| |
Main |
Family List (MO) |
Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments |
Guidelines |
Checklist |
Citing |
Editors
The Cutting Edge
Volume XXVI, Number 2, April, 2019
News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature |
Season's Pick | Annotate your copy
Alves-Araújo, A. 2018. A new species of Elaeoluma from Venezuela (Sapotaceae) with taxonomic notes on the genus. Syst. Bot. 43: 1020–1025.
Who knew that Venezuela belonged in Sapotaceae? Seriously: this paper is noted here only for its inclusion of a key to all the sp. (five) of the genus Elaeoluma, one of which, E. glabrescens (Mart. & Eichler) Aubrév., extends to Costa Rica. The last-mentioned fact has been known for more than a quarter century, but apparently not to this author, who limits the geographic range of the genus to "South America and Panama."
Bauters, K., I. Larridon & P. Goetghebeur. 2019. A taxonomic study of Scleria subgenus Hypoporum: synonymy, typification and a new identification key. Phytotaxa 394: 1–49.
Scleria subgen. Hypoporum (Nees) C. B. Clarke, one of four subgenera currently accepted in its genus, is a pantropical taxon comprising (according to this contribution) 72 spp. (i.e., about 29% of the estimated generic total of "ca. 250" spp.), plus several vars. The authors characterize subgen. Hypoporum has having "a rather simple overall morphology with few distinguishing characters," and do not themselves elaborate much on that theme, except to affirm that "the vestigial hypogynium is a derived state." By way of relating this information to the Manual Cyperaceae treatment (2003) by the late Jorge Gómez-Laurito, suffice it to say that all the Costa Rican representatives of subgen. Hypoporum are grouped under the first lead of couplet 6 (which provides some other useful distinctions) in the key to Scleria spp. These are.: Scleria distans Poir., S. interrupta Rich., S. lithosperma (L.) Sw., S. purdiei C. B. Clarke, and S. tenella Kunth. Those same spp. are all accepted by these authors in their taxonomic account, which features a (sadly) non-indented, combined key to spp. and vars., followed by alphabetically ordered sp. entries providing synonymy and typology, brief descriptions, distribution summaries, notes (as needed), and very limited specimen citations. The only spp. in the foregoing list that are attributed explicitly (with voucher citations) to Costa Rica are Scleria distans, S. purdiei, and S. tenella; however, the distributions indicated for S. interrupta and S. lithosperma are appropriately inclusive. A few discrepancies or departures from the Manual treatment may be noted: both Scleria distans and S. lithosperma should be qualified as represented in Costa Rica (indeed, in the New World) only by their autonymic vars. (vars. were not mentioned in the Manual); each sp. sports a second var. that is restricted to the Paleotropics. Also, the name Scleria hirtella Sw., cited in the Manual as a synonym of S. distans, is here employed as the accepted name for a distinct sp.; but although we may rest assured that S. distans sensu stricto occurs in Costa Rica (because a voucher is cited), the same cannot be said of S. hirtella (though it is alleged to be "widespread in tropical and subtropical America"). Features a cross-referenced listing of accepted names and synonyms, plus several illustrations (mostly SEM micrographs of nutlets). As an aside: we noted, in passing, several editorial gaffes in this work, e.g.: twice in the key, Scleria pusilla Pilg. is ascribed to "Central America," though it is "only known from Brazil and Guyana," according to the sp. entry; also, the distribution summary for S. purdiei reads "Panama to Columbia [sic] and Venezuela," yet, just below, specimens are cited also from Bolivia, Costa Rica, and Mexico. This sort of inattention to detail does not augur well for taxonomic research.
Bayón, N. D. & D. A. Giuliano. 2018. Lectotipificaciones en Amaranthaceae de la Flora Argentina. Bol. Soc. Argent. Bot. 53: 443–458.
Among the 58 names (at sp. and infraspecific ranks) lectotypified by these authors, a few inevitably pertain to taxa occurring in Costa Rica. But very few, as it turns out: two synonyms of Alternanthera caracasana Kunth, the basionym and three synonyms of A. lanceolata (Benth.) Schinz, and one synonym of Chamissoa acuminata Mart. (the last sp. merely mentioned in the Manual draft treatment of Amaranthaceae as expected in Tiquicia). These are all perfunctory typifications (what fun!), not affecting the prevailing application of names.
Braem, G. J. 2019. The genus Phragmipedium revisited. Part 2: subgenus Phragmipedium. Austral. Orchid Rev. 83(6): 2–7.
We had thought that this brief, hobbyist-oriented article, replete with the usual color photos, might extend a long-running controversy regarding the correct name for a Mesoamerican sp. (see, e.g., the first entry under "Pupulin," this column, in our last issue), but no luck; instead, the author persists, without comment, in his usage of the name Phragmipedium popowii Braem, Ohlund & Quéné for the sp. that we now believe must be called P. humboldtii (Warsz.) J. T. Atwood & Dressler. For satisfaction on this score, we must apparently await the arrival on our shores of "the recently released book The genus Phragmipedium – a treatise on the conduplicate-leafed slipper orchids of Latin America, which may be obtained through the author..."
Briones-Morales, D. F. & D. C. Tank. 2019. Extensive allopolyploidy in the neotropical genus Lachemilla (Rosaceae) revealed by PCR-based target enrichment of the nuclear ribosomal DNA cistron and plastid phylogenomics. Amer. J. Bot. 106: 415–437.
These authors cling to "Lachemilla," but their own cladograms do them no favors, revealing (their word) said "genus" as deeply embedded among (other) sections of Alchemilla (as had already been demonstrated in previous studies). The authors refer somewhat ingenuously to those sections (at least in their abstract) as "allied genera," although the taxa in question have rarely been accorded generic rank in recent times, and one ("Afromilla") does not even have a valid genus name. So we remain content with the "sensu lato" Manual circumscription of Alchemilla, even with the near-certain knowledge that splitters will soon seize yet another opportunity to "fix" what ain't broke.
Cabaña Fader, A. A., E. B. Souza, E. K. S. Brandão & E. L. Cabral. 2019. Hexasepalum nordestinum (Rubiaceae): a new species from two disjoint and fragmented areas in northeast Brazil, with a key to the American species of the genus. Syst. Bot. 44: 203–209.
We cite this article only for the key (dichotomous and indented!), which obviously includes all four Costa Rican representatives of Hexasepalum (formerly known as Diodella). These were treated in Manual Vol. 7 (2014) in the genus Diodia, and accounted for all but one (Diodia virginiana L.) of its five spp.
Calazans, L. S. B. & C. M. Sakuragui. 2019. Typifications and nomenclatural notes on Urospatha (Araceae). Novon 27: 12–16.
This is not just another manifestation of the mindless lectotypification renaissance that has been scourging the taxonomic world for the past decade, rather, part of an ongoing taxonomic revision (sorely needed!) of the genus Urospatha. As such, it might just as well have been withheld for publication in the revision itself, but that is a minor quibble. By the authors' account, "thirteen lectotypifications, one neotypification, and corrections for two type localities are presented and discussed" for names applicable to Urospatha spp. At least two of those names, U. tonduzii Engl. and U. tuerckheimii Engl. (both lectotypified), have been applied at one time or another to Costa Rican material. Additionally, Urospatha friedrichsthaliana Schott, which has also been applied to our plants, is lectotypified, though it actually pertains to a sp. of Sagittaria (Alismataceae). We detect no threats to the prevailing application of names in Costa Rica (Urospatha grandis Schott, not addressed here, being the only one currently in use).
Canal, D., N. Köster, M. Celis, T. B. Croat, T. Borsch & K. E. Jones. 2019. Out of Amazonia and back again: historical biogeography of the species-rich Neotropical genus Philodendron (Araceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 104: 49–68.
This molecular study, which expands upon a prior one [see under "Canal," this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(4), Oct. 2018] involving most of these same authors, has the unfortunate result of leaving "the relationships among the three subgenera [of Philodendron]...unclear." However, all three subgenera are supported as monophyletic, as is the genus itself, and also the closely related genera Adelonema (sister to Philodendron) and Homalomena. At least for the time being, the authors "strongly recommend maintaining Philodendron as a single genus with three subgenera," basing their decision on various pragmatic considerations, including a Code injunction to avoid "the useless creation of names." This article [see also under "Zuluaga," further ahead in this column] appears in a special issue of the Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden devoted to Araceae.
Carvajal-Hernández, C. I., V. Guzmán-Jacob, A. R. Smith & T. Krömer. 2018. A new species, new combinations in Pecluma and Pleopeltis, and new records for the State of Veracruz, Mexico. Amer. Fern J. 108: 139–150.
Only one item here appears to be of direct pertinence to Costa Rican floristics: the new combination Pleopeltis acicularis (Weath.) A. R. Sm. & T. Krömer, reflecting the elevation to sp. rank of the former Pleopeltis polypodioides (L.) E. G. Andrews & Windham var. acicularis (Weath.) E. G. Andrews & Windham [treated as Polypodium polypodioides (L.) Watt var. aciculare Weath. in Flora mesoamericana Vol. 1], a taxon that is widespread in the Mesoamerican region. We wonder why "Sprunt ex" was not prefixed to the authority attribution, considering that Susan Sprunt first suggested the new classification, in her 2010 Ph.D. dissertation, and seems to have actually used the name "Pleopeltis acicularis" in that ineffectively published work (which is cited in this paper).
Cogollo-Pacheco, Á., S. E. Hoyos-Gómez & M. Serna-González. 2019. Una nueva especie y otros registros de Magnoliaceae para Colombia. Brittonia 71: 32–38.
One of the new Colombian records is Magnolia gloriensis (Pittier) Govaerts (AKA Talauma gloriensis Pittier), known previously only from southern Central America (SE Nic.–Pan., in Manualese).
Croat, T. B. & O. O. Ortiz. 2016. A reappraisal of the Anthurium cuspidatum Masters complex, section Polyneurium (Araceae). Aroideana 39: 134–187.
Backtracking yet again to touch a base that we had passed over: seven spp. are here ascribed to the so-called Anthurium cuspidatum complex, though we'd have included at least one more (A. testaceum Croat & R. A. Baker). The authors' examination of critical type material results in three important name changes, vis-à-vis the Manual Araceae treatment (2003) by co-PI Mike Grayum (MO): most significantly, the name Anthurium cuspidatum Mast., long used for a common and widespread, mainly epiphytic sp. with elongate leaf-blades, is revealed as having been misapplied: according to its type, it correctly pertains to the mainly terrestrial sp. with relatively broad leaves that has been called A. propinquum Sodiro (e.g, in the Manual) and (before that) A. williamsii K. Krause. Having examined on-line images (unavailable to us when the Manual account was prepared) of original material, we are inclined to agree. Thus the prior A. cuspidatum replaces A. propinquum, and the sp. long known by the former name becomes, according to the precedent set by these authors, Anthurium talamancae Engl. Two competing synonyms have equal priority, including A. orteganum Engl., which was accepted in the Manual for a sp. regarded as distinct. That sp. is also accepted by the authors of this paper, who describe it as new (Anthurium intactum Croat & O. Ortiz). While we are open to (if not entirely convinced of) the notion that we had misapplied the name A. orteganum, we have a hard time believing (based on our rereading of the protologue and examination of on-line images) that it pertains to A. talamancae. Generally speaking, however, we have no quarrel with the nomenclatural conclusions of this paper, but we do take issue, in some cases, with the authors' taxonomy, as revealed by their specimen citations. For example, for our money, all the La Selva material cited here under Anthurium cuspidatum (i.e., the former A. propinquum) actually belongs under A. talamancae, and what would seem to be the sole Costa Rican voucher for A. monticola Engl. (Croat 36721, MO; a sterile specimen not cited in his paper, but so determined in TROPICOS) is really just A. intactum. Two other (Panamanian) spp. are described as new, and one (Ecuadorian) taxon is elevated to sp. rank, but these need not concern us. By means of distinguishing the spp. of this complex, the authors provide a tabular comparison and dichotomous key, technical descriptions, discussions, distribution summaries, more or less comprehensive specimen citations, and numerous color photos, mostly from life.
Deanna, R., M. D. Larter, G. E. Barboza & S. D. Smith. 2019. Repeated evolution of a morphological novelty: a phylogenetic analysis of the inflated fruiting calyx in the Physalideae tribe (Solanaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 106: 270–279.
The authors' molecular phylogeny, based on sampling of 27 genera and 215 spp., suggests that inflated fruiting calyces have evolved independently on at least 24 occasions in tribe Physalideae (with a total of 29 genera and about 294 spp.). Interesting, to be sure, but less so (from our perspective) than the taxonomic implications of the cladogram. Our inspection reveals a few that are relevant to Costa Rican floristics: Acnistus is confirmed as nested within Iochroma [see under "Shaw," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(3), Jul. 2016], and Physalis (if it includes the Asian P. alkekengi L.) as polyphyletic [see The Cutting Edge 12(2): 16, Apr. 2005]. Somewhat more surprisingly, Physalis melanocystis (B. L. Rob.) Bitter, which occurs in Costa Rica, does not group with the remainder of its genus, rather, in a clade that is sister to Chamaesaracha.
Delprete, P. G. 2019. Notes on calycophyllous Rubiaceae. Part V. A succinct overview of genera with calycophylls, and a revision of Pteridocalyx (Sipaneeae) with observations on distyly and calycophyll variation. Phytotaxa 391: 81–92.
The monospecific, Guyanan Pteridocalyx is outside our realm, but the "succinct overview of genera with calycophylls" (enlarged calyx lobes) is of passing interest. This is merely an enumeration of all the calycophyllous genera in Rubiaceae, but suggests the possibility of future revisions in this series. The genera represented (at least in cultivation) in Costa Rica are as follows: Calycophyllum, Chimarrhis, Mussaenda, Pogonopus, Schizocalyx, Simira, and Warscewiczia. Only Chimarrhis, Pogonopus, and Schizocalyx have been revised during the last two decades.
Do T. V., Xu B. & Gao X.-F. 2019. A new species and new records of Flemingia (Fabaceae) from Vietnam. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 56: 41–48.
This article features a dichotomous key to the 12 spp. of Flemingia known from Vietnam. As we learned while working on the Manual Fabaceae treatment, information on the paleotropical genus Flemingia is hard to come by (especially in English). So we ran Costa Rican specimens of the two (introduced) spp. recorded from that country through this particular key, just for fun. Not surprisingly, our material determined as Flemingia strobilifera (L.) R. Br. keyed directly to that distinctive sp.; however, Costa Rican specimens supposedly representing F. macrophylla (Willd.) Kuntze ex Merr. (the one we were more concerned about) diverged in some respects from the morphological features required of said sp. (not that there was a conspicuously better candidate!). So the jury is still out on that, and we must also remind ourselves that the spp. in this key comprise less than half the total for the genus!
Dorr, L. J. 2018. (2665) Proposal to conserve the name Apeiba tibourbou (Malvaceae: Grewioideae) with a conserved type. Taxon 67: 1229.
It turns out that the name Apeiba tibourbou Aubl. (Tiliaceae, in the Manual), familiar and long-accepted for a widespread neotropical tree, was superfluous when published (by virtue of the citation in synonymy of the prior Sloanea dentata L.), and is thus illegitimate. Hence this logical and relatively sensible proposal. Were it to be rejected, A. tibourbou must automatically become a synonym of Sloanea dentata (the accepted name for an Antillean sp.), while the "virtually unused" Apeiba cimbalaria Arruda would have to be dusted off for the sp. now widely known as A. tibourbou.
Hassemer, G. 2019. Further advances to the nomenclatural, taxonomic and geographic knowledge of the New World Commelina (Commelinaceae): toward a continental treatment. Phytotaxa 400: 89–122.
One of the negatives about electronic publication is that it tends to facilitate this sort of "chipping away," as authors milk a multitude of minor papers along the route to a fully realized monograph or revision. Won't this stuff all be included in the "continental treatment" that we are promised? Why annoy us with it now? Or maybe some would see this as a positive development. But we digress. The big news here is that 24 new synonymies are proposed and 12 names typified, but although three spp. represented in Costa Rica are involved in this action (Commelina diffusa Burm. f., C. erecta L., and C. obliqua Vahl), the repercussions for us are essentially nil. Also, "the first listing of the accepted Commelina species in the Americas since Charles Baron Clarke's monograph published in 1881" is presented, likewise without consequences for Costa Rican floristics. Profusely illustrated with color photos of living plants and (especially) types (which, we admit, would be intolerable in the final monograph).
Iamonico, D. 2019. Remarks on the subfam. Betoideae (Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae sensu APGIV). Phytotaxa 400: 145–164.
Yet more "chipping away" to be processed. As usual with this author, we get mainly armchair nomenclatural offerings, with little if anything in the way of hardcore taxonomy. Nothing here appears relevant to our little world: names are typified for spp. that do not occur in Costa Rica, and nomenclatural changes (new taxa and new combinations) are proposed at intercalary ranks in which we have no interest. Something more substantive (like an actual monograph) would be nice. Moving on...
Kessler, M., A. R. Smith, P. B. Schwartsburd, R. C. Moran & F. B. Matos. 2019. Prodromus of a fern flora for Bolivia. XLI. Errata. Phytotaxa 394: 171–175.
We have been deliberately ignoring this interminable series for some time now (we have to draw the line somewhere!), but for whatever reason, this particular installment caught our attention, and one item in particular: Christella abrupta (C. Presl) A. R. Sm. (here validated) "becomes the earliest name for the species previously known as Thelypteris grandis A. R. Sm.," for those buying into the dissolution of traditional Thelypteris along the indicated lines. The change in epithet was necessitated, not because grandis was preoccupied in Christella (it was not), rather because the epithet of the oldest synonym (Lastrea abrupta C. Presl), which was not available in Thelypteris, is available in Christella, and trumps T. grandis in terms of priority (the "tortuous nomenclatural issue" is not belabored here). The sp. involved—the former Thelypteris grandis—entrains several vars., for which the appropriate combinations are not provided in this paper; the authors merely note that the former T. grandis var. kunzeana (C. Chr.) A. R. Sm., which occurs in Bolivia (the focus of this series), must become the autonymic var. of Christella abrupta. It stands to reason that a combination based on Dryopteris oligophylla Maxon var. pallescens C. Chr. will become the correct name for the only Mesoamerican var. of C. abrupta. We have no doubt that many similar revelations could be ferreted out in the course of a meticulous perusal of this series, pero nos da pereza!
Lian, L., K.-L. Xiang, R. D. C. Ortiz & W. Wang. 2019. A multi-locus phylogeny for the Neotropical Anomospermeae (Menispermaceae): implications for taxonomy and biogeography. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 136: 44–52.
The genus Anomospermum proves polyphyletic, with spp. recovered in three different clades. According to the authors' cladograms, unity could be restored only by subsuming five other genera widely treated as distinct, including Abuta (represented in Costa Rica). Instead, the authors propose to split Anomospermum into three genera, one (monospecific) of which they describe as new. However, this stratagem entails no repercussions for us, other than to reduce the Manual sp. total for Anomospermum by three: Anomospermum reticulatum (Mart.) Eichler, the only sp. in Costa Rica, belongs to the same clade as the generic type sp., as does A. chloranthum Diels, mentioned in the Manual as possibly to be expected.
Loeuille, B., J. Semir & J. R. Pirani. 2019. A synopsis of Lychnophorinae (Asteraceae: Vernonieae). Phytotaxa 398: 1–139.
The titular taxon comprises 19 genera and 117 spp. (according to this treatment), "distributed mostly in the Cerrado domain of the Brazilian Central Plateau." As far as we can ascertain, just one sp. is represented in Costa Rica, viz., the pantropical weed (and cultivated ornamental) Centratherum punctatum Cass. However, the authors do not mention Costa Rica in their account of said sp. (except in a figure caption!), nor are they entirely forthcoming as to the native vs. non-native distribution of same (we glean that is deemed native in most of the Neotropics, and introduced elsewhere). This is, after all, only a synopsis, providing synonymy and typology, distribution summaries and maps, and discussions at all ranks, dichotomous (though non-indented) keys to genera and spp., representative specimen citations (very few, in the case of C. punctatum), a list (at the end) of "Excluded Species," and an index to exsiccatae. Descriptions are presented for the subtribe and genera, but not the spp. (excepting seven that are described as new), and there are no indices to names. The well-illustrated introductory portion addresses taxonomic history, morphology, cytology and chemistry, phylogenetic relationships, and biogeography. Many spp. are illustrated with color photos of living material and (for the new spp.) holotype specimens. In addition to the new sp. names, one new genus is described, 16 new combinations and eight new synonymies are proposed, and 33 epi-, lecto-, or neotypes are newly designated; most of that activity is of no interest to us, with the exception (tangentially) of one new synonym for Centratherum punctatum, and several new type designations for synonyms of same.
Mao, K., M. Ruhsam, Y. Ma, S. W. Graham, J. Liu, P. Thomas, R. I. Milne & P. M. Hollingsworth. 2019. A transcriptome-based resolution for a key taxonomic controversy in Cupressaceae. Ann. Bot. (Oxford) 123: 153–167.
The odyssey of Cupressus over the course of the past decade-plus has been tedious, especially as if affects just one sp. in the Costa Rican flora, and a cultivated one at that. Molecular studies having shown that the New and Old World members of traditional Cupressus were not as closely related as previously believed, most of the New World spp. (including C. lusitanica Mill., the Costa Rican representative) were segregated into the newly created genus Hesperocyparis [see under "Adams," this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(1), Jan. 2010]; however, a subsequent molecular study caused us to question the need for splitting Cupressus at all [see under "Terry," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(4), Oct. 2016]. The present contribution restores that need to sharp focus: the time-honored genus Juniperus is nested within Cupressus sensu lato, and sister to the Old World Cupressus (sensu stricto); thus, the only way to maintain Cupressus sensu lato would be to incorporate Juniperus as well. Effectively, this nukes the entire scenario back to Square One [see The Cutting Edge 14(1): 7, Jan. 2007], and trivializes everything that has happened in the interim. The authors of the paper under review aver that their "results strongly support the division of Cupressus s.l. into four genera," viz., Cupressus sesnsu stricto, Hesperocyparis, Xanthocyparis sensu stricto (with a single, Vietnamese sp.), and Callitropsis sensu stricto (with a single sp. of the Pacific Northwest). Under that classification, our guy becomes Hesperocyparis lusitanica (Mill.) Bartel. However, the authors admit that their data, "as well as those of many others..., would also be consistent with combining Xanthocyparis s.s., Callitropsis s.s. and Hesperocyparis under Callitropsis s.l." (while noting that "Hesperocyparis is morphologically distinct enough to deserve recognition as a distinct genus"). For those preferring to lump the last-mentioned genera, most of the indicated combinations do exist, e.g., Callitropsis lusitanica (Mill.) D. P. Little; the problem is that, apparently unbeknownst to these authors, the name Xanthocyparis has been conserved over Callitropsis [see The Cutting Edge 15(1): 5, Jan. 2008], and no combinations have been validated under the former name for spp. currently assigned to Hesperocyparis.
Marinho, L. C., L. Cai, X. Duan, B. R. Ruhfel, P. Fiaschi, A. M. Amorim, C. van den Berg & C. C. Davis. 2019. Plastomes resolve generic limits within tribe Clusieae (Clusiaceae) and reveal the new genus Arawakia. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 134: 142–151.
Tribe Clusieae, with ca. 500 spp., comprises five genera: Chrysochlamys, Clusia, Dystovomita, Tovomita, and Tovomitopsis, all but the last represented in Costa Rica. The good news from this study is that Clusia is confirmed as monophyletic, and Chrysochlamys and Tovomitopsis (in which most Costa Rican members of Chrysochlamys had been previously included) as "not closely related despite gross morphological similarity." The bad news is that Tovomita (as in the sense of co-PI Barry Hammel's 2010 Manual account) is exposed as triphyletic, and its three clades must be dissociated (or else subsumed, along with Chrysochlamys, within Clusia). Among the Costa Rican spp. of Tovomita sensu lato, only T. longifolia (Rich.) Hochr. and (presumably) T. stylosa Hemsl. (not included in the study) occupy the same clade as the type sp. (T. guianensis Aubl.) and will thus remain in Tovomita sensu stricto. Barry had noted that Tovomita croatii Maguire "se podría acomodar casi igual en Chrysochlamys," a notion that is seconded by these authors and taken one step further by their findings, which "indicate that T. croatii is more closely related to Chrysochlamys." The result is a new combination, Chrysochlamys croatii (Maguire) L. Marinho & Hammel. The third clade, sister to Chrysochlamys + Clusia, comprises Tovomita weddelliana Planch. & Triana and its allies. This clade is distinguished as a new genus, Arawakia L. Marinho, distinguished mainly by its petiole bases "united by a dark raised line" (vs. separate). All the requisite new combinations in Arawakia are validated in the name of "L. Marinho," according to the sp.-level taxonomy of Gahagen et al. [see The Cutting Edge 23(2), Apr. 2016], with which we do not necessarily agree. This will all get sorted out somewhere down the line. The authors provide a dichotomous, indented key to the genera of tribe Clusieae, as well as various (mostly) color photos of living material.
McDade, L. A., B. E. Hammel & C. A. Kiel. 2019['2018']. New species, new combinations and new synonymies towards a treatment of Acanthaceae for the Manual de Plantas de Costa Rica. Aliso 36: 27–45.
This contribution ties up loose ends for one of the last Manual family treatments that we will ever have to deal with. Four new spp. are described, all endemic to Costa Rica: Anisacanthus grace-woodiae Hammel & McDade (honoring Canadian amateur botanist and part-time Costa Rica resident Grace Wood), known from just one site in the uplands of the Península de Nicoya, and compared with its only two Central American congeners; Justicia altior Kiel & Hammel, very similar to J. aurantiimutata Hammel & Gómez-Laur., but occurring at higher elevations (though also on the Pacific slope); Justicia lithophila Hammel & Kiel, compared with J. candelariae (Oerst.) Leonard and J. pittieri Lindau and ranging from 450–1200 m elevation, on both slopes, in the Cordilleras de Guanacaste and Central; and Stenostephanus chavesii Hammel (honoring former parataxonomist José Luis Chaves Chaves), compared with the well-known sp. long called Razisea spicata Oerst. and occurring mainly on the Atlantic slope of the Cordilleras de Guanacaste, de Tilarán, and Central. A nomen novum, Ruellia leonardiana Hammel (honoring the late Acanthaceae maestro Emery C. Leonard), results from the elevation of R. tubiflora Kunth var. hirsuta to sp. rank (the epithet hirsuta being preoccupied in Ruellia by nearly two centuries, though it would not have had to be used). And pursuant to recent molecular phylogenetic evidence supporting the inclusion of Habracanthus, Hansteinia, Kalbreyeriella, and Razisea in Stenostephanus, new combinations in the last-mentioned genus are validated, in the names of "Hammel" and/or "McDade," for all the affected Costa Rican spp. that still lack them. For the most part these are straightforward, and will not be enumerated here, but two cases deserve special mention: Stenostephanus leiorhachis (Lindau) Hammel (based on Kolobochilus leiorhachis Lindau, here lectotypified) becomes, unfortunately, the correct name for the former Razisea spicata, the pedestrian epithet spicatus having been squandered recently on "a very rare Ecuadorian species of Stenostephanus with small green flowers"; and, by virtue of synonymy, the name Stenostephanus strictus (Leonard) T. F. Daniel ex Hammel (based on Glockeria stricta Leonard) will henceforth prevail for the uncommon sp. lately encumbered with the unwieldy binomial Kalbreyeriella rioquebradasiana Gómez-Laur. & Hammel [see The Cutting Edge 2(1): 6, Jan. 1995]. As indicated in the title, various other new synonymies are proposed in this paper, as follows: Chamaeranthemum durandii Leonard under C. tonduzii Lindau (and the former name is lectotypified); Dicliptera iopus Lindau under D. trifurca Oerst. (the latter name having been misapplied "for some decades" to a sp. currently without a name); Justicia bitarkarae Gómez-Laur. under J. costaricana Leonard (the former name having been based on a mixed collection and here lectotypified, with the indicated result); Justicia parvibracteata Leonard under J. pittieri; Justicia valerii Leonard under J. candelariae; and Habracanthus tilaranensis Gómez-Laur. [see The Cutting Edge 2(1): 6, Jan. 1995] under Stenostephanus gracilis (Oerst.) T. F. Daniel (the type of the former name was previously cited under S. gracilis, but the synonymy was not effected in an explicit manner). Keys are deployed to distinguish the new spp. (and some other entities) from similar and/or related spp., and numerous illustrations (including photos of living material and types, composite line-drawings, and SEM micrographs of pollen) are presented.
Michelangeli, F. A., R. Goldenberg, F. Almeda, W. S. Judd, E. R. Bécquer, G. Ocampo, G. M. Ionta, J. D. Skean Jr., L. C. Majure & D. S. Penneys. 2018['2019']. Nomenclatural novelties in Miconia (Melastomataceae: Miconieae). Brittonia 71: 82–121.
We've been sitting on this since its online publication last October, awaiting the assignment of volume and page numbers (now at last available). Here the authors (in various permutations) "present the taxonomic and nomenclatural changes necessary to recognize Miconia as the sole genus within Miconieae" (after having devoted "considerable time and effort...to devising an alternative taxonomic classification of the tribe," to no avail). This lumping agenda has already been underway for several years now [see, e.g., under "Gamba," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(1), Jan. 2015], but is here prosecuted to the bitter end (or thereabouts). At least 17 genera traditionally accepted as distinct have proven to be nested among spp. traditionally assigned to Miconia, including six that are represented in Costa Rica: Clidemia, Conostegia, Leandra, Maieta, Ossaea, and Tococa. With the exception of Maieta and two monospecific genera, none of those 17 is even monophyletic. So this lumping option seems eminently sensible to us (needless to say!). We will not belabor the straightforward combinations (in which the prevailing epithet remains unchanged) in Miconia, even though their authorship varies. However, because Miconia was already immense, many epithets were effectively preoccupied, or became preoccupied due to the activities of these authors (as spp. with the same epithet were transferred simultaneously into Miconia from different genera). Thus, inevitably, many spp. had to be provided with nomina nova, or new combinations based on long-dormant synonyms. These are listed (for Costa Rica) as follows: Clidemia ciliata Pav. ex D. Don is now Miconia domociliata Michelang. [we get nothing for C. c. var. elata (Pittier) L. Uribe]; Clidemia coloradensis Almeda = Miconia neocoloradensis Almeda; Clidemia costaricensis Cogn. & Gleason = Miconia skutchiana Michelang.; Clidemia discolor (Triana) Cogn. = Miconia purpureoviolacea (Cogn.) Michelang.; Clidemia epiphytica (Triana) Cogn. = Miconia neoepiphytica Michelang.; Clidemia globuliflora (Cogn.) L. O. Williams = Miconia reflexa (Gleason) Michelang.; Clidemia gracilis Pittier = Miconia pseudoalternifolia Michelang.; Clidemia involucrata DC. = Miconia cephaloides Michelang.; Clidemia japurensis DC. = Miconia heteroclita (Naudin) Michelang.; Clidemia lanuginosa Almeda = Miconia neolanuginosa Almeda; Clidemia novemnervia (DC.) Triana (mentioned in the Manual as expected in Costa Rica) = Miconia bullatifolia Michelang.; Clidemia ombrophila Gleason = Miconia silviphila Michelang.; Clidemia setosa (Triana) Gleason = Miconia formicosetosa Michelang.; Clidemia urceolata DC. = Miconia neourceolata Michelang.; Conostegia attenuata Triana = Miconia conoattenuata Michelang.; Conostegia bracteata Triana = Miconia conobracteata Michelang.; Conostegia brenesii Standl. = Miconia conobrenesii Michelang.; Conostegia chiriquensis Gleason = Miconia conochiriquensis Michelang.; Conostegia macrantha O. Berg ex Triana = Miconia conomacrantha Michelang.; Conostegia micrantha Standl. = Miconia conomicrantha Michelang.; Conostegia montana (Sw.) D. Don ex DC. = Miconia cooperi (Cogn.) Michelang.; Conostegia pittieri Cogn. = Miconia donnell-smithii (Cogn. ex T. Durand) Michelang.; Conostegia rufescens Naudin = Miconia conorufescens Michelang.; Conostegia setifera Standl. = Miconia conosetifera Michelang.; Conostegia setosa Triana = Miconia conosetosa Michelang.; Conostegia speciosa Naudin = Miconia conospeciosa Michelang.; Leandra dichotoma (Pav. ex D. Don) Cogn. = Miconia sulcicaulis (Poepp. ex Naudin) G. Ocampo & Almeda; Leandra grandifolia Cogn. = Miconia secungrandifolia G. Ocampo & Almeda; Leandra mexicana (Naudin) Cogn. = Miconia secunmexicana G. Ocampo & Almeda; Maieta poeppigii Triana = Miconia alternidomatia Michelang.; and finally, Tococa guianensis Aubl. = Miconia tococa (Desr.) Michelang. We think it was a bad idea to use prefixes denoting former generic associations, resulting in a lot of rather similar (and often awkward) names that will forever be bunched closely in alphabetical listings (and why perpetuate notions of non-monophyletic taxa?); however, we understand the authors' problem (a shortage of available epithets in Miconia), and whatever the case, the deed is done.
On a side note: with its ranks swollen by these (and prior) generic transfers, as well as various spp. described as new since the publication of the Manual Melastomataceae account (2007), we calculate that Miconia now boasts approximately 208 spp. in Costa Rica (nearly double the total of 107 spp. treated in the Manual). This is good enough to vault Miconia from fifth place (where it was tied with Maxillaria sensu lato) to second place on the list of the largest seed-plant genera in Costa Rica, albeit just inches (if at all) ahead of Epidendrum (Orchidaceae). The last-named genus included 158 Costa Rican spp. in 2003, when the Manual Orchidaceae treatment appeared; however, with the addition of Oerstedella [see The Cutting Edge 12(3): 5, Jul. 2005], and the many new spp. described from the country during the past 15 years, we now peg the Costa Rican total for Epidendrum at 204 spp. (and we expect that the JBL crew has records of numerous others). In any event, both Epidendrum and Miconia have a long way to go to catch first-place Piper (Piperaceae), with 331 Costa Rican spp. (as of 2014), and growing at an even faster pace.
Murillo-Serna, J., F. A. Michelangeli & F. Alzate-Guarín. 2019. Typification of some names of Graffenrieda (Melastomataceae: Merianieae). Phytotaxa 391: 131–137.
Only one of these names is of any interest to us: Calyptrella micrantha Gleason, for which a lectotype is designated in desultory fashion, is the basionym of Graffenrieda micrantha (Gleason) L. O. Williams. According to the Manual Melastomataceae treatment (2007), G. micrantha is restricted to Panama, although the name has been misapplied to Costa Rican material (in particular, to "Graffenrieda sp. A" of the Manual). Nevertheless, because the type is from western Panama, not terribly distant from the Costa Rican border, the sp. should perhaps have been mentioned as expected in Tiquicia.
Noben, S., M. Kessler, A. Weigand, A. Tejedor, W. D. Rodríguez Duque, L. F. Giraldo Gallego & M. Lehnert. 2018. A taxonomic and biogeographic reappraisal of the genus Dicksonia (Dicksoniaceae) in the Neotropics. Syst. Bot. 43: 839–957.
Back and forth we go. The genus Dicksonia, with ca. 30 spp., "contains predominantly tree ferns with erect trunks and can be found in the cool tropics and southern temperate forests around the globe except for Africa, Madagascar, and continental Asia." Among (relatively) recent authors, the Tryons (1982) accepted a single sp., Dicksonia sellowiana Hook., for Costa Rica (and the Mesoamerican region in general), while Lellinger (1989) discriminated two (in Costa Rica alone), under the names D. gigantea H. Karst. and D. karsteniana (Klotzsch) T. Moore. In her Flora mesoamericana (1995) treatment of Dicksonia, Blanca Pérez-García (UAMIZ) reverted to the system espoused by the Tryons. Now these authors, on the basis of both field and herbarium studies, "adopt the taxonomic concept of earlier authors," recognizing two spp. in the Mesoamerican region, plus three other neotropical spp. that are restricted to South America. One of the latter is Dicksonia sellowiana, now confined to southeastern Brazil and adjacent regions (a notion that was expressed by Lellinger). Judging from the morphological, biogeographic, and cladistic evidence presented in this paper, the narrowed circumscription of D. sellowiana seems abundantly justified. The same cannot be said of the distinction between the two Mesoamerican representatives of the genus, Dicksonia karsteniana and D. navarrensis Christ, which are wildly polythetic (in terms of morphology), partly sympatric, and cladistically indefensible, according to the authors' own cladograms (which show various samples of each nested promiscuously among samples of the two remaining neotropical Dicksonia spp.). The authors counter this in a somewhat tepid fashion, suggesting hybridization as a possible explanation and that the situation merits "further investigation based on a larger and denser sampling." So much for the taxonomy, now for the nomenclature: based on careful morphological comparisons, in conjunction with biogeographic considerations, these authors have decided that the types of Dicksonia gigantea and D. karsteniana are conspecific, and so synonymize the former name under the latter, which is older. As for Dicksonia gigantea sensu Lellinger: it is, henceforth (and for those in acceptance of this taxonomy), D. navarrensis Christ. We ought also to mention that, by virtue of a newly implemented infraspecific classification, Mesoamerican populations of Dicksonia karsteniana must (or may) now be qualified as belonging to the autonymic var. Features a dichotomous and indented key to spp. (and a nested key to the vars. of D. karsteniana) plus, for the infrageneric taxa (but not the genus itself), synonymy and typology, technical descriptions, distribution summaries and maps, discussions, and specimen citations. There are no indices. The illustrated introductory portion addresses taxonomic history, morphology, biogeography, and (mainly) phylogeny. Critical features of all the treated taxa are depicted in composite line drawings. One new sp. name and two new combinations at varietal rank are validated, none directly applicable to Costa Rica.
Ohashi, K., H. Ohashi, T. Nemoto, C. Abe, H. Kotani, K. Nata, H. Ohtake & K. Yamamoto. 2018. Phylogenetic analyses for classification of the Desmodium group of Leguminosae tribe Desmodieae 2. Two new genera separated from Desmodium and two new combinations in Grona and Sohmaea. J. Jap. Bot. 93: 293–306.
Here, then, are the molecular analyses underpinning the recent segregation of the genus Grona (with at least four spp. in Costa Rica) from Desmodium, already effected nomenclaturally [see under "Ohashi," this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018]. Taking the cladograms at face value (without inquiring into such distractions as jackknife values and sample size), we would agree that the recognition of Grona (if not its circumscription) is justifiable. The additional nomenclatural machinations mentioned in the title do not concern us.
Paton, A., M. Mwanyambo & A. Culham. 2018. Phylogenetic study of Plectranthus, Coleus and allies (Lamiaceae): taxonomy, distribution and medicinal use. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 188: 355–376.
We all know the plant, cultivated as an ornamental in most of the world, and a pantropical weed. Most of us learned it as Coleus blumei Benth., a name that reigned for many decades, and still prevails in most nursery catalogues. Then it became Solenostemon scutellarioides (L.) Codd and, not long thereafter, Plectranthus scutellarioides (L.) R. Br. (the name used in the 2007 Manual treatment of Lamiaceae). If these authors have their way, we will now have to get used to yet another permutation: Coleus scutellarioides (L.) Benth. Their argument hinges on morphological, rather than cladistic, criteria: "There are several morphological features that can be used to diagnose the clades identified in the results and thus splitting Plectranthus into smaller monophyletic clades is the preferred option" (so, aren't there always diagnostic morphological features, even at infrageneric ranks?). In this regard, the authors single out Tetradenia, an African genus of ca. 25 spp., which exhibits "differences [that] make morphological diagnoses of an enlarged Plectranthus...impossible." So, essentially, it is their desire to hang onto this one genus (Tetradenia) that is upsetting the whole apple cart yet again, resulting in the restoration of Coleus at the expense of Plectranthus. Even so, neither of those genera can survive under their traditional circumscriptions: Coleus must absorb the Old World genera Anisochilus (with ca. 16 spp.) and Pycnostachys (ca. 35 spp.), swelling its ranks to ca. 271 spp. total, while Plectranthus (already shorn of Coleus) loses another large chunk (39 spp.) to the newly created Equilabium Mwany., A. J. Paton & Culham, reducing it to just 65 spp. total. Most of the new combinations necessitated by those changes are deferred to a conspectus that is "being prepared separately"; however, these are not of importance for our purposes. According to this new classification, the sp. treated in the Manual as Plectranthus scutellarioides becomes Coleus scutellarioides, as already noted, while Plectranthus amboinicus (Lour.) Spreng., mentioned in the Manual as occasionally cultivated in Costa Rica, reverts to Coleus amboinicus Lour. And what became of Solenostemon? It is nested within Coleus, and thus synonymized thereunder. The "morphological diagnostic characters" of all eight genera recognized by the authors in this complex (Lamiaceae subtribe Plectranthinae) are listed in a table. And by the way: we just noticed that the latest edition of Mabberley's plant-book (2017) is one step ahead of us on this, having already reinstated Coleus!
Pederneiras, L. C. & S. Romaniuc-Neto. 2019. Taxonomic revision of Ficus sect. Pharmacosycea (Moraceae). Syst. Bot. Monogr. 107: 1–148.
The immense, pantropical genus Ficus (with perhaps 800 spp.) is generally partitioned into six subgenera, which in turn are variously subdivided into lesser suprageneric taxa. Just two subgenera are represented in the New World by indigenous spp.: Ficus subgen. Pharmacosycea (Miq.) Miq. (comprising mainly terrestrial spp.), and the larger and more taxonomically complex F. subgen. Urostigma (Gasp.) Miq. (comprising mainly hemiepiphytic spp.). The subject of this revision, the neotropical endemic Ficus sect. Pharmacosycea (Miq.) Benth. & Hook. f., is one of two sections in F. subgen. Pharmacosycea (the other being restricted to the Old World). A prior synopsis of the Colombian spp. of F. sect. Pharmacosycea involving these same authors [see under "Pederneiras," this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(3), Jul. 2017, where the diagnostic features of the section are enumerated] suggested some potential repercussions for Costa Rica, but here those developments are fully clarified. The authors accept a total of 35 spp. for F. sect. Pharmacosycea (hence, for F. subgen. Pharmacosycea in the New World), apportioning these among three (relatively) recently described subsections (corroborated by their own, previously published molecular investigations) that may be characterized succinctly, as follows: Ficus subsect. Carautaea Pedern., Romaniuc & Mansano, with a single, hemiepiphytic sp., and the polyspecific F. subsect. Bergianae Carvajal & Shabes and F. subsect. Petenenses Carvajal & Shabes, comprising terrestrial spp. with the petiole periderm persistent (in the former) or exfoliating (in the latter). Ten spp. of F. sect. Pharmacosycea are attributed (either explicitly or implicitly) to Costa Rica in this revision, one more than in the Manual Moraceae treatment (2007) by José González (where all nine are grouped conveniently under the first lead of the first couplet in the key to Ficus spp.). Seven of our spp. are largely unaffected by this new taxonomic outlook: Ficus apollinaris Dugand, F. crassiuscula Warb. ex Standl., F. crassivenosa W. C. Burger, F. insipida Willd., F. maxima Mill., F. tonduzii Standl., and F. yoponensis Desv. That said, observant readers will note some changes in the geographic ranges of those spp., particularly F. crassivenosa (the sole member of subsect. Carautaea), which is evidently much more widespread in South America than indicated in the Manual. As presaged in the aforementioned synopsis of Colombian spp., Ficus macbridei Standl., in the sense of the Manual, suffers a name change: we can now confirm that, in the view of these authors, F. macbridei is restricted to Peru and Bolivia, while more nothern material (Costa Rica to Ecuador and Venezuela) previously so named becomes Ficus torresiana Standl. (typified by a Costa Rican specimen and listed in synonymy under F. macbridei in the Manual). In addition, we actually lose a sp.: not surprisingly (to us), Ficus glaucescens (Liebm.) Miq., recognized as distinct in the Manual (as well as in Flora de Nicaragua), is returned (without comment) to the synonymy of F. maxima (where it had resided, e.g., in the Flora of Panama checklist). We would maintain that the authors ought to at least have addressed this issue (which will not go away, if we have anything to say about it). In any case, the loss of a sp. means that two more must have been added, to account for a net gain of one sp. vis-à-vis the Manual. These are (again, as suggested by the Colombian synopsis): Ficus mexicana (Miq.) Miq. (Mexico to Costa Rica, and disjunctly in Colombia and Venezuela) and F. segoviae Miq. (southern Mexico to Ecuador and Venezuela). The former keys closest to F. insipida (differing by its leaf-blades with 13–15 pairs of secondary veins, vs. 19–21), and the latter to F. crassiuscula (differing by its leaf-blades acuminate at the apex, vs. acute); curiously, however, the names have been synonymized in the reverse sense in most recent works (e.g., Flora mesoamericana): F. mexicana under F. maxima (here assigned to a different subsection), and F. segoviae under F. insipida! Also, and somewhat suspiciously (to us), the single cited Costa Rican voucher for F. mexicana is from La Selva, where F. insipida is very common, and the only one for F. segoviae is from Monteverde, where F. crassiuscula is common. So put us down as a bit skeptical, if not of the taxonomic concepts, then at least of the determination of the F. mexicana voucher (which, in our view, is indistinguishable from the glut of La Selva material identified as F. insipida). Until these authors show up at MO and annotate all our material, we cannot begin to evaluate what they have proposed.
This is a standard revision featuring typology, synonymy, and descriptions (at all ranks below subgenus), a dichotomous and indented key to spp. (organized according to subsections), distribution and phenology summaries, notes, distribution maps, rather stingy specimen citations (though over 7000 were supposedly studied), and (at the end) a section of "Doubtful and Excluded Names" and indices to exsiccatae and scientific names. The generously illustrated introductory part deals with taxonomic history, morphology and anatomy, pollination and dispersal, and phylogenetic relationships. Each sp. is illustrated with a composite line drawing (and a few also with black-and-white photos from life). No new taxa are described here, but five new spp. (none from Costa Rica) and one subsection were described by the authors and their colleagues in recent publications leading up to this magnum opus. However, two neotypes are designated (involving taxa not represented in Costa Rica).
Philbrick, C. T. & C. P. Bove. 2019. Nomenclatural changes allow for a broadened circumscription of Lophogyne Tul. to reflect a prominent neotropical clade of Podostemaceae (Podostemoideae). Phytotaxa 400: 81–86.
As noted previously in these pages [see under "Tippery," this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(2), Apr. 2011], the genus Marathrum is polyphyletic, but not in a way that affects the spp. occurring in Costa Rica. The nomenclatural changes in this paper are in response to (among other things) that situation in Marathrum, and accordingly do not impact Costa Rican floristics, except to reduce the sp. total for the last-mentioned genus by one.
Posla Fuentes, M. & G. Posla Madriz. 2017. Magnolias of Costa Rica. Magnolia, J. Magnolia Soc. 52(102): 6–10.
This is not a synopsis of Magnolia (Magnoliaceae) in Costa Rica, nor even an enumeration of the spp., rather a popular account of the authors' ex situ conservation efforts in the country (they do not reveal exactly where they are based). A few spp. are illustrated and briefly discussed, among the "ten native species of Magnolia" that are claimed to exist in Costa Rica. Of course, that highly optimistic total includes spp. that would formerly have been included in Talauma, most of which were described during the past decade [see, e.g., under "Vázquez-García," this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(3), Jul. 2013] and are regarded as dubious by many workers; we believe the true country total to be about half that number (and these authors betray no familiarity with any of the more sketchy entities). This paper (well illustrated with color photos) includes detailed instructions on how to collect and propagate Magnolia seeds. Specimens grown by the authors have been distributed to four botanical gardens in Costa Rica, and others will be planted in the wild. It seems that this project has so far been limited to Magnolia gloriensis (Pittier) Govaerts (i.e., Talauma gloriensis Pittier of the Manual), harvested from the vicinity of Turrialba.
Rojas-Alvarado, A. F. 2019. Corrections in recently described species of ferns and lycophytes from the Neotropics. Open Access Libr. J. 6(e5172): 1–7.
In which several errors or ambiguities perpetrated by the author in recent publications [see especially the various entries under "Rojas-Alvarado," this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(2), Apr. 2018] are corrected or clarified. The following are pertinent to Costa Rican floristics: the illegimate names Elaphoglossum ×intermedium A. Rojas (endemic to Isla del Coco) and Phlegmariurus nanus A. Rojas are replaced with E. ×morphohybridum A. Rojas (as E. "Morpho Hybridum," in the main heading) and P. tico A. Rojas, respectively; and Cyathea ×hybrida A. Rojas (also endemic to Isla del Coco) is confirmed as the intended name for the taxon in question, rather than "Cyathea ×robusta" ("the previously considered name"), which was used throughout the paper (except in the main heading). Enough said.
Samarakoon, T. & M. H. Alford. 2019. New names and combinations in neotropical Samydaceae. Novon 27: 65–71.
These authors continue to buck the rest of the botanical world (and more specifically, the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group) by accepting the family Samydaceae for a taxon that they themselves tacitly admit could be accommodated in "a broadly circumscribed Salicaceae" (the classification now accepted by most everyone else, although the Manual clung to Flacourtiaceae, for pragmatic reasons). But the nomenclatural machinations of this paper are restricted to infrafamilial ranks. Molecular-phylogenetic analyses of "Samydaceae," involving both authors, have shown Casearia to be non-monophyletic; moreover, one of its clades (the one containg the type sp.) is paraphyletic with respect to several smaller genera, including Samyda and Zuelania, as well as part of Laetia (including its type sp.) The authors had proposed to lump these last-mentioned genera into the larger Casearia, but were prevented from doing so by the fact that both Laetia and Samyda have effective priority over Casearia—an impasse recently overcome with a successful conservation proposal [see under "Applequist," this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(3), Jul. 2017]. So now they are free to validate all the new combinations in Casearia necessitated by the aforementioned lumping agenda. For Costa Rica, four sp. are affected: three formerly included in Laetia, and one in Zuelania (which was monospecific). In a genus as large as Casearia, epithets will often have been preoccupied; such is the case for the former Laetia procera (Poepp.) Eichler and Zuelania guidonia (Sw.) Britton & Millsp., which become Casearia bicolor Urb. and C. laetioides (A. Rich.) Northr., respectively. However, Laetia povedae N. Zamora, Aguilar & D. Santam. [see under "Santamaría-Aguilar," this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(2), Apr. 2015] and L. thamnia L. retain their eptithets, with new combinations in Casearia attributed to "T. Samar. & M. H. Alford."
Schwartsburd, P. B. 2018. Eight new taxa of Hypolepis (Dennstaedtiaceae) from the Neotropics. Amer. Fern J. 108: 151–169.
Just one of these novelties occurs in Costa Rica, but we glean some new information about several other spp. We had already learned that Hypolepis bogotensis H. Karst. is properly (at least according to this author) restricted to the Colombian Cordillera Central, and does not actually occur in Costa Rica [see under "Schwartsburd," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(1), Jan. 2016]. The same source revealed that Costa Rican material previously assigned to H. bogotensis (as in Flora mesomericana Vol. 1) represented, at least in part, H. flexuosa Sodiro. The present paper legitimizes the "in part" clause with the description of Hypolepis zimmerae Schwartsb. (honoring pteridologist Brigitte Zimmer), three paratypes of which (including one from Costa Rica) had been previously determined as H. bogotensis. The new sp., which ranges from Costa Rica to Peru, is compared with H. flexuosa, to which it had originally been subordinated as a var. (in the author's ineffectively published Ph.D. dissertation). More news for us: Hypolepis stuebelii Hieron. is also absent from the Mesoamerican region, being restricted (in the view of this author) to the Andes, from Colombia to Peru. The author clarifies that "plants from Costa Rica determined as Hypolepis stuebelii by Moran (1995) [i.e., in Flora mesoamericana Vol. 1], are either H. grandis Lellinger or H. moraniana A. Rojas [see The Cutting Edge 9(2): 9, Apr. 2002]." He neglects to mention the plants from Panama that were so determined. Seven of the new taxa described in this paper (including Hypolepis zimmerae, and also H. stuebelii) are illustrated in composite line drawings.
Secco, R. S., O. L. M. Silva & I. Cordeiro. 2019. A new combination in Sagotia (Euphorbiaceae) with an updated key for the genus. Phytotaxa 394: 225–229.
We note this only because it augments the sp. total for Sagotia given in the Manual (from two to three), and provides the "updated key" mentioned in the title.
Shalisko, V., M. A. Sundue, A. R. Villalobos-Arámbula, M. Á. Muñiz-Castro & J. A. Vázquez-García. 2019. Taxonomic novelties in grammtid ferns (Polypodiaceae) from the Neotropics and Madagascar supported by molecular data. Phytotaxa 394: 176–208.
Two additional segregate genera of traditional Grammitis are revealed as non-monophyletic and, as usual among pteridologists, the remedy is to create yet more segregates (to be fair, just one more, in this case, and since another segregate is scuttled, there is no net gain). The foundered genera are Enterosora, which (according to the authors' molecular phylogeny) is polyphyletic, and Zygophlebia, which is paraphyletic with respect to various spp. (including the type) of Enterosora. As a consequence, the authors decide to combine Enterosora (according to its type) and Zygophlebia under the former (and older) name. In so doing they actually show some restraint, as one of the two major clades involved "could be maintained" as a separate genus (though a new name would have been required). No such restraint was possible for a small clade of Enterosora spp. resolved as distantly removed from the aforementioned action, and sister to the Indo-Pacific genus Adenophorus. Said clade is elevated here to generic rank under the new name Parrisia Shalisko & Sundue (honoring pteridologist Barbara S. Parris). New combinations in Enterosora are validated for 10 spp. previously assigned to Zygophlebia, including all three represented in Costa Rica (and Mesoamerica): the former Z. cornuta (Lellinger) L. E. Bishop, Z. mathewsii (Kunze ex Mett.) L. E. Bishop, and Z. sectifrons (Kunze ex Mett.) L. E. Bishop (and the authors suggest that "most other Zygophlebia" will eventually meet the same fate). Combinations are also provided for the only two spp. assigned to Parrisia: the former Enterosora parietina (Klotzsch) L. E. Bishop, widespread in the Neotropics (including Costa Rica), and a sp. of Tanzania and Madagascar. All the new combinations are ascribed to "Shalisko & Sundue." A minor and incidental result of this work is the authors' confirmation that Moranopteris setulosa (Rosenst.) A. Rojas does indeed merit distinction from M. nana (Fée) R. Y. Hirai & J. Prado [see the fifth entry under "Rojas," this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(2), Apr. 2018]. Having said all of the above: our careful inspection of Fig. 1 (the cladogram) in this paper reveals no compelling cladistic obstacle to lumping each and every one of these technical segregate genera back into Grammitis sensu lato, as in days of yore (or, in other words, Grammitis in the sense of Stolze and the Tryons is confirmed as monophyletic!). This is one card-house we would love to watch collapse.
Tuler, A. C., C. E. B. Proença, T. T. Carrijo & A. L. Peixoto. 2018. Typification and nomenclatural notes on Psidium cattleyanum (Myrtaceae). Taxon 67: 1194–1198.
A lectotype is designated (yawn), but of greater import to us is the authors' correction of the original spelling ("cattleianum") of the epithet. The original spelling has been perpetuated in most works (as enumerated in a table) for nearly two centuries, and we ourselves used it in Manual Vol. 6 (where "Psidium cattleianum" is merely mentioned, in the Psidium genus discussion, as "a veces" cultivated in Costa Rica). However, we agree completely with the authors' contention that the spelling of the epithet must be corrected to "cattleyanum," and will follow suit in future works.
Zhu, X.-X., X.-Q. Li, S. Liao, C. Du, Y. Wang, Z.-H. Wang, J. Yan, Y.-J. Zuo & J.-S. Ma. 2019. Reinstatement of Isotrema, a new generic delimitation of Aristolochia subgen. Siphisia (Aristolochiaceae). Phytotaxa 401: 1–23.
Pursuant to their own (and prior) phylogenetic analyses, the authors opt to elevate the titular subgenus (with 98 spp., including 17 in the New World) to generic rank under the name Isotrema. With its two other non-autonymic subgenera also lost (Endotheca to the synonymy of Isotrema, Pararistolochia maintained—at least by implication—as a separate genus), Aristolochia is left without a subgeneric classification. But is there any good reason for all of this? We think not. Yes, Isotrema is monophyletic (as the authors show), and yes, it "can be distinguished...by morphological synapomorphies," but the same can be said of any robust infrageneric taxon. Beyond that, the authors provide no cogent rationale for their decision, but we may speculate that a desire to preserve generic ranking for Pararistolochia—which is nested within Aristolochia sensu lato and sister to A. subgen. Aristolochia—was a major factor. However, though it was accepted provisionally in the latest edition of Mabberley's plant-book, Pararistolochia (an Old World taxon) has often been treated as a subgenus of Aristolochia, and we suspect that most if not all of its ca. 30 spp. already have names in the last-mentioned genus. On the other hand, 87 new combinations in Isotrema had to be validated in this paper! We rest our case. Having said all of that, just one sp. in Costa Rica would appear to be effected by this proposed change: Aristolochia arborea Linden, for which the combination Isotrema arboreum (Linden) Eb. Fisch. already existed (as of 2015). That sp., highly distinctive among Costa Rican Aristolochia (though not within Isotrema) in the manner implied by its epithet, has been cultivated as an ornamental in Tiquicia, and may or may not also occur in the wild (it or another sp. of Isotrema does!). Includes synonymy and (for the genus) typology and a brief description, as well as distribution summaries.
Zuluaga, A., M. Llano & K. Cameron. 2019. Systematics, biogeography, and morphological character evolution of the hemiepiphytic subfamily Monsteroideae (Araceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 104: 33–48.
The genera of Araceae (at least, those in the Neotropics) have always seemed relatively robust and well defined to us, compared with those of, say, Orchidaceae. That impression is here reinforced for the 12 genera of subfamily Monsteroideae, most of which are supported as monophyletic. The only exceptions, among the genera represented in the New World, are Heteropsis and Spathiphyllum, each of which is (or may be) paraphyletic with respect to a single, minor (mono- or dispecific) genus that does not occur in the Mesoamerican region. No taxonomic action is explicitly taken and, in any case, would have no important consequences for Costa Rican floristics.
TOP
|
|
