tentatively under the designation "Papaelanthus species A." Three new taxa are described, all South American, but one with indirect consequences for us: recognition of the Peruvian Paepalanthus pilosus var. leoniae Hensold automatically consigns our material of P. pilosus to the autonymic var. Features dichotomous keys to the "major groups of Andean cushion plants in the Eriocaulaceae" and the spp. (and vars.) of Paepalanthus subsect. Cryptanthella, synonymy, typology, and exhaustive descriptions for the subsection and all its component taxa, distribution and phenology summaries, conservation notes, discussions, specimen citations (in some cases representative), distribution maps, and sections entitled "Doubtful taxon," "Invalid names," and "Excluded taxon." There are no indices. The generous and well-illustrated introductory portion focuses on morphology, with some consideration of pathology, ecology and distribution, hybridization, and taxonomy. All the taxa treated (including "Paepalanthus species A") are illustrated using color photos, evidently from herbarium material.

Kelly, L. M., F. Almeda & P. W. Fritsch. 2016. A taxonomic revision of Mexican and Central American Symplocos (Symplocaceae). Phytotaxa 264: 1–115.

This authoritative and beautifully executed piece of work arrives seven years after the publication of the Flora mesoamericana treatment of Symplocaceae (by the first two of these authors), and just a year after the publication of the Manual account of the family (which involved the second author of this revision). That being the case, there is little that is new here for us: the 12 Symplocos spp. treated in the Manual remain the only ones attributed to Costa Rica, and the same accepted names are deployed (with the same synonymy). To be sure, there are a few relatively minor adjustments to geographic ranges: most notably, we lose an endemic sp., Symplocos naniflora L. M. Kelly & Almeda, now known by a single collection from central Panama; but by the same token, we gain S. oreophila Almeda as a Costa Rican endemic, the record from western Panama alluded to in the Manual having mysteriously vanished (e.g., from TROPICOS). Includes synonymy, typology, and formal descrptions at all ranks, a key to the two sections that are recognized, and dichotomous (though non-indented) keys to the spp. of each section (all but two of the 32 spp. accepted for the study region, and all 12 Costa Rican spp., belong to the autonymic section). The sp. entries, ordered alphabetically within each section, are augmented by phenology and distribution summaries, conservation evaluations, discussions, and exhaustive specimen citations, with distribution maps and (for many spp.) superlative composite line drawings interspersed throughout. An index to exsiccatae (though none to scientific names) is provided at the end. The introductory portion summarizes taxonomic history, distribution, and morphology, with flowers and/or fruits of selected spp. depicted in color photos from life.

Kriebel, R. 2016. A monograph of Conostegia (Melastomataceae, Miconieae). PhytoKeys 67: 1–326.

This monumental work by Manual Melastomataceae contributor Ricardo Kriebel (WIS) recognizes 77 spp. (vs. ca. 50, according to the Manual treatment) of Conostegia, a familiar neotropical genus that has always been distinguished from its berry-fruited brethren by having calyces that are calyptrate in bud and circumscissile at anthesis. However, based on molecular analyses showing calyptrate calyces to have arisen at least three times within Conostegia, Ricardo loosens the generic definition somewhat by admitting numerous spp. (previously classed in Clidemia and Miconia) with non-calyptrate calyces, but which are nested cladistically within traditional Conostegia. The inclusion of these spp. in Conostegia requires 29 new combinations and two nomina nova, all validated here in the author's name. In taking this action, the author is (quite consciously) bucking a trend to sweep a number of moderate-sized, berry-fruited genera traditionally recognized as distinct into the already colossal and ever-growing Miconia [see, e.g., under "Gamba," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(1), Jan. 2015]. He defends himself largely with the argument that nomina nova (many more of which would be required by the lumping option) create more nomenclatural instability than new combinations, noting also that "the species of Clidemia and Miconia that fall within Conostegia are almost all endemic to Costa Rica and Panama." But what we cannot seem to find, anywhere in this work, is a concise, diagnostic morphological characterization of the newly reformulated Conostegia. The same cannot be said of the three sections recognized in the author's new infrageneric classification, all of which are well-characterized in the text as well as the key to spp. As it turns out, all the spp. transferred from Clidemia and Miconia (or at least, all the Costa Rican ones) are found in one section, sect. Geniculatae Kriebel, "recognized by the lack of calyptra in most of its species"; however, as implied by the "most of" qualification, this section also contains several spp. of traditional Conostegia. The following spp. treated under Clidemia or Miconia in the Manual are classed in Conostegia in Ricardo's new system: Clidemia allenii Almeda, C. fraterna Gleason, C. hammelii Almeda, C. ombrophila Gleason, Miconia brenesii Standl., M. calocoma Almeda, M. colliculosa Almeda, M. dissitiflora Almeda, M. dissitinervia Kriebel, Almeda & A. Estrada, M. friedmaniorum Almeda & Umaña, M. grayumii Almeda, M. incurva Gleason, M. ligulata Almeda, M. pendula Umaña & Almeda, M. schlimii Triana, and M. shattuckii Standl. To this list may be added three spp. described after the Manual Melastomataceae treatment went to press, viz., Clidemia subpeltata Kriebel & Almeda [see under "Kriebel," this column, in The Cutting Edge 16(4), Oct. 2009]; Miconia osaensis Aguilar, Kriebel & Almeda [see The Cutting Edge 16(1): 7, Jan. 2009]; and M. povedae Kriebel & F. Oviedo [see under "Kriebel," this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(4), Oct. 2013]. All of the foregoing transfers to Conostegia receive straightforward new combinations (attributed to "Kriebel"), with two exceptions: Miconia brenesii requires a nomen novum, with Conostegia brenesiana Kriebel answering the call; and Miconia ligulata, itself a nomen novum, is rebranded with a new combination based on the prior Leandra consimilis Gleason, the epithet of which is once again available. It remains to be seen whether this revised concept of Conostegia and its attendant nomenclatural innovations will be embraced, going forward, by the melastome community at large.

A few other developments germane to Coseta Rican floristics deserve to be mentioned (this is, after all, a proper revision, not a mere nomenclator). First, we gain (or seem to gain) two spp., as Conostegia bernoulliana Cogn and C. fragrantissima Almeda are freed from synonymy under C. icosandra (Sw. ex Wikstr.) Urb. and C. montana (Sw.) D. Don ex DC. (respectively) and both attributed to Costa Rica; however, one of these gains is quickly nullified, as C. isosandra s. str. is now excluded (at least, on the basis of specimen citations) from southern Central America. And the tentative redetermination of both known Costa Rican vouchers of Conostegia attenuata Triana as C. montana nukes us back to Square One! Similarly, we would appear to gain two Costa Rican endemics, vis-à-vis the Manual treatment: Conostegia macrantha O. Berg ex Triana, of which the ostensible Panamanian material (alleged in the Manual) was not seen by the author; and the former Miconia friedmaniorum, the Panamanian material of which had been identified tentatively and was later (after publication of the Manual) segregated as Miconia papillopetala Kriebel & Almeda (2013; Phytotaxa 134: 27–41). On the other side of the ledger, Conostegia rhodopetala Donn. Sm. no longer qualifies as a Costa Rican endemic, having been recently collected by Kriebel himself in western Panama (Prov. Chiriquí). Finally, we have one sp. (or ostensible sp.) that is in limbo: Conostegia volcanalis Standl. & Steyerm., mentioned in the Manual genus discussion as having been collected in Costa Rica (or at least, identified) too late to be treated in full. That sp. is restricted by Kriebel to northern Mesoamerica, with the Costa Rican material briefly discussed as "reminiscent of" C. orbeliana Almeda (the latter based on a Panamanian type and cited as a synonym of C. volcanalis in the Manual). However, Conostegia orbeliana is itself not treated formally, rather included in a list of "Excluded taxa or uncertain names" at the end of the paper, with the observation that its "identity...is hard to confirm," the implication that it could prove conspecific with C. macrantha or C. oerstediana O. Berg ex Triana, and the conclusion that "more material" is needed "to confirm their differences.

This is an opulent production that features synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions at all levels, a dichotomous but (sadly) non-indented key to spp., distribution summaries, discussions (typically of a diagnostic nature), representative specimen citations, distribution maps, and the aforementioned section on "Excluded names...(etc.)." There are, unfortunately, no indices. The lengthy (77 pp.) and copiously illustrated introductory part tackles taxonomic history, phylogeny and infrageneric classification, karyology, biogeography, natural history, flowering phenology, and morphology and anatomy, often in minute detail. Most of the spp. are illustrated with composite photographic plates. One new sp. (Ecuadorean) is described. We did not tote them (nor did the author), but noted in passing that at least some lectotypes are designated.

Mabberley, D. J. 2016. (2433). Proposal to conserve the name Chalcas paniculata (Murraya paniculata) (Rutaceae) with a conserved type. Taxon 65: 394–395.

One more case illustrating the folly of ad hoc typifications undertaken outside the context of revisionary research: the lectotype designated under such circumstances for the basionym of Murraya paniculata (L.) Jack, a sp. of Old World origin cultivated pantropically (including in Costa Rica), is a plate that does not depict the sp. in question (and perhaps not even a member of its genus). The present proposal seeks to maintain the name according to its prevailing application. The case is argued much more exhaustively in an accompanying paper by the same author, in which the genus name is also retypified.

MacDougal, J. M., T. E. Boza E. & P. M. Jørgensen. 2016. Typification of three Linnaean names in Passiflora (Passifloraceae). Phytoneuron 2016-43: 1–8.

One of the three is Passiflora capsularis L., the accepted name for a widespread sp. that occurs in Costa Rica. It is both lecto- and epitypified, with no apparent consequences for its application.

Mó, E., E. A. Pérez-García & W. Cetzal-Ix. 2016. Clarification of two taxon names n Phragmipedium (Orchidaceae, Cypripedioideae). Lankesteriana 16: 39.

A note correcting an authority citation in a prior publication by its authors? This blather should never have been published (we could crank out dozens of these!), but it was, so we are obliged to weigh in. The infernal controversy regarding the correct name for the sp. that was called "Phragmipedium humboldtii (Warsz. ex Rchb. f.) J. T. Atwood & Dressler" in Manual Vol. 3 (and by these authors, originally) will never go away! Publishing in Lankesteriana, these authors embrace the view of JBL denizens Franco Pupulin and Robert L. Dressler [see under "Pupulin," this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(4), Oct. 2011] and correct themselves merely by deleting "ex Rchb. f." from the foregoing authority citation. They overlook or ignore a more recent paper by Guido Braem debunking the Pupulin/Dressler interpretation and championing Phragmipedium popowii Braem, Ohlund & Quéné as the correct name for the sp. in question, not to mention our review of Braem's paper [see under "Braem," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(3), Jul. 2014] advocating the use of Phragmipedium warscewiczii (Rchb. f.) Christenson! And there the matter rests (for the time being).

Moroni, P. & N. O'Leary. 2016. Typification of names in the genus Duranta (Duranteae, Verbenaceae). Phytotaxa 266: 91–102.

Among the 17 names typified in this exciting contribution is Duranta mutisii L. f. var. costaricensis Donn. Sm., the basionym of D. costaricensis (Donn. Sm.) Standl. As far as we can tell, the proposed lectotype maintains the prevailing usage of the name. Someone was so transfixed by this material that they transposed the given name and surname of both authors throughout.

Mynssen, C. M., A. Vasco, R. C. Moran, L. S. Sylvestre & G. Rouhan. 2016. Desmophlebiaceae and Desmophlebium: a new family and genus of Eupolypod II ferns. Taxon 65: 19–34.

We will not go into the details, but anyone desirous of comprehending the phrases "Eupolypods I" and "Eupolypods II" will find definitions (or, at least, references to seminal sources) in the opening paragraph of this paper. Thanks, guys! The large genus Diplazium is one of five genera (and the principal neotropical genus) in Athyriaceae, the latter being one of the 10 families comprising "Eupolypods II" (a synapomorphy for which is the presence of two vascular bundles at the base of the petiole). A molecular study of "mainly Neotropical Diplazium" by these authors, involving five plastid markers, has revealed that D. lechleri (Mett.) T. Moore does not belong to the genus, or even to Athyriaceae; instead, it was resolved in a sister-group relationship to a clade containing the families Aspleniaceae and Hemidictyaceae. This results in the creation of the new family and genus specified in the title of the paper, with the hyper-cumbersome combination Desmophlebium lechleri (Mett.) Mynssen, A. Vasco, Sylvestre, R. C. Moran & Rouhan validated for the sp. under discussion (the same authorship being repeated for the genus name and a second sp., not included in the study but associated on the basis of morphology). Alternative classifications are, of course, eminently possible, and will no doubt be pursued by other workers, but at least there are clear morphological differences separating Desmophlebiaceae from related or similar taxa, as expressed in a table and a dichotomous key to selected families in Eupolypods II. Includes also a key (one couplet!) to the spp. of Desmophlebium, as well as descriptions, selected specimen citations, distribution summaries, and brief discussions for each. A distribution map is provided, as well as color photos (including micrographs) and composite line drawings of both spp. Only the widespread and distinctive Desmophlebium lechleri occurs in Costa Rica, where it is locally common (though generally in remote areas), mainly on the Atlantic slope. Though described here as "terrestrial," D. lechleri is, according to our field experience, frequently (facultatively) epiphytic.

O'Leary, N. & P. Moroni. 2016. Tipificaciones en Salvia (Lamiaceae). Novon 24: 373–379.

Most of this is well outside our sphere of interest, but we must take mild issue with the authors' acceptance of the name Salvia splendens Sellow ex Nees (Flora 4: 300. 1821). Although the well-known South American sp. denoted by that name is only sparingly cultivated in Costa Rica, it was mentioned in Amy Pool's (MO) Manual Lamiaceae treatment (2007) as S. splendens Sellow ex Wied.-Neuw. (a name published in 1820). These authors reject the latter as a "nomen nudum," which is not strictly correct; actually, it is a "nomen subnudum," accompanied by the briefest of descriptions ("hochroth blühende"). Should that be deemed unacceptable for the purposes of validation, Salvia splendens Sellow ex Nees in Wied.-Neuw (Reise Bras. 2: 335. 1821), of which these authors appear ignorant, is accompanied by a perfectly good Latin description acceptable by any standards. Unfortunately, the exact publication date of the last-mentioned name is unknown, so we cannot be certain whether it has priority over the version favored by these authors (which was published on 21 May 1821).

Ortiz, O. O. & T. B. Croat. 2016['2015']. Reportes nuevos de Anthurium sección Pachyneurium (Araceae) para Panamá. Scientia (Panama) 25(2): 73–78.

If we believe these reports, they signify the loss of two more endemic spp. for Costa Rica. However, one report seems suspicious to us, viz., that of Anthurium schottianum Croat & R. A. Baker, based on recent collections from Prov. Bocas del Toro. That A. schottianum should turn up in Bocas is hardly surprising, since it is known mainly from adjacent areas in the Talamanca lowlands of Costa Rica. What has us wondering are the bright red fruits shown in Fig. 1C, those of Costa Rican material having been described (on labels and in the literature) as pinkish to purplish. The other lost endemic, Anthurium spectabile Schott, is based on an older collection (also from Bocas) previously determined as A. pseudospectabile Croat; however, the label of this collection (Croat & Grayum 60203, MO) describes the petioles as "bluntly quadrangular," diagnostic for A. spectabile (A. pseudospectabile has terete petioles). For some unfathomable reason, A. spectabile is represented in this paper by a photo of its holotype, rather than the Panamanian specimen.

—— & ——. 2016. New species of Anthurium section Calomystrium from Costa Rica and Panama. Phytotaxa 257: 34–50.

Five new spp. are described in this paper, one of which is endemic to Costa Rica and four to Panama. The one that interests us is Anthurium filamatamaense Croat & O. Ortiz, based on a single, recent (2007) collection from 1300–1400 m elevation at the (reasonably well-botanized) locality immortalized in the epithet (on the Atlantic slope of the Cordillera de Talamanca). The new sp. is distinguished from Anthurium formosum Schott (apparently the most similar congener occurring in Costa Rica) by several, seemingly subtle, cataphyll and leaf features, and from A. obtusilobum Schott (near to which it may key) by spathe and spadix coloration.

Pennington, T. D. 2016. Systematic treatment of American Trichilia (Meliaceae). Phytotaxa 259: 18–162.

Although billed as a revision of neotropical Trichilia, this is really more of a synoptic treatment, and (at least from a Costa Rican perspective) plays more of a supplementary role to the comparatively recent (by taxonomic standards!) Flora Neotropica Monographs revision (1981) of the genus helmed by this same author. While some 3500 additional collections have been studied since that time, and 10 new spp. (plus one new subsp.) are described, there is little that is new here (other than minor range extensions) for Costa Rican floristics. Indeed, just one noteworthy taxonomic change may be reported: Costa Rican material of Trichilia tuberculata (Triana & Planch.) C. DC. must now be qualified as belonging to the autonymic subsp., here established by the validation of T. t. subsp. lanceolata (C. DC.) T. D. Penn. for a South American taxon. The latter had been treated as a subsp. of Trichilia maynasiana C. DC. in the 1981 revision, but both subsp. of T. maynasiana are here submerged in T. tuberculata (the autonymic one directly into T. t. subsp. tuberculata). The overall geographic range given for T. tuberculata in the Manual changes only slightly (Col., Bol. and Ven. may be added, and the "O" deleted before "Bras."). Two spp. (Trichilia adolfi Harms and T. pittieri C. DC.) are said to be lost as Costa Rican endemics, but that is old news for us (and already reflected in the distributions for those spp. given in Manual Vol. 6). Includes many of the features of a standard revision (including distribution maps and indices to exsiccatae and scientific names), but falls somewhat short in that synonymy is often omitted (reference being made to the earlier revision), descriptions are generally abbreviated (except for new taxa), and specimen citations are frequently representative. The very brief introduction is devoted mainly to sp. lists for countries and other political units. Selected taxa (including most of the new ones) are illustrated with composite line drawings.

Pridgeon, A. M. 2016. Robert L. Dressler: a biologist for all seasons. Orchids (West Palm Beach) 85: 126–131.

Probably not everything you ever wanted to know about the illustrious Manual Orchidaceae coordinator (among many other things), but a healthy dose all the same. Bob Dressler, who was feted at an orchid conference in Cali, Colombia, last November and celebrated his 89th birthday on 2 June, was born and partly raised in Missouri (Branson), then migrated to Southern California (traveling in the opposite direction as one of your editors). He graduated from Gardena High School (who'd have guessed?) and obtained a bachelor's degree in botany at the University of Southern California, before moving eastward again to earn his Ph.D. at Harvard Univerity working on the genus Pedilanthus (now a part of Euphorbia; Euphorbiaceae) under the late Reed Rollins (which makes Bob a "botanical uncle" of the aforementioned editor). From 1958–1963, Bob was a curator here at MO, which involved a stint as editor of our Annals. Subsequently, he accepted a possition at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and the rest is relatively familiar history, to most of us. Of course, the culmination of his life must have been his role in producing the orchid treatment for the "Manual de la Flora de Costa Rica" (whatever that is!). Includes testimonies of friends and colleagues and numerous, mostly color, photos, the earliest from his Harvard days (we'd have liked to see some boyhood photos!).

Pruski, J. F. 2016. Compositae of Central America–IV. The genus Eremosis (Vernonieae), non-glandular trichomes and pericarp crystals. Phytoneuron 2016-50: 1–41.

We did not recognize the genus name Eremosis, which is not surprising, as it turns out; the genus had long been subsumed in the "sensu lato" Vernonia of old, and more recently, its only Costa Rican representative was segregated in Critoniopsis. As reenvisioned in this careful study by Flora mesoamericana Asteraceae author John Pruski (MO), Eremosis comprises some 27 spp. characterized by a "woody habit..., large compound paniculate capitulescences, uniflorous to few-flowered discoid capitula, and deciduous inner phyllaries." Although nominally "Mexican and Central American," the genus is most diverse in the northern portion of that range, with just nine spp. (those treated in this paper) extending south of Mexico and only one reaching Costa Rica. The latter is Eremosis triflosculosa (Kunth) Gleason (which we have known under the same epithet in Critoniopsis and Vernonia), a large shrub or tree (to at least 10 m tall) sparingly collected in the country, mostly about the Valle Central. Features synonymy, typology, technical descriptions, and discussions of varying length at all ranks, a dichotomous and indented key to spp., distribution summaries, representative specimen citations, an "Annotated nomenclator" (dealing mainly with nomenclatural and typological details for extralimital spp.), and a section on "Excluded species." There are no indices. The well-illustrated introductory portion deals mostly with taxonomic history and morphology (with an emphasis on the characters mentioned in the title). Several of the spp. (though not E. triflosculosa) are depicted in color photos of herbarium specimens, supplemented in one case by a basic composite line drawing. Eleven new combinations are validated and a few lectotypes designated, all mainly in the "Annotated nomenclator" and none of relevance for us.

Pupulin, F. & M. Fernández. 2016. Kefersteinia retanae. Orchids (West Palm Beach) 85: 252–254.

We generally pass over these hobbyist-oriented vignettes, but this one is of interest, in a sad way. Kefersteinia retanae G. Gerlach, discovered only in 1990, had been known in the wild by a single population in the northern Valle de General, totaling just 22 individuals (including eight seedlings!), according to a 2003 census. The authors suspect that the field labels from that census probably led rapacious orchidophiles to the site; in any case, they somehow managed to locate the population, and by 2013 had collected "every single individual." Moreover, two plants growing at the Jardín Botánico Lankester were also stolen! The authors believe that K. retanae is now extinct in nature, although at least two "strong specimens" survive in cultivation (in Italy!). The selfishness of private plant "aficionados" (to use the authors term) clearly knows no bounds, justifying our decision to withhold locality data for the only known population of the genus Mammillaria (Cactaceae) in Costa Rica [see The Cutting Edge 14(1): 3, Jan. 2007].

Reis, P. A., M. C. Dórea & R. P. Oliveira. 2016. Lectotypification of Panicum fluminense and Panicum pseudoryzoides, two names related to Acroceras (Poaceae, Paniceae). Phytotaxa 263: 63–67.

Panicum pseudoryzoides Steud. is a synonym of Acroceras zizanioides (Kunth) Dandy, a common weed in the Costa Rican lowlands. The former name is lectotypified, to no effect. Lectotypification papers are all the rage these days. Somehow people derive satisfaction from this sort of thing.

Rocha, M. J. R., J. A. N. Batista, P. J. F. Guimarães & F. A. Michelangeli. 2016. Phylogenetic relationships in the Marcetia alliance (Melastomeae, Melastomataceae) and implications for generic circumscription. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 181: 585–609.

While we have never heard of Marcetia itself, its eponymous alliance includes three genera with which we are familiar and that are represented in Costa Rica, viz., Aciotis, Acisanthera, and Nepsera. Aciotis is affirmed by these molecular analyses as monophyletic, and no changes appear on the horizon for it or the monospecific Nepsera. Two major groups in Aciotis that had been previously recognized on the basis of morphology were also recovered in this study; however, all three Costa Rican members of the genus—one of which is (effectively) the generic type—occur in the same group, so we figure to be safe even in this regard. Acisanthera is another story. That genus, in its traditional sense is paraphyletic, but could easily be made monophyletic with the inclusion of a single Guyanan sp. presently classed in Comolia. Nonetheless, four subclades of Acisanthera were discriminated by these analyses, and the authors consider that it may be more appropriate to recognize each of these as a separate genus, "because they are morphologically distinct and well characterized, whereas Acisanthera as a whole is morphologically heterogeneous and difficult to characterize." Two of the three Costa Rican representatives of Acisanthera, A. quadrata Pers. and A. uniflora (Vahl) Gleason, belong to the "Acisanthera s.s. subclade" (that harboring the type sp.), and figure to remain unscathed even under this scenario; however, our third sp., Acisanthera limnobios (DC.) Triana, was resolved in the "A. bivalvis (Aubl.) Cogn. subclade," and could thus wind up in a different genus. The last-mentioned subclade "is easily diagnosed by the commonly inflated stems, sessile leaves that can be heterophyllous, pentamerous flowers and bilocular ovary." The authors assert that their study represents "a major step in understanding internal relationships and provides the basis for a revision of the generic classification in the Marcetia alliance," but make no formal changes to the existing classification in this paper.

Sánchez-del Pino, I. & D. Iamonico. 2016. Jamesbondia, a new subgenus of Alternanthera (Gomphrenoideae, Amaranthaceae) from Central America and the Caribbean Islands. Pl. Biosyst. 150: 190–200.

As noted ("in proof") in William C. Burger's (1983) Flora costaricensis Amaranthaceae treatment (and apparently elsewhere), the never-published genus name "Jamesbondia" was used by would-have-been family specialist James A. Mears on annotations of specimens that have generally been determined as Alternanthera costaricensis Kuntze. It seems that he also used the name on specimens of three mainly Caribbean spp., and according to molecular data (including that presented in this paper), the four spp. taken together do indeed comprise a natural group, albeit nested among other spp. of Alternanthera. These authors seize the opportunity to validate the subgenus name Jamesbondia Sánch. Pino & Iamonico for this small group of spp., even while neglecting to establish a fully realized subgeneric classification for Alternanthera (we sense that they were hell-bent to deploy the colorful name by any means possible). Although Mears's intent is unknown to the authors, they suspect that (Gaga notwithstanding) his "Jamesbondia" was intended to honor the famed Caribbean ornithologist (1900–1989), not the fictional movie hero. Infrageneric classifications being of no concern to us, we have nothing more to say about this paper (though we question the alleged occurrence of Alternanthera costaricensis in Peru).

Schneider, J. V. & G. Zizka. 2016. Quiinaceae. Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 115: 1–163.

This monograph has been long in gestation (as most are), its origins dating back to before the proposed submergence of Quiinaceae into Ochnaceae by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group [see under "Angiosperm Phylogeny Group," this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(1), Jan. 2010]. These authors acknowledge a close relationship with Ochnaceae, but prefer to maintain Quiinaceae at family rank (a cladistically defensible option, as we understand it). Over the years, the authors have generated (among other things) a revision of Lacunaria [see under "Schneider," this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(2), Apr. 2012] and several miscellaneous considerations of South American Quiina (those being the only two genera of the family recorded from Costa Rica). As a consequence, this monograph offers us (thankfully!) no major surprises: in terms of sp. representation, accepted names, synonymy, and geographic ranges, it is essentially identical (as far as Costa Rica is concerned) to the Manual treatment of Quiinaceae (2014) by Francisco Morales. Quiinaceae being exclusively neotropical, this contribution is truly monographic; thus, the four genera and 46 spp. recognized correspond to the family totals for those categories. Quiina, with 32 spp., is by far the largest of the genera. Synonymy, typology, and generous technical descriptions are provided (at all ranks), along with a key to genera and nested keys to spp. and (where necessary) subspp. (Quiina boasts several supplementary sp. keys, for particular geographic regions). All the keys are dichotomous and indented (sacre bleu!). The sp. entries, presented non-alphabetically except (by chance?) in the genus Froesia, also feature distribution and phenology summaries, specimen citations (not necessarily comprehensive), and discussions. Distribution maps are scattered throughout the text, and at the end of each genus are found (as necessary) sections on "Names not accounted for" and/or "Excluded taxa." Indices to exsiccatae, common names, and scientific names terminate the volume. The moderately illustrated introductory portion addresses taxonomic history, morphology and anatomy, chemotaxonomy, phylogeny and evolution, distribution and dispersal, floral biology, ecology, conservation, and uses. Most of the spp. and subspp. are featured in rather basic composite line drawings.

Schwartsburd, P. B. & J. Prado. 2014. Subspecies of Hypolepis rugosula (Dennstaedtiaceae; Pteridophyta) around the world: morphological and biogeographic perspectives. Acta Bot. Brasil. 28: 206–226.

Read first the following review, for background information regarding this paper. What has been, to some other workers, a sp. complex is construed by these authors as a single, "subcosmopolitan (or circum-Antarctic)" sp. under the name Hypolepis rugosula (Labill.) J. Sm. No fewer than 15 "geographically distinct" subspp. are recognized, just one of which, H. r. subsp. colorata (Christ) Schwartsb. & J. Prado (comb. nov.), occurs in Mesoamerica. The latter, portrayed here as a Costa Rican endemic, comprises (at least in part) Hypolepis pulcherrima Underw. & Maxon in the sense of Flora mesomericana Vol. 1 (1995), under which the basionym of H. rugosula subsp. colorata was cited in synonymy (the name H. pulcherrima itself now becoming the basis for another subsp. of H. rugosula, restricted by these authors to the Greater Antilles, and perhaps Mexico). We would assume that all Costa Rican material previously assigned to Hypolepis pulcherrima is now properly H. rugosula subsp. colorata, even though only a few historical collections are cited in this paper. The authors, based in Brazil, evidently did not have easy access to abundant Mesoamerican material. We would assume that the same logic applies to the Panamanian record for H. pulcherrima cited in Flora mesoamericana (and there are many more in TROPICOS), though the Chiapan record was considered dubious even in the last-mentioned work. Includes synonymy and typology at all ranks, a detailed description of the sp., distribution summaries, comprehensive (in terms of the material examined in this study) specimen citations (partly deferred to an appendix), and sections on "Dubious names" and "Dubious records." Rather shockingly, there is no key to subspp. or descriptions of same, nor are there any indices. The introductory part addresses mainly morphology, cytology, and biogeography, and features a single composite line-drawing (with eight of the subspp. represented, though not ours) and a distribution map.

—— & ——. 2016. A taxonomic revision of the South American species of Hypolepis (Dennstaedtiaceae), Part II. Amer. Fern J. 106: 1–53.

The first installment of this revision (largely extralimital to us) treated the accepted spp. of Hypolepis in alphabetical order through to H. obtusata (C. Presl) Kuhn. The second part picks up from there, and clearly terminates the effort, as it appends sections on "Names of uncertain application" and "Excluded names," plus indices to scientific names and exsiccatae. For other basic features of this work, see our review of the first part [under "Schwartsburd," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(1), Jan. 2016]. As before, there are a few minor revelations here for us. Two of the spp. in the alphabetical range of this installment that were attributed to Costa Rica in Flora mesoamericana Vol. 1 (1995) are also accepted here, viz., Hypolepis repens (L.) C. Presl and H. stuebelii Hieron., as is Hypolepis grandis Lellinger (not treated formally, but discussed in comparison with H. stuebelii). But so are two other other spp. not mentioned in Flora mesoamericana: Hypolepis rigescens (Kunze) T. Moore, on the basis (at least in part) of the newly synonymized H. rubiginosopilosula Lellinger [see The Cutting Edge 10(4), Oct. 2003]; and H. rugosula (Labill.) J. Sm., a "subcosmopolitan" sp. said to be present in "the highlands of Costa Rica" (the only Central American occurrence mentioned). This paper treats only the two South American subspp. of H. rugosula (of 15 total!), and thus offers no further enlightenment on the Costa Rican record(s); however, as it turns out, that information was already provided by the authors in a previous paper, duly cited here and reviewed by us in the foregoing entry (which see). Missing in action, vis-à-vis Flora mesoamericana, are Hypolepis trichobacilliformis R. C. Moran (see our review of the first installment for further information) and H. viscosa H. Karst., the latter restricted by these authors to northern South America and Hispaniola. We are unable to fathom the disposition, according to this new taxonomy, of the Central American material referred to Hypolepis viscosa in Flora mesoamericana.

Shaw, J. M. H. 2016. (2434) Proposal to conserve Iochroma nom. cons. (Solanaceae) against the additional names Acnistus and Pederlea. Taxon 65: 395–396.

We seem frustratingly prone, despite our best efforts, to overlook significant taxonomic implications in molecular studies, but the people who make a living writing conservation proposals never miss a beat. The present proposal seeks to maintain the name Iochroma Benth. (1845), currently in use for a South American genus of ca. 15–33 spp. (16, according the The plant-book), a few of which are widely cultivated as ornamentals. The problem (for this author) being that Acnistus arborescens (L.) Schltdl., the sole sp. of its genus, "is nested within the core clade of Iochroma, which also contains the generic type," and that Acnistus Schott (1829) is the older name [as is one of its synonyms, Pederlea Raf. (1838)]. Of course, as acknowledged by the author, A. arborescens is itself an economically important sp. (arguably more so than any single sp. of Iochroma); but in arguments of this sort, Google hits and potential new combinations will always rule the day. In effect, priority no longer means anything.

Staples, G. W. & J.-F. Butaud. 2016. A new endemic subspecies of Stictocardia (Convolvulaceae) from the Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia. Phytologia 98: 203–206.

A new subsp. of Stictocardia tiliifolia (Desr.) Hallier f., restricted to the area described above and distinguished inter alia by its pure white corollas, establishes the autonymic subsp., which (we have every reason to believe) must subsume the Costa Rican material (and probably all the New World material) of this sp. (a paleotropical native that has become widely naturalized).

Sylvester, O. & A. García Segura. 2016. Landscape ethnoecology of forest food harvesting in the Talamanca Bribri Indigenous territory, Costa Rica. J. Ethnobiol. 36: 215–233.

Fascinating glimpses into Bribri dietary practices, based on research conducted at Bajo Coén, on the Caribbean slope of the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca (an area that is nearly inaccessible to most outsiders, for a variety of reasons). While we learn nothing regarding the exact location of Bajo Coén (also a botanical locality, that we cannot find on our topo maps), we do gain knowledge of what is edible in the region: any animal that happens along, it would seem, and an unusual assortment of plants. Who knew, for example, that one could derive nourishment from the inflorescences of Carludovica (Cyclanthaceae) and Cryosophila warscewiczii (H. Wendl.) Bartlett (Arecaceae), the fiddleheads of Cyathea (Cyatheaceae), the "fruits/seeds" of Renealmia alpinia (Rottb.) Maas (Zingiberaceae), or the flowers of Urera baccifera (L.) Gaudich. ex Wedd. (Urticaceae)? Useful information, in a pinch! Selected voucher specimens of plants were deposited at USJ, where their identification was facilitated by Carlos O. Morales.

Szlachetko, D. L. & P. Baranow. 2016. Psilochilus francoae (Orchidaceae, Triphoreae), a new species from Colombia. Novon 24: 408–412.

Our interest in this article lies solely in the comprehensive key to spp. that is presented as a bonus. This attributes three spp. of Psilochilus to Costa Rica: P. carinatus Garay, P. macrophyllus (Lindl.) Ames, and P. physurifolius (Rchb. f.) Løjtnant, augmenting by one sp. (P. physurifolius) the country total suggested in a prior paper involving one of these same authors [see under "Kolanowska," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(4), Oct. 2014]. We have good reason to believe that the name Psilochilus carinatus applies to P. sp. A of the Manual Orchidaceae treatment (2003), but are otherwise ignorant. Perhaps a Ph.D. dissertation cited here, and which we have not seen, will shed more light on the matter.

Tikhomirov, V. N. 2016. (2427) Proposal to conserve the name Stellaria (Caryophyllaceae) with a conserved type. Taxon 65: 389–390.

According to molecular data that we have somehow overlooked, Stellaria holostea L., the reigning type sp. of its genus, is sister to a clade that includes the majority of the spp. currently included in Stellaria, but also other traditionally accepted genera such as Cerastium and Holosteum. One way to deal with this situation would be to combine the whole lot into Stellaria, but of course, that would entail the loss of other familiar genus names. On the other hand, retention of the likes of Cerastium would require that Stellaria become monospecific (with only S. holostea), while "the vast majority of the present-day Stellaria species will be transferred to Alsine L....or the obsolete and never accepted Labrea A. St.-Hil." (depending upon the exact taxonomy adopted). This author proposes to change the type of Stellaria to S. graminea L., which would serve to maintain the genus name for most of the spp. to which it is currently applied. Incidentally, excluded from this entire scenario is "a small group of predominantly Central American and western North American species of Stellaria" that, according to the aforementioned molecular data, "should be transferred to Sclerantheae probably as a new genus." We are ignorant as to the full content of this group, but can say (consulting the original source, and with regard to the spp. occurring in Costa Rica) that it includes Stellaria ovata Willd. ex D. F. K. Schltdl., and excludes S. cuspidata Willd. ex D. F. K. Schltdl., S. media (L.) Vill., and S. prostrata Baldwin. Another way to deal with matters of this sort is to simply ignore them and continue with current usage, which is what we plan to do for Manual Vol. 4.

Vincent, M. A. & R. J. Hickey. 2014. Systematics, taxonomy, and the new flora of the Bahamian Archipelago. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 80: 245–261.

Buried in a footnote to a table in this article is the validation of a new combination, Pleopeltis michauxiana (Weath.) Hickey & Sprunt, based on Polypodium polypodioides (L.) Watt var. michauxianum Weath. We were alerted to this (we missed it first time around) by a loan recently returned to MO from R. James Hickey and Susan V. Sprunt (MU), who had used the aforementioned new combination on one Costa Rican specimen. The relegation of the Polypodium polypodioides alliance to Pleopeltis is nothing new for us [see especially the first entry under "Smith," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(2), Apr. 2014]; what is new is the evident intention of Hickey and Sprunt to elevate the vars. of Polypodium polypodioides—or at least, the three that were treated in Flora mesoamericana Vol. 1—to the rank of sp. According to their annotations (as well as Flora mesomericana and other sources), all three of these ostensible spp. occur in Costa Rica, viz., Pleopeltis michauxiana, Pleopeltis polypodioides (L.) E. G. Andrews & Windham, and "Pleopeltis acicularis (Weath.) Sprunt & Hickey." We place the last-mentioned name in quotes, because the combination (though used on the annotation labels) has apparently still not been published validly.

Wilson, K. L. 2016. Report of the General Committee: 13. Taxon 65: 380–381.

It's official! All the proposals reported as "recommended" in our review of a prior Nomenclature Committee report [see under Applequist, this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(1), Jan. 2013] are now officially "approved." We are finally beginnning to understand how this system works! We remain to be convinced why it is needed and what good it does.



© 1995-2021 Missouri Botanical Garden, All Rights Reserved
4344 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63110
(314) 577-5100

Technical Support