Main | Family List (MO) | Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge Draft Treatments | Guidelines | Checklist | Citing | Editors The Cutting Edge Volume XXVIII, Number 4, October 2021 News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature | Season's Pick | Annotate your copy Alvarado-Cárdenas, L. O., M. G. Chávez-Hernández & C. G. Velazco-Macías.  2021. Ajustes taxonómicos en Apocynaceae mexicanas.  Phytoneuron 2021-47: 1–22. The titular “adjustments” involve only genera that would formerly have been classed in Asclepiadaceae, and inevitably affect some spp. represented in Costa Rica.  The first one that we shall address presents a small problem for us:  embracing a previous proposal to fragment Gonolobus and Matelea (in the sense of the Manual) into several splinter genera [see under “Morillo,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(3), Jul. 2015], this paper validates the combination Bruceholstia sidifolia (M. Martens & Galeotti) L. O. Alvarado, based on Gonolobus sidifolius M. Martens & Galeotti (1844)—which, these authors have concluded, is conspecific with the posterior G. magnifolius Pittier (1910).  As a consequence, both G. magnifolius and Matelea magnifolia (Pittier) Woodson—the name accepted for this sp. in the Manual—are synonymized under Bruceholstia sidifolia.  The problem for us (and anyone else wishing to maintain Matelea in the broad sense) is that a combination in Matelea based on Gonolobus sidifolius does not yet exist (Doug?).  These authors also embrace the (perhaps somewhat less controversial) transfer of all the New World spp. formerly included (as in the Manual) in Marsdenia to Ruehssia [see under “Espírito Santo,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(4), Oct. 2019].  New combinations in Ruehssia are accordingly validated for many spp., including three that occur in Costa Rica:  the former Marsdenia gualanensis Donn. Sm., M. trivirgulata Bartlett, and M. veronicae W. D. Stevens (the combinations for which, in Ruehssia, are all credited to “L. O. Alvarado”).  By our calculation, seven of the 10 spp. treated as Marsdenia in the Manual now have valid combinations in Ruehssia (the holdouts being M. dressleri Spellman, M. engleriana W. Rothe, and M. nicoyana Pittier).  We’re getting there! Carranza Varela, M. & P. Sánchez-Vindas.  2021. Plinia costaricensis (Myrtaceae), una especie nueva para las selvas húmedas de Costa Rica.  Phytoneuron 2021-41: 1–6. Plinia costaricensis M. Carranza & P. E. Sánchez, is endemic to Costa Rica, and the eighth member of its genus recorded from the country.  Still known by just two collections (one sterile), the new sp. has presumably been overlooked because of its size (a canopy tree to at least 35 m in height) and primary forest habitat.  As far as we can discern, it was not accounted for in any way in the Manual treatment of Myrtaceae (2007).  The large (5.5–6.5 cm long) fruits of P. costaricensis are said to be edible (the authors alluding to the possibility of commercialization), and in fact, the sp. most closely resembles the Brazilian Plinia edulis (Vell.) Sobral (with which it is compared in a table).  In Manualese, the vital statistics of P. costaricensis would be expressed as follows:  “Bosque muy húmedo, bosques primarios, 250–550 m; vert. Carib. Cord. de Tilarán. Fl. abr. ENDÉMICA.”  The authors claim that their new sp. flowers from April to June, but cite no supporting vouchers for May or June.  Features distribution maps, and numerous color photos from life. Carvalho, J. D. T. de, C. Markus, A. Merotto Junior, R. A. Záchia, M. Schuch, E. Sulzbach & J. E. A. Mariath.  2021. Prosopanche cocuccii (Hydnoraceae):  a new species from Southern Brazil.  Phytotaxa 521: 177–192. Although the new sp. does not concern us, this paper brings us up to date on some recent developments involving the genus Prosopanche (nowadays often included in Aristolochiaceae, but see under “Jost,” this column).  Since the publication of the Manual Hydnoraceae treatment in 2007, four additional spp. of Prosopanche (including the present one) have been described, bumping the generic sp. total up to seven (vs. three, according to the Manual).  So annotate your copy in that regard, and also to add “Perú” to the geographic distribution of the genus, and alter “SE Bras.” to “E Bras.”  The authors provide a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to distinguish all seven spp., as well as a tabular comparison of same.  Incidentally, unlike the late genus specialist Alfredo Cocucci (honored by the epithet of their new spp.), these authors do accept Prosopanche costaricensis L. D. Gómez & Gómez-Laur. as distinct from the Argentinian P. americana (R. Br.) Baill. (and their key suggests that it is markedly so). Cedeño-Fonseca, M., O. O. Ortiz, R. Seisdedos-de-Vergara & J. Porras.  2021. Nuevas aráceas para Costa Rica, recolectadas en el Corredor Biológico Fuente de Vida la Amistad.  Phytoneuron 2021-43: 1–8. The “corredor” mentioned in the title is unfamiliar to us, but must include at least the Pacific versant of the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca, where both of the sp. newly reported from Costa Rica in this paper occur—uniquely, in the case of Anthurium redolens Croat, collected thrice (and quite recently) at 550–950 m elevation in the Valle de Coto Brus.  A member of the taxonomically difficult sect. Porphyrochitonium Schott (characterized by black-punctate foliage), A. redolens (otherwise known from Panama and western Colombia) is compared with A. bakeri Hook. f., a much more common sp. in Costa Rica.  The other new country record for Costa Rica, Philodendron mexicanum Engl., is based on several collections, including recent ones by the authors as well as others old enough to have been considered for the Manual Araceae treatment (2003).  The name P. mexicanum had, in fact, been bandied about for some of this older material, along with others such as P. angustilobum Croat & Grayum (with which P. mexicanum is compared in this paper) and P. wilburii Croat & Grayum.  The specimens cited in ths article document the following Costa Rican distribution for P. mexicanum (otherwise known from southern Mexico to Nicaragua):  “Bosque húmedo, muy húmedo y pluvial, 0–1300 m; vert. Pac. Cord. de Tilarán (Monteverde), S Fila Costeña (Fila Cruces), Valles del Diquís y de Coto Brus, región de Golfo Dulce (vecindad de Golfito).”  Oddly, it has not been collected (in Costa Rica) between 150 and 900 m elevation.  Both of the spp. addressed in this paper are depicted in color photographs of living material, and a “second-step” lectotype (also illustrated in color) is designated for Philodendron mexicanum. ——, ——, A. Zuluaga, T. B. Croat & M. A. Blanco.  2021. A reexamination of Monstera oreophila (Araceae: Monsteroideae) and description of two new pinkish-spathed species of Monstera from Costa Rica and Panama.  Phytotaxa 514: 205–220. The authors’ reappraisal of Monstera oreophila Madison—a montane sp. characterized by perforate leaf-blades, with numerous primary lateral veins, and pinkish spathes—actually results in a minor bit of lumping, with the result being that the concept embraced in the Manual Araceae treatment (2003) is largely upheld.  Two entities that had been considered different spp. (one provisionally named as “Monstera sp. I”) in the first author’s Universidad de Costa Rica Master’s thesis (2019) are here demoted to the status of “morphotypes” (one with warty petioles, the other with smooth petioles) of M. oreophila.  So be it.  A revised description of M. oreophila is provided, and the overall geographic range of the sp. is extended (vis-a-vis the Manual) to accommodate several specimens from a disjunct population in eastern Panama (Prov. Darién), including one from on (or very near) the Colombian border.  The two new spp. described in this paper, both segregated from the traditional concept of M. oreophila, are country endemics, one from Costa Rica and the other from western Panama.  The Costa Rican endemic, Monstera mittermeieri M. Cedeño (honoring former FTG aroid curator Michael Mittermeier), is based on four collections made by its author in 2017, all from 2000–2100 m elevation on the Pacific slope of the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca.  Dubbed “Monstera sp. A” in the aforementioned Master’s thesis, M. mittermeieri differs from M. oreophila “in having a thicker spathe that remains erect and persists after antesis.”  A dichotomous key to the three spp. of the Monstera oreophila complex (including the new Panamanian sp.) is provided, and all three are depicted in excellent color photographic images. Debouck, D. G.  2021. Phaseolus beans (Leguminosae: Phaseoleae):  a checklist and notes on their taxonomy and ecology.  J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 15: 73–111. The New World genus Phaseolus (Fabaceae) now comprises 81 spp., of which 14 are attributable to Costa Rica—vs. 74 and 10, respectively, according to the 2010 Manual Fabaceae treatment by co-PI Nelson Zamora.  The four additions to the Costa Rican flora (three recently described spp. and one range extension) come as no surprise, and all have been reported in these pages.  The alphabetical checklist that dominates this paper includes miscellaneous commentary and representative specimen citations, and is well illustrated wtih color photos of living material. DuPasquier, P.-E., V. Andro-Durand, L. Batory, W. Wang & F. Jabbour.  2021. Nomenclatural revision of Delphinium subg. Consolida (DC.) Huth (Ranunculaceae).  PhytoKeys 180: 81–110. This scarcely concerns us, although “Delphinium ajacis L. [Consolida ajacis (L.) Schur; Espuela de caballero]” was mentioned under the Ranunculaceae family discussion in the Manual treatment of that family (2014) as cultivated “muy esporádicamente” in Costa Rica for ornamental purposes.  Just enough to get our feet in the door!  We originally learned Delphinium ajacis (the “larkspur” of commerce) under that name, and have always shunned the splitters’ usage of Consolida.  This study confirms that Consolida “is embedded in Delphinium,” and we are elated by its authors’ common-sense decision “not to split the genus Delphinium (c. 300 species), as it is horticulturally and pharmaceutically important…”  Moreover, most names in Consolida already have names under Delphinium, so only two new combinations were needed (many more would be required were Delphinium to be split up in such a way as to retain Consolida).  And we would add (although the authors do not mention this):  one should never pass up the opportunity to scuttle a clunky genus name (Consolida) when a much more elegant one (Delphinium) is available!  The elegant larkspur shall thus parade onward as Delphinium ajacis, and no changes to the Manual are required. Fonseca-Cortés, A. & J. Peña-Torres.  2021. First record of the family Mazaceae (Lamiales) in Colombia and the clarification of the synonyms of Mazus pumilus.  Darwiniana n. s., 9: 245–253. Now we’ve seen it all:  the report of a range extension for an introduced weedy sp. becomes the springboard for a consideration of its synonymy, leading to the lectotypification of two excluded synonyms!  Never miss an opportunity…  For the record:  the Asian native Mazus pumilus (Burm. f.) Steenis (Scrophulariaceae, in Manual Vol. 8) may now be attributed (as introduced) to Colombia (annotate your copy!). García-Beltrán, J. Á., D. Barrios & E. R. Bécquer.  2021. Revisión taxonómica de Portulacaceae en Cuba/Taxonomic revision of Portulacaceae in Cuba.  Brittonia 73: 274–303. “Portulacaceae,” of course, means just the genus Portulaca nowadays, and we have little interest in the Cuban members of either taxon.  However, typification has become requisite in works of this sort, and inevitably some names attributable to taxa recorded from Costa Rica are affected.  Thus we inherit new lectotypes for Portulaca grandiflora Hook., three synonyms (one new) of P. pilosa L., and P. umbraticola Kunth, plus one of those highly vaunted “second-step” lectotypes for a synonym of the last.  It is perhaps also worth mentioning that a dichotomous (and indented) key to the 14 Portulaca spp. treated here for Cuba includes all four of those occurring (wild or in cultivation) in Costa Rica. Ho, B. C., R. S. W. Yeo & L. M. J. Chen.  2021. A review of Desmodium s.l. (Leguminosae, subfamily Papilionoideae) in Singapore and nomenclature updates in the Malay Peninsula.  Gard. Bull. Singapore 73: 49–80. Desmodium scorpiurus (Sw.) Desv. (Fabaceae) is reported as introduced in Singapore (get to annotating!).  Even more inconsequentially, a lectotype is designated for an obscure synonym of D. heterocarpon (L.) DC. [or Grona heterocarpos (L.) H. Ohashi & K. Ohashi, if you prefer], and a “second step” lectotype for Hedysarum scorpiurus Sw. (the basionym of Desmodium scorpiurus).  That’s all we can squeeze out of this effort. Jost, M., M.-S. Samain, I. Marques, S. W. Graham & S. Wanke.  2021. Discordant phylogenomic placement of Hydnoraceae and Lactoridaceae within Piperales using data from all three genomes.  Frontiers Pl. Sci. 12(642598): 1–16. Generally we are on board with lumping, relationships being (in our minds) more important than differences, and what-not.  However, the lumping (by APG and others) of Hydnoraceae and Lactoridaceae into Aristolochiaceae never sat well, for two reasons.  In the first place, two families traditionally recognized as distinct were lost, and in the second place, neither of those families seemed to have much in common (morphologically speaking) with Aristolochiaceae sensu stricto.  Recently it has been suggested [see, e.g., under “Nickrent,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 27(4), Oct. 2020] that “a reasonable alternative to lumping” Aristolochiaceae, Hydnoraceae, and Lactoridaceae would be “to simply elevate Asaroideae” (currently a subfamily of Aristolochiaceae) to family rank.  The results of the present study are somewhat equivocal, but the authors seize on them nonetheless as a premise for promoting the aforementioned splitting agenda.  And why not?  Even though we learned Aristolochia as including Asarum and Saruma (the sole members of subfam. Asaroideae), those genera strike us as more different from Aristolochia than Hydnoraceae and Lactoridaceae are similar to it.  The cladograms generated in this study portray traditional Aristolochiaceae (i.e., including subfam. Asaroideae) as paraphyletic with respect to both Hydnoraceae and Lactoridaceae, or (in one case) just Lactoridaceae.  The authors believe that “the most likely topology for relationships” in the group warrants a four-family system, with subfam. Asaroideae promoted to family status under the name Asaraceae.  More definitive results would be nice, but we are sympathetic to the proposal; after all, it is Aristolochiaceae (not Hydnoraceae or Lactoridaceae) that is “broke” (paraphyletic), and should pay the price. Korotkova, N., D. Aquino, S. Arias, U. Eggli, A. Franck, C. Gómez-Hinostrosa, P. C. Guerrero, H. M. Hernández, A. Kohlbecker, M. Köhler, K. Luther, L. C. Majure, A. Müller, D. Metzing, R. Nyffeler, D. Sánchez, B. Schlumpberger & W. G. Berendsohn.  2021. Cactaceae at Caryophyllales.org – a dynamic online species-level taxonomic backbone for the family.  Willdenowia 51: 251–270. Much ado about another checklist (whatever became of real biology?).  There is only one small item of interest to us:  the “new” combination Selenicereus costaricensis (F. A. C. Weber) S. Arias & N. Korotkova, based on Cereus trigonus Haw. var. costaricensis F. A. C. Weber.  The same combination was attempted four years ago, by the same authors [see under “Korotkova,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(1), Jan. 2018], and on that basis the name Selenicereus costaricensis was used for an accepted sp. in the recent (2020) Manual treatment of Cactaceae by co-PI Barry Hammel.  However, that initial combination is here deemed a “nom. inval.”  The cause of its invalidity is not divulged in this paper, but a bit of sleuthing has uncovered the reason:  the combination was a casualty of the colossally stupid policy of the journal Phytotaxa of not citing protologues fully in the text of articles, rather, providing only a citation to a complete reference found among the “References” at the end of the paper.  In this case, the basionym of S. costaricensis is duly cited in the text, along with its author and the date and page number of the protologue; however, the name of the journal in which the protologue was published is deferred to a “References” citation at the end, which was inadvertently omitted!  Thus, the original combination is invalid according to ICN Art. 41.5.  This type of omission would be very hard to spot (we missed it on at least two occasions), but somebody noticed, because IPNI has it right.  However, IPNI overlooked another important detail, as did the authors of this paper:  the intended combination in Selenicereus was actually published (albeit inadvertently) in the Manual, where the basionym was cited, along with all the requisite bibliographic details, nearly 10 months prior to the combination proposed in this paper!  Therefore, as we see it, the full and correct name for the sp. in question is Selenicereus costaricensis (F. A. C. Weber) S. Arias & N. Korotkova ex Hammel (4 Nov 2020).  Of course, it is entirely possible that somebody else stumbled similarly into this combination even before we did, but it’s tough to prove a negative hypothesis; until and unless evidence to that effect is brought to light, we will stand by our version. Marcano-Berti, L. B. & G. A. Aymard C.  2021. Studies in Neotropical Vochysiaceae:  a new species of Vochysia (section Ciliantha) from a pluvial forest of western Colombia.  Harvard Pap. Bot. 26: 119–130. The new sp. is of no concern to us, however the authors also append a key and “synopsis” (i.e., annotated checklist) for the Colombian spp. of Vochysia, which raise a few issues.  The name Vochysia macrophylla Stafleu, treated as a synonym of V. guatemalensis Donn. Sm. in the Manual, is here recognized as a distinct sp., endemic to Colombia; however, the overall geographic range of the latter sp., as expressed in the Manual, is unaffected.  Also omitted from the synonymy of V. guatemalensis is Vochysia aurea Standl. (based on a Costa Rican type), which was so included in the Manual.  Tellingly, the key in this paper requires that V. guatemalensis have the “Stamen glabrous,” whereas those of V. aurea are ciliate.  Finally, these authors attribute to Costa Rica Vochysia megalophylla Stafleu, a name not accepted in the Manual for any Costa Rican sp.; we can only asume that they are merely perpetuating prior misapplications of that name (in herbaria and/or the literature) to the sp. known correctly as V. gentryi Marc.-Berti.  The “synopsis” features only synoymy, typology, and distribution summaries. Molina, A. M., Z. E. Rúgolo, M. A. Ferrero, P. C. Palacio, C. Guerreiro & A. S. Vega.  2021. Taxonomic revision of the genus Podagrostis (Poaceae, Pooideae, Poeae).  Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 106: 245–270. We missed the first salvo in this campaign (Sylvester et al., 2020; PhytoKeys 148: 21–50), not because of a misleading title, rather because we had still not caught onto the fact that the journal PhytoKeys continues to add articles to each issue after the initial online posting (our own in-house journals, the Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden and Novon, do the same thing, by the way).  Suffice it to say that there is a movement underway (culminating in this revision) to segregate 12 New World spp. included traditionally in Agrostis into a distinct genus called Podagrostis (Griseb.) Scribn. & Merr.  The morphological distinctions between the two groups are not at all compelling, and the somewhat equivocal cladistic evidence published to date appears to position Podagrostis as “a sister lineage” to the clade Agrostis plus Polypogon (so why not lump Polypogon, with just two spp.?).  The authors of this paper acknowledge these shortcomings (“In spite of these results…”), but plough ahead with their revision all the same.  In any event, just one affected sp. occurs in Costa Rica:  Podagrostis bacillata (Hack.) Sylvester & Soreng, i.e., Agrostis bacillata Hack. of Manual Vol. 3 (2003).  Notably, that sp. is separated from the 11 other spp. of Agrostis (sensu lato) treated in the Manual in the very first couplet of the sp. key, which invokes one of the characters deployed in this paper for the generic distinction.  This is a standard revision featuring synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions at all ranks, a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp., distribution and phenology summaries, occasional “observations,” and specimen citations.  There are no indices.  The brief introductory portion emphasizes taxonomic history, cladistics, and morphology (with SEM micrographs and a tabular comparison of all 12 spp.).  Most of the spp. (including P. bacillata) are illustrated with composite line drawings.  Two new combinations do not concern us, but a first Colombian report for P. bacillata does (annotate your copy!). O’Leary, N., L. A. Frost, F. Mirra & P. Moroni.  2021. Insights into the taxonomy of Citharexylum (Verbenaceae):  a revision of the South American taxa.  Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 106: 167–233. This partial revision of the taxonomically difficult genus Citharexylum sounded promising but, alas, it delivers virtually nothing for us.  Suffice it to say that, of the 30 “taxa” present in South America, 27 are endemic there, and just one (Citharexylum caudatum L.) reaches Costa Rica.  We could go on (as we generally do), but what would be the point? Pederneiras, L. C., N. Mitidieri-Rivera, S. Romaniuc-Neto & V. F. Mansano.  2021. Typification of Ficus sect. Americanae (Moraceae):  F. aurea and F. pertusa complexes.  Phytotaxa 514: 149–157. Good gravy, will it never end?  Lectotypification (first- or second-step) is consummated for 14 bi- or trinomials, all but one of which have been synonymized by recent authors under either Ficus aurea Nutt. or (mostly) F. pertusa L. f., both of which occur in Costa Rica (at least, according to some taxonomic views).  Just one of the names addressed in this paper, Urostigma sapidum Liebm. (a synonym of F. pertusa), is based on Costa Rican material (though it was not cited in the Manual Moraceae account). Pillon, Y., H. C. F. Hopkins, O. Maurin, N. Epitawalage, J. Bradford, Z. S. Rogers, W. J. Baker & F. Forest.  2021. Phylogenomics and biogeography of Cunoniaceae (Oxalidales) with complete generic sampling and taxonomic realignments.  Amer. J. Bot. 108: 1181–1200. The big news here is that Weinmannia (the only genus of Cunoniaceae in Costa Rica) is shown to be paraphyletic (with respect to Cunonia and a New Caledonian genus), and is thus divided in twain, nearly along hemispheric lines (the New World contingent also includes two spp. of the Mascarenes).  The authors respond by formalizing the division, which requires the validation of some 67 new combinations (plus one nomen novum) under the genus name Pterophylla D. Don for Old World spp. previously referred to Weinmannia.  Because the name Weinmannia is typified by New World sp. (W. pinnata L.), Costa Rican members of the genus are unscathed by this action.  However, the global sp. total for the genus plummets from 150–160 (depending on the source) to ca. 90 (and the geographic range given in the Manual should be modified as indicated previously). Shah, T., J. V. Schneider, G. Zizka, O. Maurin, W. Baker, F. Forest, G. E. Brewer, V. Savolainen, I. Darbyshire & I. Larridon.  2021. Joining forces in Ochnaceae phylogenomics:  a tale of two targeted sequencing probe kits.  Amer. J. Bot. 108:  1201–1216. After all the fol-de-rol, “all analyses indicated that…Sauvagesia…as currently circumscribed [is] polyphyletic…”  But we already knew that [see under “Schneider,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 28(3), Jul. 2021], and are still awaiting a taxonomic resolution. Zuntini, A. R., L. P. Frankel, L. Pokorny, F. Forest & W. J. Baker.  2021. A comprehensive phylogenomic study of the monocot order Commelinales, with a new classification of Commelinaceae.  Amer. J. Bot. 108: 1066–1086. Just one trivial detail registers a tiny blip on our radar screen:  the monospecific, Australian genus Tapheocarpa is revealed as nested within Commelina, and is formally transferred thereto.  So jack the sp. total for Commelina up one notch (it was 170 according to the Manual Commelinaceae treatment, but 196 according to a more recent source cited in this paper).   TOP