| |
Main |
Family List (MO) |
Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments |
Guidelines |
Checklist |
Citing |
Editors
The Cutting Edge
Volume XXIII, Number 4, October 2016
News and Notes | Germane Literature |
Season's Pick
Banasiak, Ł., A. Wojewódzka, J. Baczyński, J.-P. Reduron, M. Piwczyński, R. Kurzyna-Młynik, R. Gutaker, A. Czarnocka-Cieciura, S. Kosmala-Grzechnik & K. Spalik. 2016. Phylogeny of Apiaceae subtribe Daucinae and the taxonomic delineation of its genera. Taxon 65: 563–585.
Based on prior molecular studies, the authors propose (among other things) to lump several oligospecific Asian genera (none of which is represented in Costa Rica) into Daucus, a more or less cosmopolitan genus heretofore considered to harbor about 20 spp. (two of which occur in Costa Rica, though one is introduced). The only consequences for the still-unpublished Manual treatment of Apiaceae [see The Cutting Edge 5(4): 2, Oct. 1998] would be tweaks to the total sp. number, distribution, and description of the genus Daucus. Unfortunately for us, these authors pretty much dropped the ball on the "taxonomic delineation" portion of their paper. They delve deeply into phylogeny and skim the nomenclatural cream (validating a host of new combinations, and a few new names), but fail to deliver a key to genera, revised formal genus descriptions, or amended distribution statements (and we cannot even find a revised sp. total for Daucus). We'll probably just have to grind all of that out ourselves at some point.
Bardon, L., C. Sothers, G. T. Prance, P.-J. G. Malé, Z. Xi, C. C. Davis, J. Murienne, R. García-Villacorta, E. Coissac, S. Lavergne & J. Chave. 2016.
Unraveling the biogeographical history of Chrysobalanaceae from plastid genomes. Amer. J. Bot. 103: 1089–1102.
For the purposes of the Manual, we are not much concerned with the biogeographical history of Chrysobalanaceae, though we are mildly intrigued by the evidence suggesting that most of the neotropical diversity in the family is contained in a single clade, which "likely resulted from a single migration event from Africa around 28 mya ago." More germane to us are the indications that both Hirtella and Licania are polyphyletic, the latter more seriously so, and with inevitable repercussions for Costa Rican floristics (indeed, we have good cause to believe that the authors' research on this topic has already progressed well beyond the stage of this paper). Parinari, at least, is confirmed as monophyletic. No nomenclatural novelties are proposed (although many certainly loom ahead).
Boraginales Working Group. 2016. Familial classification of the Boraginales. Taxon 65: 502–522.
As acknowledged in this paper, all the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classifications to date have accepted Boraginaceae in a very broad sense, i.e., to include Boraginaceae in the traditional sense, together with Hydrophyllaceae and Lennoaceae. APG IV [see under "Angiosperm Phylogeny Group," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(2), Apr. 2016], not cited in the present paper, defended this decision as follows: "The need to dismember a group shown in all analyses to be monophyletic was questioned and strongly rejected as an option by the online survey" [regarding said "survey," see "Christenhusz," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(4), Oct. 2015]. As we have often observed, specialists tend to be splitters where their pet taxon is concerned, and the Boraginales Working Group (BWG) is no exception: they recognize 11 families instead of just one, including not only Boraginaceae s. str., Cordiaceae, Ehretiaceae, Heliotropiaceae, Hydrophyllaceae, and Lennoaceae, but also Coldeniaceae (described here to accommodate a single sp.) and Namaceae [see under "Molinari-Novoa," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(2), Apr. 2016]. It bears mentioning at this point that Boraginales were (or will have been) treated in the Manual according to their traditional (Cronquistian) familial classification (following neither APG nor BWG), i.e.: Boraginaceae (including Cordiaceae, Ehretiaceae, and Heliotropiaceae), Hydrophyllaceae (including Hydroleaceae and Namaceae), and Lennoaceae. This has transpired for purely pragmatic reasons; we had already published critical volumes before these new classifications were finalized. Manual Boraginaceae author Jim Miller (MO) is an integral part of BWG, and obviously would rather have employed the BWG system, but our alphabetical presentation of families makes that impossible at this stage. Under the new BWG system, Boraginaceae in the sense of the Manual would decay into four smaller families, and Hydrophyllaceae would be expunged from the flora (with Hydrolea now banished from Boraginales to its own, monogeneric family, and Wigandia assigned to Namaceae). Getting back to our main agenda: BWG cites three alleged advantages of their system (relative to the single-family APG system), viz., ease of morphological recognition, moderate group size, and increased nomenclatural stability. However, we would take mild issue with each of these: the morphological characters that suffice to distinguish the order must suffice equally well for Boraginaceae s. l. (in the APG sense); the entire order contains only 125 genera and 2700 spp. (according to this paper), and thus would make for only a moderate-sized family, by angiosperm standards (e.g., Apiaceae have about 428 genera and 3500 spp., Araceae ca. 105 genera and 3250 spp., according to Mabberley's plant-book); and, by our calculations (using the taxon totals provided in this paper), while both systems would cause changes in family affinity (vis-à-vis the traditional system used in the Manual) for 20 genera, only 333 spp. would be so impacted by the APG system, vs. 1084 by the BWG system. So there are various ways to look at this, though we understand that the principal concern of BWG is to maintain the traditionally accepted family names Hoplestigmataceae, Hydrophyllaceae, and Lennoaceae (if not always with their traditional circumscriptions). There are still a few complications with the BWG system; in particular, there is a question as to whether Lennoaceae may be nested in Ehretiaceae. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out going forward. In the meantime, we are supplied with synonymy, technical descriptions, taxon totals and (usually) brief discussion for the order and all eleven families, a dichotomous key to and tabularized morphological comparison of the families, and a glossary. Oh, and one final observation: in the discussion under Heliotropiaceae, we learn that BWG considers Tournefortia a synonym of Heliotropium, and accepts the genera Euploca (a segregate of Heliotropium s. str.) and Myriopus (comprising some spp. formerly included in Tournefortia). None of this is surprising, in view of recent contributions from BWG members [see, e.g., under "Weigend," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(1), Jan. 2015]; however, the Manual draft treatment of Boraginaceae [see The Cutting Edge 14(1), Jan. 2007] does not presently incorporate any of these innovations.
Cabaña Fader, A. A., R. M. Salas, S. Dessein & E. L. Cabral. 2016. Synopsis of Hexasepalum (Rubiaceae), the priority name for Diodella and a new species from Brazil. Syst. Bot. 41: 408–422.
The taxonomic and nomenclatural twists and turns of the Diodia/Diodella/Hexasepalum saga, mainly over the course of the past 15 years, have now progressed to the point where we are hard-pressed to know what in Hades is going on. It all began with the notion (sanctioned by molecular evidence) to transfer a significant bloc of spp. from traditional Diodia into a segregate genus under the name Diodella Small; as summarized in the paper under review, "eleven new combinations were published in Diodella between 2004 and 2010 for...species previously placed within Diodia." Notwithstanding this abrupt resurgence of Diodella, the Manual account (2014) by Charlotte M. Taylor (MO) maintained Diodia according to its traditional circumscription, "a la espera de una clasificación más comprensiva con base en datos moleculares para un surtido más amplio de spp. así como estudios morfológicos más rigurosos." This turns out to have been a prescient decision, because the concept of Diodella—now correctly Hexasepalum [see under "Applequist," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(2), Apr. 2014]—has continued to evolve. At one point, it appeared that four of the five spp. treated under Diodia in the Manual (all except D. virginiana L., the type) belonged in Hexasepalum, under which new combinations were quickly published for each [see under "Kirkbride," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(4), Oct. 2015]. However, the present authors (based largely on dissertation research by Dessein and Salas) restrict Hexasepalum to six spp., characterized by technical features of the fruits, embryos, and pollen grains. Just two of these six have been found in Costa Rica: the former Diodia apiculata (Willd.) K. Schum. and D. teres Walter (the combination in Hexasepalum for the latter was already available when Manual Vol. 7 went to press, and is cited in synonymy). As for the remaining three spp. treated under Diodia in the Manual: D. virginiana clearly must remain in Diodia s. str., while D. sarmentosa Sw. and (we presume) D. serrulata (P. Beauv.) G. Taylor are in a sort of taxonomic limbo, deferred to the so-called "Diodella sarmentosa group," which is "currently under review" by the authors of this paper. It seems probable that these spp. may wind up in yet another genus. As regards Hexasepalum s. str., this synopsis provides synonymy and typology at all ranks, a technical description for the genus and most of the spp. (except where recent descriptions could be cited), a dichotomous and indented (though misnumbered) key to spp., distribution summaries, representative specimen citations, and distribution maps. There are no indices. The very brief introductory portion has already been largely paraphrased in this review. Four of the spp. (all the ones not occurring in Costa Rica!) are illustrated with composite line drawings, and the pollen of all six is depicted in SEM micrographs. One sp. (a Brazilian endemic) is described as new.
Cardinal-McTeague, W. M. & L. J. Gillespie. 2016. Molecular phylogeny and pollen evolution of Euphorbiaceae tribe Plukenetieae. Syst. Bot. 41: 329–347.
These "first comprehensively sampled phylogenetic analyses of Plukenetieae" smoke out Acidoton as polyphyletic and Tragia as "para-/polyphyletic," to mention only those results with noteworthy consequences for Costa Rican floristics. Acidoton nicaraguensis (Hemsl.) G. L. Webster, widespread in Central and South America, was recovered in a clade separate from the rest of its genus, which is strictly Caribbean and includes the type sp. Therefore, A. nicaraguensis is segregated in a monospecific genus, for which the name Gitara Pax & K. Hoffm. is available; the new combination Gitara nicaraguensis (Hemsl.) Card.-McTeag. & L. J. Gillespie is furnished obligingly by the authors. The distinguishing features of Gitara and both sections of Acidoton s. str. are tabularized. Cracks in the foundation of Tragia began to show during the production of Manual Vol. 5 (2010), which included the Euphorbiaceae treatment by José González; morphological and molecular studies suggested that one group of spp. merited segregation under the genus name Bia Klotzsch [see The Cutting Edge 14(4): 14, Oct. 2007], and we responded (as best we could at the time) by adding Bia cordata (Baill.) G. L. Webster to the synonymy of Tragia bailloniana Müll. Arg., the sole Costa Rican representative of the group in question. But it turns out (at least according to the present paper) that the Tragia situation is somewhat more complicated: our Tragia bailloniana occurs in a clade that is separated not only from the bulk of Tragia, but from the rest of Bia (including the type sp.) as well. Thus, T. bailloniana is here segregated into a third genus, for which the name Zuckertia Baill. is available, and reverts to its effective basionym, Zuckertia cordata Baill. (T. bailloniana being itself a nomen novum). Zuckertia is reconceived as dispecific, including also an endemic Mexican sp., for which a new combination is validated. Numerous morphological characters distinguishing Bia, Tragia s. str., and Zuckertia are mentioned in the text (these might also have been usefully tabularized).
Chiron, G. R., A. P. Karremans & C. van den Berg. 2016. Nomenclatural notes in the Pleurothallidinae (Orchidaceae): Phloeophila. Phytotaxa 270: 56–62.
The orchid genera Pabstiella and Phloeophila continue to duke it out, and at this point in time the battle is a draw. A molecular study (not seen by us) involving the first and third authors of this paper showed the type sp. of Phloeophila to be embedded in Pabstiella, convincing those authors to unite the two genera. The name Phloeophila has priority by half a century, but because fewer new combinations would have been required under Pabstiella, the authors proposed conservation of the latter name [see under "Chiron," this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(2), Apr. 2013]. However, in a rather surprising (to us) decision, that proposal was rejected [see under "Applequist," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(2), Apr. 2014], putting Phloeophila back in the driver's seat. The present paper presents the results of a more recent molecular study showing that, after all, the type sp. of Phloeophila is comfortably nested among its proper congeners, "proving once and for all that the previously used samples must represent some type of mistake in the laboratory." The bottom line is that both genera would now appear to pass muster as monophyletic and well separated from one another, and both names may continue to be used. The nine spp. of Phloeophila accepted by the authors are enumerated, and three new combinations are validated under other genus names for spp. (none from Costa Rica) that have sometimes been included in Phloeophila. As far as we know, the only Phloeophila sp. occurring in Costa Rica is P. peperomioides (Ames) Garay (treated as Pleurothallis peperomioides Ames in Manual Vol. 3). Of course, both Phloeophila and Pabstiella are segregates of Pleurothallis s. l. (in the sense of Manual Vol. 3), said segregation having been effected [see The Cutting Edge 9(1): 9–10, Jan. 2002] as Vol. 3 was going to press (with Pabstiella, at first, branded with the illegitimate name Anthereon Pridgeon & M. W. Chase). At least two spp. of Pabstiella are known from Costa Rica: P. aryter (Luer) F. Barros and P. tripterantha (Rchb. f.) F. Barros (these having been treated as Pleurothallis aryter Luer and P. tripterantha Rchb. f., respectively, in Manual Vol. 3).
Cremers, G., G. Flament & M. Boudrie. 2016. Lectotypification de dix taxons de ptéridophytes d'Amérique tropicale, essentiellement pour l'herbier de Paris (P). Adansonia sér. 3, 38: 9–14.
At least five of the names lectotypified apply (at least as synonyms) to taxa occurring in Costa Rica, viz., Adiantum tenerum Sw. var. obtusissimum Christ (= A. tenerum), Aspidium bullatum Christ [= Ctenitis melanosticta (Kunze) Copel.], A. ghiesbreghtii E. Fourn. [= Thelypteris resinifera (Desv.) Proctor], Diplazium tablazianum Christ, and Polypodium suprasculptum Christ [= Lellingeria suprasculpta (Christ) A. R. Sm. & R. C. Moran]. In all of these cases, the prevailing applications of the names (as indicated above) are upheld (as far as these authors are able to determine).
Dalström, S. & W. E. Higgins. 2016. New combinations and transfers to Odontoglossum Oncidiinae (Orchidaceae): avoid creating new names. Harvard Pap. Bot. 21: 97–104.
The name Odontoglossum, though familiar in horticultural circles, has not been used in recent years for any Central American plants. Long ago, during Paul Standley's era, it was applied to several spp. occurring in Costa Rica, but over the years the genus was "broken up into smaller groups, with Odontoglossum in the strict sense being limited to the South American Andes" (quoting here from Bob Dressler's Field guide to the orchids of Costa Rica and Panama, published in 1993). Species in our area that had been treated under Odontoglossum in Standley's Flora of Costa Rica were later transferred to genera such as Oncidium, Otoglossum, Rossioglossum, and Ticoglossum, where they resided in Manual Vol. 3 (2003). But orchid taxonomy continued to evolve (or perhaps "vacillate" would be more apt), and several years ago we sounded the death knell for what remained of Odontoglossum [see under "Chase," this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(2), Apr. 2010], which was sunk (along with Sigmatostalix) into Oncidium (Ticoglossum fell victim to the same purge, absorbed by Rossioglossum). But these stories never end, especially in horticulturally favored families like Orchidaceae. The authors of the present paper argue to maintain Odontoglossum (as well as Sigmatostalix, it would appear), which can be accomplished, they believe, by transferring to that genus the members of the "Oncidium chrysomorphum" and "O. obryzatum" sp. complexes. Eight new combinations are validated to achieve that goal, of which two pertain (at least incidentally) to spp. occurring in Costa Rica: Oncidium obryzatoides Kraenzl. and O. obryzatum Rchb. f. & Warsz. (note that we muffed the authority citation for the latter name in the Manual). The name Oncidium obryzatum was synonymized under O. klotzschianum Rchb. f. in the Manual (and several other works), but the latter is, rather curiously, nowhere mentioned in this paper (and has never been combined under Odontoglossum).
Díaz-Morales, M. & A. P. Karremans. 2016. Epidendra nova talamancana. Phytotaxa 272: 248–256.
Two new spp. are described in the article, both endemic to Costa Rica (so far as is known) and from the eastern portion of the Cordillera de Talamanca, albeit on different slopes: Epidendrum hartmanniorum Karremans & M. Díaz, known only by the type collection from the Zona Protectora Las Tablas (Pacific slope); and E. vallis-silentii M. Díaz & Karremans, known by just two collections from (as suggested by its epithet) in or near the Valle de Silencio (on the Atlantic slope). The former sp. (dedicated to "the Hartmann family, probably the first to establish themselves in the area where the species was found") is compared most closely (among its Costa Rican congeners) with Epidendrum palmense Ames and E. palmidium Hágsater, the latter with E. pachyceras Hágsater & L. Sánchez. Our celebrated running count (of new orchid spp. described from Costa Rica since 1994) now stands at 365. In addition to these outright novelties, two Epidendrum spp. are reported for the first time (ostensibly) from Costa Rica, both also on the basis of collections from the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca: E. stolidium Hágsater, collected once from each slope [see also The Cutting Edge 15(2): 3, Apr. 2008]; and E. unicallosum Hágsater & E. Santiago, based on four collections, all from the Atlantic slope. Both new Costa Rican records come at the expense of Panama, which loses two endemic spp. All four of the spp. dealt with in this paper are illustrated with composite plates concocted from color photos of fresh material.
Endress, M. E. & A. O. Simões. 2016. A new name for a common and widespread species of Tabernaemontana (Apocynaceae). J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 10: 31–32.
When Stemmadenia and various other genera were formally lumped into Tabernaemontana [see under "Simões," this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(3), Jul. 2010], the familiar (e.g., in the Guanacaste region of Costa Rica) sp. then known as Stemmadenia pubescens Benth. (and, for a long time before that, by the illegitimate name S. obovata K. Schum.) was provided with the nomen novum Tabernaemontana odontadeniiflora A. O. Simões & M. E. Endress, due to the fact that the epithet pubescens was preoccupied in Tabernaemontana. Unfortunately, the authors (of T. odontadeniiflora and this paper) had overlooked the existence of the synonym Stemmadenia glabra Benth., the epithet of which was (and remains) available in Tabernaemontana (or perhaps they fell into the common trap of believing that a nomen novum assumes the priority of the name it replaces; it is really immaterial at this point). Manual Apocynaceae (s. str.) author Francisco Morales subsequently brought this matter to the authors' attention, and it is here rectified with the validation of Tabernaemontana glabra (Benth.) A. O. Simões & M. E. Endress. It may seem odd that the epithets glabra and pubescens have been applied to the same sp., but anyone acquainted with this entity in the field will understand completely! Incidentally: although the authors brand their Tabernaemontana odontadeniiflora as a "nom. illeg.," that is not the case, because they did not cite Stemmadenia glabra in synonymy when validating the former name; the name T. odontadeniiflora thus remains available, and could theoretically come back into use, were the types of Stemmadenia glabra and S. pubescens judged to represent different spp.
Estrada Ch., A., G. Rivera E. & J. Solano. 2016. Passiflora chimuensis, una nueva especie y primer registro de la sección Pseudoastrophea (subgénero Astrophea, Passifloraceae) en Mesoamérica. J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 10: 71–76.
Passiflora sect. Pseudoastrophea (Harms) Killip, reported here for the first time from Costa Rica, comprises scandent shrubs or woody lianas with well-developed tendrils, solitary or paired peduncles, white or greenish flowers with greenish to yellowish coronas, usually with purple blotches, and campanulate to cylindrical-campanulate or funnelform calyx tubes, shorter than the lobes. The basis for this report, Passiflora chimuensis A. Estrada, G. Rivera & J. Solano sp. nov., is a Costa Rican endemic ranging from 300–800 m elevation on the Atlantic slope of the Cordilleras Central and de Talamanca, where it has been found flowering in June. Inevitably, its nearest presumed relatives are South American. According to these authors, the Costa Rican sp. total for Passiflora now stands at 53 (which is actually down a notch from the total of 54 treated in Manual Vol. 6). Features a distribution map, composite line drawing, and color photos from life.
Ferrufino-Acosta, L. & J. Gómez-Laurito. 2015. Una nueva especie de Smilax (Smilacaceae) de Costa Rica y Panamá. Brenesia 83-84: 1–3.
Smilax fortunensis Ferrufino & Gómez-Laur. sp. nov. has evidently been collected only a few times in Costa Rica, at elevations of (roughly) 0–850 m on the Atlantic slope of the Cordilleras de Tilarán (Reserva Alberto M. Brenes) and Central (Estación Biológica La Selva), and on the Llanura de Santa Clara (Matina). It is more widespread in Panama. The new sp. is compared most closely (in narrative text and a brief key) with Smilax mollis Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd., as construed according to the first author's recent regional revision of Smilax [see under "Ferrufino-Acosta," this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(2), Apr. 2011]—i.e., to include Smilax angustiflora A. DC. and S. candelariae A. DC., both of which had been accepted as distinct in the Manual Smilacaceae treatment (2003) by Francisco Morales. The Costa Rican sp. total for Smilax (again, in accordance with the aforementioned revision) now stands at 10. Illustrated with a rather rustic composite line drawing.
Freitas, C., A. W. Meerow, J.-C. Pintaud, A. Henderson, L. Noblick, F. R. C. Costa, C. E. Barbosa & D. Barrington. 2016. Phylogenetic analysis of Attalea (Arecaceae): insights into the historical biogeography of a recently diversified Neotropical plant group. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 182: 287–302.
This study corroborates the monophyly of Attalea s. l., that is to say, including the formerly recognized segregates Attalea s. str., Maximiliana, Orbignya and Scheelea (none of which is itself monophyletic). Three main clades were resolved, termed the "Attalea-like clade," the "Orbignya-like clade," and the "Scheelea-like clade." While it would no doubt be possible to establish these clades as separate genera, it is clear that they would not have the same composition as their namesake progenitors nor, for that matter, the same names (for example, the type sp. of Attalea, A. amygdalina Kunth, is found in the "Scheelea-like clade"). All things considered, this unlikely team (including an Amaryllidaceae expert and a pteridologist!) maintain the reigning single-genus system. Also worth noting: several spp. appear to be polyphyletic, including Attalea butyracea (Mutis ex L. f.) Wess. Boer, the name of which has been broadly applied by one of the authors of this paper to include Costa Rican material conservatively assigned to A. rostrata Oerst. in the Manual Arecaceae treatment (2003) by co-PI Mike Grayum. Although these authors claim that "morphology is consistent" throughout the geographic range of A. butyracea s. l., we observed that material from Colombia (whence the type) differs from Costa Rican plants in having "pecíolos obsoletos." Will we be vindicated? Stay tuned! The issue of Bot. J. Linn. Soc. in which this paper appears is dedicated to the theme "Palms – emblems of tropical forests," and contains many other papers likely to be of interest to our readers.
García Quesada, M. & M. Otárola Rojas. 2015. Condylocarpon intermedium (Apocynaceae) un nuevo registro para la flora de Costa Rica. Brenesia 83-84: 68–70.
The initial (albeit unofficial) Costa Rican report of Condylocarpon intermedium Müll. Arg. in these pages [see "Apocynaceae," under "Leaps and Bounds," in The Cutting Edge 21(3), Jul. 2014] is augmented here with full synonymy, a technical description, and the citation of a second specimen (which mandates no adjustments to the distribution or phenology).
Hind, D. J. N. 2016. The typification of Verbesina nodiflora L. — the generitype of Synedrella Gaertn. (Compositae: Heliantheae: Ecliptinae). Kew Bull. 71(2): 24(1–5).
Verbesina nodiflora L. is the basionym of Synedrella nodiflora (L.) Gaertn. and hence, as indicated in the title, the type sp. of the monospecific genus Synedrella. Elements previously accepted as typifying V. nodiflora did not qualify as original material. That situation is corrected here, with no consequences for the application of the name.
Holstein, N. & M. Weigend. 2016. Lectotypifications and nomenclatural notes in the Boraginaceae s.str. for the Flora of Ecuador. Phytotaxa 278: 69–73.
One of these lectotypifications involves a name pertinent to Costa Rican floristics, viz., Cynoglossum mexicanum Schltdl. & Cham., the basionym of Hackelia mexicana (Schltdl. & Cham.) I. M. Johnst. The latter name is accepted in the Manual Boraginaceae draft treatment by Jim Miller [MO; see The Cutting Edge 14(1): 2, Jan. 2007], but synonymized by these authors under Hackelia revoluta (Ruiz & Pav.) I. M. Johnst.—the basionym of which is also lectotypified here (based on Peruvian material). We doubt that either of these new lectotype designations will influence future taxonomic decisions.
Iamonico, D. 2016. Nomenclature survey of the genus Amaranthus (Amaranthaceae). 5. Moquin-Tandon's names. Phytotaxa 273: 81–114.
Most of the names dealt with in this paper are at varietal rank, and only four apply (if we may accept the taxonomic judgment of the author), as synonyms, to spp. occurring in Costa Rica (i.e., Amaranthus dubius Mart. ex Thell. and A. hybridus L.). Thus, there is virtually nothing here of interest for us. Though it falls outside our jurisdiction, we must take issue with the author's contention that the names Acnida cannabina L. var. lanceolata Moq. and Amaranthus gangeticus L. var. angustifolius Moq. are illegitimate because the prior Amaranthus macrocaulos Poir. and A. lanceolatus Roxb. (respectively) were cited as synonyms in their protologues. The author forgets that "a name has no priority outside the rank in which it is published" (ICN Art. 11.2). Thus, Moquin-Tandon was under no obligation to adopt the epithets of previously published sp. names for his vars., and the latter are not rendered illegitimate under ICN Art. 52.1 (as alleged) by his citation of those earlier sp. names in synonymy. Moquin-Tandon's varietal names may indeed be homotypic with the earlier sp. names, but that is another matter.
A final observation: a high percentage of the numerous typifications effected in this paper are based on digital images of specimens that were, apparently, not actually seen in the flesh by the author. This is fast becoming a common practice in plant taxonomy, and we have been guilty of it ourselves, to a limited extent. Nonetheless, it strikes us as particularly dangerous in a technically challenging family like Amaranthaceae, for which careful study of dissected reproductive parts under magnification is often required to distinguish taxa.
Irimia, R.-E. & M. Gottschling. 2016. Taxonomic revision of Rochefortia Sw. (Ehretiaceae, Boraginales). Biodivers. Data J. 4: e7720(1–39).
Oh no, yet another on-line journal to somehow keep track of! For this article, we owe a fría to our colleague Daniel Santamaría (currently resident at MO), who manages to ferret these things out in some mysterious manner. Rochefortia, a neotropical genus of thorny lianas, comprises nine spp. (according to this revision), and is most diverse in the Caribbean region. Only one sp. occurs in Costa Rica, where it is restricted to the Cordillera de Guanacaste (at 600–1050+ m elevation, on both slopes). Rochefortia was first collected in Costa Rica (as far as we can determine) in 1971, by William C. Burger (F) and the late Richard W. Pohl, but we did not become aware of it until 1989, when an INBio parataxonomist group found it again in the same area. The name applied to the Costa Rican entity has varied over the years, Rochefortia lundellii Camp having been used initially, until it was synonymized under R. spinosa (Jacq.) Urb. by Jim Miller (MO) in his Manual Boraginaceae draft treatment [see The Cutting Edge 14(1), Jan. 2007]. This revision restores the name Rochefortia lundellii for a sp. ranging from Mexico to Costa Rica (and in Cuba), while restricting R. spinosa to northern South America. Whether Jim will embrace this taxonomy remains to be seen; the two ostensible spp. are separated on the basis of habit (R. spinosa is characterized as non-scandent) and gynoecial details. Features synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions for the genus and each sp., a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp. (at the end of the treatment), distribution summaries, discussions, representative specimen citations, sections on common names and uses, an index to scientific names, and a section on excluded names. The sp. entries are ordered alphabetically. The introductory part addresses taxonomic history, morphology (with some micrographic photos), and distribution (including a map). No new taxon names or combinations are published in this paper, and there are no illustrations of particular spp. (though links are provided to some previously published illustrations and images of type specimens).
Jiménez, J. E., P. Juárez & J. M. Chaves-Fallas. 2016. Cupania moralesii (Sapindaceae), a new endemic tree species from the premontane forest of Costa Rica. Phytotaxa 275: 69–74.
Cupania moralesii J. E. Jiménez, P. Juárez & J. M. Chaves is restricted to elevations of ca. 1350–1750 m in the Cordilleras de Tilarán and Central of Costa Rica, as well as the northern Cordillera de Talamanca (in the Dota region). It has been collected on both slopes of the Cordillera de Tilarán, but (as far as we can tell) only on the Atlantic slope of the Cordillera Central and the Pacific slope of the Cordillera de Talamanca. The new sp., dedicated to Manual Sapindaceae author Juan Francisco Morales (who distinguished it as "Cupania sp. 2"), bears a strong vegetative resemblance to Cupania livida (Radlk.) Croat (of more lowland regions in Costa Rica), from which it may be separated by a variety of characters that are conveniently tabularized (see also couplet 8 of the key to Cupania spp. in Chico's Manual treatment). The information provided in Manual Vol. 8 (2015) for "Cupania sp. 2" is not much altered by that presented in this paper. Includes a distribution map, as well as a composite line drawing (by the second author) and a plate of color photos from life.
Kappelle, M. (ed.). 2016. Costa Rican ecosystems. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago & London. 775 pp.
This, we imagine, will stand as the magnum opus of our old friend Maarten Kappelle, as least where Costa Rica is concerned (he is now based in Kenya). A massive and very heavy volume (at least, in its hard-cover manifestation), it has already been touted in various places as the successor to Dan Janzen's seminal Costa Rican natural history (1983). But while both works feature introductory chapters addressing historical perspectives, climate, geology, and soils, their main agendas are quite different and (we think) complementary: Janzen's book focuses on selected major groups of organisms (plants, herps, mammals, birds, and insects), this one on a wide array of ecosystems. No, while we cringe to say it, this reads more like a successsor to Manual Vol. 1 (2004), and a formidable one at that. Though the emphasis here is not strictly on botany, Maarten's book probes much deeper in virtually every area than our humble and more desultory effort. His chapters are organized by major regions or habitats, as follows: the Pacific Ocean and Isla del Coco; the northern Pacific dry lowlands; the central and southern Pacific seasonally moist lowlands and Central Valley; the moist and clouded highlands; the wet Caribbean lowlands; the Caribbean sea and shore; and the rivers, lakes, and wetlands. Content and graphics vary among the different chapters, but the book is in general very well illustrated, with some quite stunning photos (see especially the chapter on Isla del Coco). The ecosystem classification is original, and the first for Costa Rica to include fresh-water and marine (in addition to terrestrial) habitats. A few areas fall through the cracks in the text, most notably the Fila Costeña (the chapter in which it ought to have been discussed being relentlessly Osa-centric); but this is a very minor quibble. The contributors include nearly everybody-who-is-anybody in Costa Rican field biology (including Janzen himself), and were well-selected according to their regional expertise. However, we note only two authors who have been intimately involved with the production of the Manual: José González and (in a greater role) Quírico Jiménez (though some other Manual associates, including Reinaldo Aguilar, Garrett Crow, Luis González, and co-PI Barry Hammel, provided photos, or are featured in them). The emphasis here is, obviously, more on ecology than taxonomy, though most chapters do deliver a healthy dose of the latter. Each chapter is self-contained, generally with discussions of history, climate, soils, etc., for the particular region under consideration, and with its own dedicated bibliography. A memorial to Luis Diego Gomez (1944–2009) heads up the volume, and a "brief summary" by the editor winds things up, followed by a compendium of acronyms, a lengthy subject index, and indices to common and scientific names (the Spanish common names being, for some reason, segregated from the English ones). While we have just begun to sink our teeth into this dense and opulent work, we have no doubt that it will quickly become a necessary item for every field biologist working in Costa Rica, and will inspire many others to consider working there. Some will be put off by the three-figure price ($125–$150) of the hard-cover version, but paperback copies can be obtained from online sources for as little as $50 (new).
Karremans, A. P., F. J. Albertazzi, F. T. Bakker, D. Bogarín, M. C. M. Eurlings, A. Pridgeon, F. Pupulin & B. Gravendeel. 2016. Phylogenetic reassessment of Specklinia and its allied genera in the Pleurothallidinae (Orchidaceae). Phytotaxa 272: 1–36.
Pleurothallis, in the sense of Carlyle Luer's (2003) Manual treatment, was one of the largest and most morphologically diverse angiosperm genera in Costa Rica, boasting (at the time) 152 spp. in the country flora. However, even before the Manual treatment went to press, a new classification of tribe Pleurothallidinae based on cladistic analyses of molecular data had been published by Pridgeon & Chase [see The Cutting Edge 9(1): 9–10, Jan. 2002] that split Pleurothallis s. l. into several smaller genera, including Specklinia (which then absorbed the oligospecific Acostaea). Shortly thereafter, Luer himself hopped on the bandwagon advocating the fragmentation of Pleurothallis [see The Cutting Edge 11(3): 10–11, Jul. 2004], accepting segregate genera such as Specklinia (though retaining Acostaea) and ultimately going much further, e.g., by dividing even Specklinia into numerous smaller genera [see The Cutting Edge 13(4): 6, Oct. 2006]. Over the course of the ensuing years, the system of Pridgeon & Chase has become more widely embraced by the orchid community than that of Luer, albeit with certain adjustments [see, e.g., under "Karremans," this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(3), Jul. 2012]. That trend is perpetuated by the results of the present paper, based on analyses of molecular sequence data for "about half of the species that belong to [Specklinia] as here defined," as well as numerous members of the "allied genera." Acostaea is indeed nested within Specklinia, as according to Pridgeon & Chase, as are most of its erstwhile segregates, viz., Empusella (Luer) Luer, Gerardoa Luer (sorry, Tatica!), Pseudoctomeria Kraenzl., Sarcinula Luer, Sylphia Luer, and Tribulago Luer (to mention only those represented in Costa Rica). All of these entities are thus synonymized under Specklinia, an act that requires no new combinations at sp. rank. However, two innovations (both suggested rather tentatively) are pertinent to Costa Rican floristics: Specklinia colombiana (Garay) Pridgeon & M. W. Chase is promoted as the correct name for Acostaea costaricensis Schltr. (the epithet of which is, in any case, preoccupied in Specklinia), and Kraenzlinella rinkei Luer [see under "Luer," this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(2), Apr. 2012] is relegated to synonymy under Specklinia montezumae (Luer) Luer (i.e., Pleurothallis montezumae Luer of the Manual). A new infrageneric classification is formalized for Specklinia, featuring five subgenera, as follows: Specklinia subgen. Acostaea (Schltr.) Karremans (comb. nov.), with 12 spp.; S. subgen. Hymenodanthae (Barb. Rodr.) Karremans (comb. nov.), with 37 spp.; S. subgen. Sarcinula Karremans (subgen. nov.), with 18 spp.; S. subgen. Specklinia (which includes most of the aforementioned segregate genera), with 27 spp.; and S. subgen. Sylphia (Luer) Karremans (comb. nov.), with 5 spp. Because the prior Pleurothallis subgen. Dresslera Luer (1986) is cited in synonymy under Specklinia subgen. Acostaea, the latter name is illegitimate at birth. Two spp. of Specklinia are appeneded in an "incertae sedis" status, bringing the sp. total for the genus to 101.
Leaving behind Specklinia for the moment: several other genera of the "Specklinia affinity" are confirmed as monophyletic by this study, including Dryadella (with 55 spp. total), Platystele (109 spp.), and Scaphosepalum (52 spp.), all of which were accepted even in Luer's Manual treatment. But we have saved the biggest surprise for last: also emerging as monophyletic, and distinct from Specklinia s. str., is Muscarella Luer, the only Luerian Specklinia segregate to withstand this intense scrutiny, with 54 spp. total and at least seven in Costa Rica. Muscarella is thus maintained by these authors and, despite our misgivings as to the legitimacy of the genus name [see under "Archila," this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(3), Jul. 2012], several new combinations are proposed thereunder, including M. segregatifolia (Ames & C. Schweinf.) Karremans (based on Pleurothallis segregatifolia Ames & C. Schweinf., the name used in Manual Vol. 3). Another new combination in Muscarella is based on Pleurothallis hastata Ames, cited in Manual Vol. 3 as a synonym of P. spectrilinguis Rchb. f., a sp. not assigned to Muscarella in this paper. Pleurothallis parvifolia Lindl. (the name used in the Manual) may also belong in Muscarella (as least with regard to the Costa Rican material assigned thereto), but the authors refrain from proposing a new combination pending study of the Brazilian type specimen. (And, incidentally: we now agree that the name Muscarella is indeed legitimate, and have annotated TROPICOS accordingly.) Several other new combinations are validated for spp. here banished from the "Specklinia affinity," on the basis of morphological evidence, to the genera Anathallis, Lepanthopsis, and Pabstiella; however, all of these concern spp. that do not occur in Costa Rica. Selected morphological features and representative spp. are depicted using both black-and-white (SEM micrographs) and color photographic plates.
Khanum, R., S. Surveswaran, U. Meve & S. Liede-Schumann. 2016. Cynanchum (Apocynaceae: Asclepiadoideae): a pantropical Asclepiadoid genus revisited. Taxon 65: 467–486.
Cynanchum is a rather vaguely defined assemblage of perhaps 200 spp. for which "a unique morphological synapomorphy...cannot be given at present." The present molecular analyses of five chloroplast and four nuclear markers involved "more than 100 species," representing all but two of the genera of subtribe Cynanchinae. Even though nine clades were resolved, the authors conclude (after much soul-searching) that "a wide concept of Cynanchum seems the most appropriate taxonomic solution for the group." This decision to lump seems predicated mainly on the basis of nomenclatural stability; the authors acknowledge that, even for their recircumscribed Cynanchum, "the question of a single morphological synapomorphy has to remain open," but counter that "there are no arguments for a split of Cynanchum into two or more well-supported and sufficiently distinct (regarding morphological traits) genera..." Absorbed into Cynanchum under this plan are 11, mono- or oligospecific, mostly Old World genera, some of which are well-supported as monophyletic, but all of which are deeply nested in Cynanchum; these nested genera entrain a total of (by our calculation) about 30 spp. The only New World genus lost to Cynanchum is Metalepis, a "morphologically distinctive" group of seven spp., one of which, M. peraffinis (Woodson) Morillo, occurs in Costa Rica; its basionym, Cynanchum peraffine Woodson, is now back in the saddle (however, the type sp. of Metalepis was not included in the study, and "a small risk remains" that it is unrelated to its erstwhile congeners). Even though morphological synapomorphies may be nonexistent for Cynanchum, the authors are able to broadly characterize the New World members of the genus (according to their new circumscription) as possessing "large leaves with cordate bases combined with stout fruits." We'll run with that! A so-called "taxonomic treatment" supplies new combinations and names, as needed, along with synonymy and typology (for the genus as well) and occasional "notes" (mainly of a nomenclatural nature).
Li, L., S. Madriñán & J. Li. 2016. Phylogeny and biogeography of Caryodaphnopsis (Lauraceae) inferred from low-copy nuclear gene and ITS sequences. Taxon 65: 433–443.
Despite its amphi-Pacific distribution, the distinctive (opposite-leaved) genus of the title is affirmed as monophyletic (though the American and Asian spp. form "well-supported monophyletic clades"). The authors admit that their study "suffers from relatively limited sampling especially in tropical Asia" (only three of the eight Asian spp. were included, vs. five of the eight American spp.). Two spp. of Caryodaphnopsis evidently occur in Costa Rica [see "Lauraceae," under "Leaps and Bounds," in The Cutting Edge 17(2), Apr. 2010].
Lima, L. F. G. de, J. F. A. Baumgratz, E. N. Lughadha & J. U. M. dos Santos. 2016. Lectotypification of species names in Adelobotrys (Merianieae, Melastomataceae). Phytotaxa 269: 65–68.
Among the names lectotypified are the basionym of Adelobotrys adscendens (Sw.) Triana (the only sp. of the genus known from Costa Rica), and one of its synonyms. We hope we cited the authors' names correctly (always a challenge where Brazilians are concerned).
Lughadha, E. N., R. Govaerts, I. Belyaeva, N. Black, H. Lindon, R. Allkin, R. E. Magill & N. Nicolson. 2016. Counting counts: revised estimates of numbers of accepted species of flowering plants, seed plants, vascular plants and land plants with a review of other recent estimates. Phytotaxa 272: 82–88.
These estimated sp. totals (for those who are interested in such things) were arrived at by factoring a raw list of names at sp. rank (i.e., IPNI) against known rates of synonymy (calculated from the World checklist of selected plant families). Of greatest interest to us are the totals for "gymnosperms" (1058, by inference) and flowering plants (369,434), which are rather higher (by ca. 26% and 44%, respectively) than the corresponding totals provided in Manual Vol. 2 (2003). Someday it will all come out in the wash!
Michelangeli, F. A., F. Almeda, M. Alvear, E. R. Bécquer, J. Burke, M. K. Caddah, R. Goldenberg, G. M. Ionta, W. S. Judd, L. C. Majure, J. Meirelles, A. N. Nicolas, G. Ocampo, D. S. Penneys, J. D. Skean Jr. & C. Ulloa Ulloa. 2016. (2462) Proposal to conserve Miconia, nom. cons. against the additional names Maieta and Tococa (Melastomataceae: Miconieae). Taxon 65: 892–893.
Citing molecular studies (mainly, their own) showing Miconia to be paraphyletic with respect to 16 other genera (including Clidemia, Conostegia, Leandra, and Ossaea, as well as those mentioned in the title), the authors have decided to lump all 17 genera together, as "no workable and stable" alternative classification could be found (despite the expenditure of "considerable time and effort"). As a prelude to the havoc that must surely follow, they propose to conserve the genus name that has been used for the most spp., thereby obviating (assuming acceptance of the proposal) "over 1900 new combinations and new names" (though "fewer than 700" new combinations will still be required). We wider why so many people were required to crank out this two-page note; couldn't they have designate or or two from among their ranks?
Mickel, J. T. 2016. Anemia (Anemiaceae). Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 118: 1–182.
This monograph accepts 115 spp. of Anemia, a genus ranging throughout the Neotropics, as well as in Africa and Madagascar, Reunion, and India. Three subgenera are recognized, but one of these, A. subgen. Mohria (Sw.) Mickel (comb. nov.), is absent from the New World. The two remaining subgenera, subgen. Anemia and subgen. Anemiorrhiza (J. Sm.) Prantl, are subdivided into sections (10 and three, respectively, with two of those in the latter subgenus described as new). These sections are, however, largely ignored by the author; they are not keyed, and (thankfully!) the sp. entries are presented in strict alphabetical order within each subgenus. Anemia generally shuns southern Central American, being most diverse in Mexico (with 20 spp.) and Brazil (61 spp.). Nonetheless, eight spp. are attributed unambiguously to Costa Rica in this work, three more than the Costa Rican total according to the Flora mesoamericana treatment of the genus (which involved this same author). Two of these three additions, Anemia humilis (Cav.) Sw. and A. presliana Prantl, appear to have been segregated from prior concepts of A. oblongifolia (Cav.) Sw. (under which both have been ranked as vars., and the former was cited as a synonym in Flora meosamericana). Several Costa Rican vouchers are cited for A. humilis (from the Valle Central and the regions of San Ramón and Candelaria), and a single one for A. presliana (from the Valle Central). The third addition to the Costa Rican flora is Anemia semihirsuta Mickel, vouchered for Tiquicia by a single, historical collection from "Finca Padres," an inscrutable locale if ever there was one. Two other Anemia spp. may or may not occur in Costa Rica: A. hirta (L.) Sw., attributed to the country in the distribution summary, but with no Costa Rican vouchers cited (and we have not found any in other sources); and A. tomentosa (Savigny) Sw., stated to occur in "Central America" in the distribution summary for the sp. (but not those of any of its three vars.), but with no Central American vouchers cited anywhere [though a Panamanian voucher was cited for A. t. var. mexicana (C. Presl) Mickel by Lellinger (1989; Pteridologia 2A: 106)]. With the exception of Anemia adiantifolia (L.) Sw., a member of subgen. Anemiorrhiza, all the Anemia spp. vouchered from or alleged to occur in Costa Rica belong to the autonymic subgenus. Two new developments of a nomenclatural nature must be mentioned here: the well-known name Anemia pastinacaria Moritz ex Prantl yields to A. hispida Kunze, which (along with three other sp. names!) has priority; and the implementation of an infraspecific classification for Anemia phyllitidis (L.) Sw. requires that Costa Rican material be consigned to the autonymic var. (which practically shares the geographic range of the sp.). Hybridization is alleged to be "extremely frequent in Anemia," and "the great majority of species are apparently of hybrid origin." However, the nomenclatural treatment of hybrids seems quite inconsistent. For example, the Mexican Anemia ×recondita Mickel has been granted a nothosp. name and a full sp. entry in the regular alphabetical sequence, while many other hybrids are merely mentioned in passing using formula names. The Costa Rican Anemia ×didicusana L. D. Gómez (type from El Rodeo), though possessing a nothosp. name and "maintain[ed]...as distinct," merits just a paragraph of discussion under A. phyllitidis (one of its putative parents). On the other hand, Anemia semihirsuta, while "apparently of hybrid origin between A. hirsuta and...A. phyllitidis," is not distinguished as a hybrid either nomenclaturally or in terms of its treatment in this monograph. We find all of this to be quite puzzling. Also, we continue to be puzzled by the seemingly pointless segregation of Anemiaceae (not to mention Lygodiaceae) from Schizaeaceae [see The Cutting Edge 13(4): 9–10, Oct. 2006], the traditional repository for Anemia; the author states that "Anemia is closely allied to Schizaea, Actinostachys, and Lygodium," and lumps the whole lot under the designation "schizaeaceous ferns," but does not directly address the issue of familial classification. Features synonymy and typology, and descriptions at all ranks (except that sp. descriptions are omitted for subgen. Mohria, the subject of a recent revision); dichotomous and indented keys to the subgenera, spp. (nested under each subgenus), and vars. (nested under the appropriate spp.); distribution summaries, discussions, and representative specimen citations (the latter two features also omitted for subgen. Mohria); sections on "Unknown species," "Taxa of uncertain status," and "Excluded species"; and an index to exsiccatae and a general index (mainly including scientific names). The introductory portion, quite brief by the standards of this series, discusses morphology and anatomy, ecology and geography, fossil history, and hybrids. Generously illustrated (in the back of the volume) with SEM micrographs of spores (three plates) and excellent composite line drawings depicting all the accepted spp. and vars. of the two largely New World subgenera (and most of those in subgen. Mohria). Sixteen new spp. and one new var. are described, none of which pertains directly to Costa Rican floristics. Several of the numerous new lectotype designations do, but none has consequences (as far as we can tell) for the application of names. A general criticism of this work is that it appears based overwhelmingly on specimens at NY (especially) and US; however, we are no doubt vulnerable to similar charges.
Øllgaard, B. 2016. New neotropical Lycopodiaceae. Phytotaxa 277: 266–274
Five new sp. names and one new combination are validated in this paper, but only one of these novelties pertains to us: Phlegmariurus tryoniorum B. Øllg. sp. nov., endemic to Costa Rica. The type specimen has been cited for many years as the sole Costa Rican record of Phlegmariurus pflanzii (Nessel) B. Øllg. [AKA Huperzia pflanzii (Nessel) Rolleri & Deferrari or, before that, Lycopodium pflanzii (Nessel) Lellinger], a sp. otherwise known only from Bolivia. Such a disjunction seems highly unlikely, and indeed, the identity of the Costa Rican specimen has long been questioned (e.g., by the author of this paper in Lellinger, 1989; Pteridologia 2A: 39). Here, the Costa Rican entity is distinguished principally by its leaves borne in whorls of five (vs. four in the Bolivian material). Phlegmariurus tryoniorum is depicted in a color photo of the type specimen, and a second, presumably more recent collection is cited. Both collections are from above 3000 m elevation on Cerro de La Muerte, a ridiculously well-botanized region (so it is somewhat of a wonder that no one else has stumbled onto this sp.). The epithet, honoring the late Alice and Rolla Tryon, has been corrected by us (from the author's original "tryonorum") in accordance with ICN Art. 60.12 (why do so many people have such difficulty implementing the simple and straightforward instructions of Rec. 60C.1?). We wonder whether anyone but this author accepts genera like Palhinhaea and Phlegmariurus (we are still struggling to digest Huperzia and Lycopodiella!).
Pennington, T. D. 2016. Prodromus sloanearum americanarum. Opusc. Neotrop. 2: 3–24.
Having dispatched (with mixed results) such important dicot tree taxa as Guarea [Meliaceae; see under "Pennington," this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(3), Jul. 2013], Inga [Fabaceae; see The Cutting Edge 4(3): 8–9, Jul. 1997], and Sapotaceae, Terry Pennington (K) now visits his taxonomy upon the neotropical members of the sizeable genus Sloanea (Elaeocarpaceae). This project has been in the works "for the past seven years," and "the manuscript is complete"; the present contribution, however, is not that manuscript, rather a sort of nomenclator, enumerating alphabetically all the accepted spp. (127) and subspp. and annotated with respect to typification and general distribution. By our count, 24 new spp. and three new subspp. are described (all in the most succinct manner possible), one new name is validated at sp. rank and one new combination at subsp. rank, and 10 lectotypes and two neotypes are designated. Two of the new spp., Sloanea cararaensis T. D. Penn. and S. ensiformis T. D. Penn., occur (and are restricted to) Costa Rica; these correspond to Sloanea sp. E and S. sp. B (respectively) in the Manual Elaeocarpaceae treatment (2010) by Damon A. Smith. One of the new subspp., Sloanea guianensis (Aubl.) Benth subsp. stipitata (Spruce ex Benth.) T. D. Penn. (based on S. stipitata Spruce ex Benth.), is said to have the "range of the species," which includes Costa Rica (the distribution of the autonymic subsp. is not revealed, though annotations on specimens recently returned to MO by the author confirm that it also occurs in Costa Rica). Just one of the new type designations involves the name of a taxon represented in Costa Rica, Sloanea zuliaensis Pittier, and usage would appear unaffected.
Taking stock of the situation for Costa Rica, as it now stands: all five spp. for which "letter" names were employed in the Manual treatment now have valid binomials, including the two aforementioned ones published in this paper, plus three provided last year by our friends Daniel Santamaría and Reinaldo Aguilar [see under "Santamaría-Aguilar," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(1), Jan. 2016]. In the interests of full disclosure: all of these spp. were recognized as distinct and given provisional binomials long ago by Damon Smith, and although most of Damon's names were never validated, they were used on herbarium specimens and in some publications [e.g., Vol. 3 of Árboles de Costa Rica; see The Cutting Edge 11(2): 15, Apr. 2004]. We now rather regret that we did not facilitate the validation of Damon's sp. names in the Manual Elaeocarpaceae treatment, but there is nothing to be done about it now. For the record, here are the equivalents for the "letter" names used in the Manual (with Damon's informal names in quotes): Sloanea sp. A = S. eugeniafloresiae Aguilar & D. Santam. ("S. pilosa"); Sloanea sp. B = S. ensiformis T. D. Penn. ("S. ligulata"); Sloanea sp. C = S. damonsmithii D. Santam. & Aguilar ("S. latistipula"); Sloanea sp. D = S. herrerae Aguilar & D. Santam. ("S. marcescens"); and Sloanea sp. E = S. cararaensis T. D. Penn. ("S. subsphaerocarpa"). Another of Damon's informal names, "Sloanea sulcata," had already been usurped by S. garcia-cossioi Pal.-Duque by the time the Manual Elaeocarpaceae treatment was published. As a final slap in the face for Damon, the name Sloanea damonsmithii (= S. sp. C) is missing in action in this enumeration; synonymy is not given here, but recent specimen annotations by Pennington suggest that it equates (at least in the mind of the author) with S. faginea Standl. Finally, two accepted sp. names are attributed here to Costa Rica that were not used in the Manual, viz., Sloanea floribunda Spruce ex Benth. and S. platyphylla Standl.; the latter (based on a Panamanian type) is a mystery to us, but the former must certainly denote the sp. called S. longipes Ducke in the Manual. Apart from those few discrepancies, this new taxonomy concords well with the Manual treatment. One token illustration is provided (of a sp. that does not occur in Costa Rica).
Opuscula Neotropica is yet another new "digital" journal, but with a twist: this one cannot be accessed via the Internet, as far as we can tell, but is available ("as printed copy or as a download") only on request from the founder and editor, David R. Hunt (K).
Salmaki, Y., S. Kattari, G. Heubl & C. Bräuchler. 2016. Phylogeny of non-monophyletic Teucrium (Lamiaceae: Ajugoideae): implications for character evolution and taxonomy. Taxon 65: 805–822.
Teucrium, a cosmopolitan genus of about 250 spp. according to this source (or just 100, according to the Manual Lamiaceae treatment), is shown to be paraphyletic with respect to three mono- or oligospecific Australasian genera. The members of the latter are formally transferred to Teucrium, with no effects for the Manual treatment, apart from the augmentation of our (already erroneous?) sp. total by five.
Santos, M. F., P. T. Sano, F. Forest & E. Lucas. 2016. Phylogeny, morphology and circumscription of Myrcia sect. Sympodiomyrcia (Myrcia s.l., Myrtaceae). Taxon 65: 759–774.
Yet another study portraying Calyptranthes and Marlierea as nested within Myrcia (see, e.g., under "Wilson," below), and Marlierea as polyphyletic as well. That the new section mentioned in the title (which does not occur in Costa Rica) is classed under Myrcia, despite being apparently sister to Calyptranthes, would appear to sound the death knell for the latter genus. However, once again, the matter is left unrectified nomenclaturally. The authors' cladogram also suggests that Siphoneugena is nested within Plinia.
Sastre, C. & B. Offroy. 2016. Révision nomenclaturale des binômes du genre néotropical Ouratea Aublet (Ochnaceae) décrits par Van Tieghem. Adansonia sér. 3, 38: 55–98.
This curious contribution addresses the typification not only of taxon names validated by Philippe Édouard Léon van Tieghem (1839–1914), but also of names published by other authors that later became basionyms of van Tieghem's new combinations. Most types are depicted in a color photo that is incorporated in the text and/or made available via linkage. As far as we could determine, the only name applicable to a sp. occurring in Costa Rica that is lectotypified in this paper is Gomphia mexicana Bonpl., the basionym of Ouratea mexicana (Bonpl.) Engl. [as well as Ouratella mexicana (Bonpl.) Tiegh.!]. Usage would appear unaffected.
Schuettpelz, E., C.-W. Chen, M. Kessler, J. B. Pinson, G. Johnson, A. Davila, A. T. Cochran, L. Huiet & K. M. Pryer. 2016. A revised generic classification of vittarioid ferns (Pteridaceae) based on molecular, micromorphological, and geographic data. Taxon 65: 708–722.
What, macromorphological data are now chopped liver? Well, truth be told, the vittarioid ferns don't have a whole lot to offer in terms of macromorphological characters. This new classification does not rock the boat too much, agreeing with other recent ones [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 13(4): 9–10, Oct. 2006] in retaining genera such as Ananthacorus, Polytaenium, Radiovittaria, and Scoliosorus. The most noteworthy innovation is the creation of a new genus to accommodate three Old World spp. formerly included in Scoliosorus, rendering the latter genus monospecific and endemic to the Mesoamerican region [S. ensiformis (Hook.) T. Moore being widespread in the Costa Rican cordilleras]. But in the bargain we lose another monospecific genus, Anetium, resolved in this analysis as nested within Polytaenium—albeit without "convincing support." Nonetheless, the authors "feel the inclusion of Anetium within Polytaenium is warranted," resulting in the new combination P. citrifolium (L.) Schuettp. for the sole sp. affected, which is widepread throughout the Neotropics.
Terry, R. G., M. I. Pyne, J. A. Bartel & R. P. Adams. 2016. A molecular biogeography of the New World cypresses (Callitropsis, Hesperocyparis; Cupressaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 302: 921–942.
The cladograms in this paper reveal no cladistic mandate for the recent fragmentation [see, e.g., under "Adams," in The Cutting Edge 17(1), Jan. 2010] of the Cupressus s. l. we all grew up with into Cupressus s. str., Xanthocyparis, and the two genera named in the title. The group as a whole is monophyletic, with Cupressus s. str. sister to the remainder. Both classifications are tenable, so why not stick with the traditional one? What has been accomplished, apart from nomenclatural havoc? We had previously been led to believe that "the New World elements [of Cupressus s. l.] were related more closely to Juniperus than to their Old World supposed congeners" (quoting here from our above-referenced review), which would have justified the new classification; but these cladograms suggest otherwise, so why not dump all of these stupid names and return to Cupressus of yore? What are we missing here? On another front: Cupressus benthamii Endl., synonymized under C. lusitanica Mill. in the Manual Cupressaceae treatment (2003), continues to be treated as a distinct sp. by these authors (albeit in "Hesperocyparis"); perhaps we were wrong about that!
Thulin, M., A. J. Moore, H. El-Seedi, A. Larsson, P.-A. Christin & E. J. Edwards. 2016. Phylogeny and generic delimitation in Molluginaceae, new pigment data in Caryophyllales, and the new family Corbichoniaceae. Taxon 65: 775–793.
The genus Mollugo was found to be polyphyletic, and as a result, several spp. that have been included therein are transferred to other genera, involving the creation of a new genus name and the resurrection of another. At the same time, Mollugo absorbs a monospecific genus that proved to be "firmly nested within the Mollugo clade." Mollugo verticillata L., the only Costa Rican sp. caught up in all of this, is the type sp. of its genus, and thus unaffected. Glinus, the only other genus of Molluginaceae in Costa Rica, likewise survives intact. Thus, the only noteworthy change mandated for the Manual Molluginaceae treatment (2007) involves the total number of genera in the family (up from nine to 11). The sp. total for Mollugo indicated in the Manual (15) somehow remains unchanged (we suppose it was erroneous to begin with). Features full synonymy and typology for the family and each of its genera, a revised description of the family, a key to the genera and brief descriptions of each, distribution summaries, generally brief discussions, and keys to the spp. of selected genera. Illustrated with color photos taken mostly (it would appear) in the field.
Troia, A., J. B. Pereira, C. Kim & W. C. Taylor. 2016. The genus Isoetes (Isoetaceae): a provisional checklist of the accepted and unresolved taxa. Phytotaxa 277: 101–145.
As a first step, evidently, toward the preparation of a generic monograph, the authors present this hard-copy checklist, which totes 192 accepted spp. (though they estimate that "at least 200" exist). South America is anointed as the center of diversity for the genus. We checked the names we know from the Costa Rican flora, and found everything to be in order. Enough said.
Wilson, C. E., F. Forest, D. S. Devey & E. J. Lucas. 2016. Phylogenetic relationships in Calyptranthes (Myrtaceae) with particular emphasis on its monophyly relative to Myrcia s. l. Syst. Bot. 41: 378–386.
This saga has been playing out for a good long while [see, e.g., under "Lucas," this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(4), Oct. 2011, and "Santos," above], but still we get no satisfaction, from a taxonomic and nomenclatural standpoint. Our understanding is that the authors intend eventually to lump both Calyptranthes and Marlierea into Myrcia, but they are not yet ready to take the big step (apparently reserved for a paper cited as "in prep."). The present paper provides more evidence that Calyptranthes is monophyletic (excepting a single extraneous South American sp.) but embedded within Myrcia. The value of the fused, circumscissile (calyptrate) calyx as a diagnostic character for Calyptranthes is called into question. This situation recalls that of Conostegia (Melastomataceae), likewise circumscribed traditionally (and, as molecular evidence has shown, unreliably) on the basis of calyptrate calyces (see under "Kriebel," this column, in our last issue), and also in imminent danger of being swallowed up by a larger genus (Miconia).
Zamora, N. A., S.-Y. Kim, S. Choi & R. Espinoza O. 2016. A new species of Calyptranthes (Myrtaceae) from Costa Rica. Phytoneuron 2016-65: 1–5.
Ironic, indeed, the juxtaposition of our two penultimate reviews! The new Calyptranthes (for the time being), C. guanacastensis N. Zamora, S.-Y. Kim & Espinoza, has been confused in the past with C. chytraculia (L.) Sw. and (to a lesser extent) C. pallens Griseb., though it is compared here only with the former. Leaf and inflorescence characters are invoked to distinguish C. guanacastensis from C. chytraculia, as well as habitat type (respectively: "strongly dry to humid seasonal, semideciduous to evergreen, gallery or riparian forest patches," vs. "wet or rain forest..., sometimes along coastal flat swampy forests"). So far as is known, the new sp. is endemic to Costa Rica, where it is further restricted to the Cordillera de Guanacaste, at elevations of 300–650 m (flowering January–March). It's good to see our friend Roberto Espinoza (known affectionately as "Lupo") getting some credit for his many years of field work in the Guanacaste region! Illustrated with a composite line drawing and color photos from life. By the way: we checked, and the epithet guanacastensis is still available in Myrcia!
Zhang, L., E. Schuettpelz, C. J. Rothfels, X.-M. Zhou, X.-F. Gao & L.-B. Zhang. 2016. Circumscription and phylogeny of the fern family Tectariaceae based on plastid and nuclear markers, with the description of two new genera: Draconopteris and Malaifilix (Tectariaceae). Taxon 65: 723–738.
The genus Tectaria is shown to be non-monophyletic, specifically, with respect to two spp. resolved in a sister-group relationship with the Asian genus Pteridrys. The two culprits are accordingly removed to the newly described, monospecific genera named in the title. As it so happens, one of the spp. involved is quite familiar to us, i.e.., the former Tectaria draconoptera (D. C. Eaton) Copel., which becomes the basis for Draconopteris Li Bing Zhang & Liang Zhang. That choice of a genus name strikes us as mildly unfortunate, not only because it results in the quasi-tautonym Draconopteris draconoptera (D. C. Eaton) Li Bing Zhang and Liang Zhang, but also because it invites confusion with Dracoglossum Christenh., currently in use for two spp. that had also been included in Tectaria (but are now classed in a different family). But the deed is done. And so it has come to pass that the former Tectaria draconoptera and T. nicotianifolia (Baker) C. Chr., two spp. so outwardly similar as to have been deemed conspecific by some leading fern authorities [e.g., Rolla and Alice Tryon, in their Ferns and allied plants with special reference to tropical America (1982)], are now classed in different genera [T. nicotianifolia in Hypoderris; see under "Moran," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(4), Oct. 2014] as a result of molecular and cladistic analyses. C'est la vie. That Draconopteris and Malaifilix (restricted, as its name implies, to Malesia) are sister taxa begs the question, why couldn't they have been combined? The authors address this issue, and argue that "their morphological distinctiveness, geographical distributions..., ...few shared synapomorphies [and] numerous apomorphies" warrant recognition as distinct genera. We note that the type sp. of Tectaria, T. trifoliata (L.) Cav., was not included in this study, and wonder whether that might have eventual consequences. A key to the genera of Tectariaceae is provided. The authors also express their opinion on the classification of Lomariopsidaceae, noting that Nephrolepis is sister to said family (otherwise comprising Cyclopeltis, Dracoglossum, and Lomariopsis) and should thus be included therein. The perennial and always arbitrary question of whether to split or lump; we've provisionally adopted a recent consensus classification of ferns [see under "Christenhusz," this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(3), Jul. 2012], which maintains Nephrolepidaceae as a family distinct from Lomariopsidaceae, and see no reason to abandon that at this time
TOP
|
|
