www.mobot.org Research Home | Search | Contact | Site Map  

North America
South America
General Taxonomy
Photo Essays
Training in Latin

Wm. L. Brown Center
Graduate Studies
Research Experiences
  for Undergraduates

Imaging Lab
MBG Press
Climate Change
Catalog Fossil Plants
Image Index
Rare Books

Res Botanica
All Databases
What's New?
People at MO
Visitor's Guide
Jobs & Fellowships
Research Links
Site Map


Manual de Plantas de Costa Rica

Main | Family List (MO) | Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments | Guidelines | Checklist | Citing | Editors

The Cutting Edge

Volume XXVII, Number 2, April 2020

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

Aguilar-Sandí, D. 2020. Sinopsis del género Myroxylon (Fabaceae) en Costa Rica. Phytoneuron 2020-20: 1–10.

This author had previously verified and elaborated upon the occurrence of Myroxylon peruiferum L. f. in Costa Rica (see under "Aguilar-Sandí," this column, in our last issue), in addition to M. balsamum (L.) Harms, but here he provides a more rigorous regional treatment of both spp. (and we even learn a bit more about M. peruiferum). His latest contribution features synonymy, typology, distribution summaries, and notes for the genus and each of its two spp., a key to the latter (plus a tabular comparison) and a distribution map, information on phenology, common names, uses, and conservation status, and specimen citations. The natural distribution of Myroxylon balsamum in Costa Rica may now be tweaked as follows: "Bosque húmedo y muy húmedo, 0–600 m; vert. Pac. y cerca de la División Continental, Cord. de Guanacaste, N Cord. de Talamanca, N Fila Costeña (Fila Retinto), Valle del Diquís, Pen. de Osa. Fl. dic. (cult.)." That of M. peruiferum is best expressed in Manualese as: "Bosque húmedo y muy húmedo, (250–)800–1250 m; vert. Pac. Cord. de Tilarán, Montes del Aguacate, Cerros de Escazú, Valle Central, vecindad de San Mateo, cuenca del Río Grande de Candelaria. Fl. feb. (cult.)." Both spp. are illustrated with color photos from life (or nearly so).

Applequist, W. L. 2019. Report of the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants: 70. Taxon 68: 847–854.

Just three of these decisions are of some importance to us. First, conservation of Campyloneurum densifolium (Hieron.) Lellinger (Polypodiaceae)—the accepted name for a sp. that is rare in Costa Rica—against the obscure and orthographically challenging Polypodium ccallahuala Ruiz is recommended [against our better judgment; see under "León," this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(1), Jan. 2017]. Second, a proposal to conserve the genus name Podostemum (Podostemaceae) with that spelling (the one used in the Manual) is deemed likely to be unnecessary (for a variety of reasons), but recommendable "if it were necessary." And third: a request for a binding Committee decision on whether the names Mimosa inga L. and M. ynga Vell. (Fabaceae) are "sufficiently alike to be confused" is tabled and rendered in the affirmative; thus, the sp. long known as Inga edulis Mart. may retain that name, as opposed to the quasi-tautonymic Inga ynga (Vell.) J. W. Moore [see under "Davidse," this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(1), Jan. 2017].

Burgos-Hernández, M. & G. Castillo-Campos. 2020. Taxonomic revision of the Mesoamerican genus Spathacanthus (Justicieae, Acanthoideae, Acanthaceae). PhytoKeys 144: 31–55.

The recent (2013) description (by the second author of this paper) of a new Mexican sp of Spathacanthus is the presumed premise for a new revision of the genus, which was revised authoritatively only 21 years ago [see the first entry under “Daniel,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 6(4), Oct. 1999]. In the interim, little if anything has changed for Costa Rica: the endemic Spathacanthus hoffmannii Lindau remains our only sp. Features synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions at all ranks, a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp., distribution maps, distribution and phenology summaries, and extensive specimen citations. Discussions are omitted for individual spp. in favor of a combined affair (emphasizing phylogenetic relationships) at the end. There are no indices. Taxonomic history is the main theme for Spathacanthus in the very brief introductory section. All four spp. are illustrated with color photos of herbarium specimens and composite drawings.

Cascante-Marín, A. & F. Muller. 2020. A new species of understory palm of the genus Chamaedorea (Arecaceae: Arecoideae) from Costa Rica. Phytotaxa 436: 79–84.

Here is one we did not see coming: Chamaedorea vanninii Cascante & Fred Mull. (its epithet honoring one Jay Vannini) becomes the 32nd Costa Rican member of the most sp.-rich palm genus in the country. The new sp. is known from the type locality (deliberately obfuscated for conservation purposes), at 800–850 m elevation on the Pacific slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca (Dota region), where it has been collected in flowering condition in December. Classed in Chamaedorea subg. Chamaedoropsis Oerst., C. vanninii is compared especially with C. robertii Hodel & N. W. Uhl, from which it differs by its orange-red, “echinulate-medusoid” (vs. black and smooth) fruits. Such oddly ornamented fruits are said to be shared only with the Costa Rican endemic Chamaedorea crucensis Hodel (which differs in various other aspects); however, apparently unbeknownst to these authors, they also occur in the black-fruited C. allenii L. H. Bailey, of Panama and Colombia. With all of that said, the new sp. (illustrated with photos of fresh material and line drawings of staminate flowers) is best characterized by a feature that is unique within its sizeable (ca. 105 spp.) genus: staminate flowers with only three stamens (vs. six, in every other sp.). This one looks like a slam-dunk!

Contreras-Ortiz, N., T. Rodríguez-García, S. Quintanilla, J. Bernal-Villegas, S. Madriñán & A. Gómez-Gutiérrez. 2019. The origin of Humboldt and Bonpland's holotype of Oncidium ornithorhynchum, clarified using +200-year-old DNA. Taxon 68: 471–480.

A belated Costa Rican report of Oncidium ornithorhynchum Kunth (Orchidaceae) was mentioned briefly in the Manual Oncidium genus discussion (2003), wherein the sp. was said to have "rojo-violeta" flowers and to range from "Méx. a Nic." However, a subsequent paper [see under "Jiménez Machorro," this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(2), Apr. 2010] applied the name O. ornithorhynchum to material with yellow flowers from Andean South America and provided the new sp. name Oncidium sotoanum R. Jiménez & Hágsater for the purplish-flowered Mesoamerican entity previously so identified. Using DNA extracted from the "ancient holotype" of Oncidium ornithorhynchum—a Humboldt and Bonpland collection ostensibly from Mexico—these authors seal the deal by proving a closer relationship with samples hailing from the North Andes (where the duo also operated). What we still lack is an authoritative clarification as to which (if either) of the aforementioned spp. occurs in Costa Rica.

Croat, T. B. & M. M. Carlsen. 2020. A new section of Anthurium: section Cordato-punctatum (Araceae), restricted to Central America. Novon 20: 46–50.

As everyone knows, we have zero interest in such things as sections, and our only agenda in mentioning this paper is to debunk (provisionally) the authors' cavalier attribution of Anthurum lucens Standl. ex Yunck. to Costa Rica. As far as we can tell, their claim is based on the anonymous determination (recorded in TROPICOS) of a single specimen not currently deposited in the MO herbarium; otherwise, the sp. does not seem to have been collected (in the wild) anywhere south of northern Nicaragua. Moreover, the ostensible Costa Rican record is from the intensely botanized Estación Biológica La Selva—the last place one would expect such a novelty to turn up. Otherwise, the only Costa Rican representative of the new section would appear to be Anthurium hornitense Croat (which the authors erroneously indicate as restricted to Panama!).

Dauphin López, G. 2020. Adolphe Tonduz y la época de oro de la botánica en Costa Rica. Edit. Tecnól. Costa Rica, Cartago, Costa Rica.

Blimey, the first edition was published only three years ago! See our review of that [under “Dauphin López,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(4), Oct. 2017] for a general description of the content. This, the second edition, features improvements to the illustrations and adds a very useful index to proper names. Furthermore, in the appendix, a mere listing of Tonduz’s eight agronomic publications is replaced by complete reproductions of same. Be the first on your block to get it now!

Delprete, P. G., R. M. Baldini, N. Fumeaux & L. Guglielmone. 2019. Typification of plant names published by Giovanni Casaretto based on specimens collected in Brazil and Uruguay. Taxon 68: 783–827.

As might be expected, very few of the names involved pertain (even as synonyms) to Costa Rican plants. In fact, we could find just one, Coccoloba mollis Casar. (Polygonaceae), and it is not affected in any way.

Do, T. V. & X.-F. Gao. 2020. Taxonomic revision of the genus Flemingia (Leguminosae) from Indo-Chinese floristic region. Phytotaxa 429: 1–38.

This contribution significantly augments a prior work by the same authors [see under "Do," this column,in The Cutting Edge 26(2), Apr. 2019] in being a fully realized revision, and also by serving a much larger geographic region (China, Myanmar, Thailand, and Indochina sensu stricto, as opposed to just Vietnam). However, it is still not monographic in scope, as the 24 Flemingia spp. treated comprise only about 57–65% of the total for this paleotropical genus. And our ham-handed efforts to negotiate the stupidly non-indented sp. key—which, in addition to its structural shortcomings, does not work very well (or is it the authors' sp. concepts?)—still fall short of conclusively confirming or refuting Flemingia macrophylla (Willd.) Kuntze ex Merr. as the correct name for one of the two entities found in Costa Rica [F. strobilifera (L.) R. Br. seems a safe bet for the other]. But progress is clearly being made! Includes (in addition to the infernal sp. key) synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions at all ranks, distribution and phenology summaries, frequent "notes," representative specimen citations, and a section on "Doubtful species." The sp. entries are ordered according to where they come out in the key (i.e., non-alphabetically), and there are no indices. The very brief introductory part emphasizes taxonomic history. Thirteen pages of illustrations are bunched annoyingly right in the middle of the genus description. The one sp. described as new is of no concern to us.

Estrada-Chavarría, A., J. Sánchez-González & A. Rodríguez-González. 2020. Catálogo actualizado de las plantas vasculares del Parque Nacional Isla del Coco, Costa Rica. Revista Biol. Trop. 68(Suppl. 1): S73–S88.

What, another Isla del Coco checklist? Well, islands are always popular, for whatever reason, and this one is not very diverse floristically. This latest effort implements classificatory updates and nomenclatural changes (36 in all, compiled in Table 2) to its 2006 counterpart by Jennifer Trusty and associates [see the second entry under “Trusty,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 13(4), Oct. 2006], while adding numerous spp. (45 are claimed, eight of which are introduced) to the previous total. Most of the additions (compiled in Table 1) resulted from field work by the Museo Nacional de Costa Rica crew (i.e, mainly these authors, where botany is concerned) during 2016–2018. Sixteen of the new records involve spp. new to science, all of which are also endemic. The annotated checklist itself does not appear in this paper; rather, it is presented as a “digital appendix,” available via a URL cited at the end of the article. We did not go there. According to the manifest text, the checklist is divided into three main sections (lycophytes, ferns, and angiosperms), within which families, genera, and spp. are ordered alphabetically. Annotations include authorship, synonymy and names that have been misapplied in previous lists, voucher citations, indications (as needed) of endemicity or non-native status, number of collections, and references to previous lists that included the taxon in question. In terms of classification, the authors have followed the Manual, as modified by TROPICOS and APG IV [see under The “Angiosperm Phylogeny Group,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(2), Apr. 2016]. The article under review features a brief description of the island, a history of botanical exploration, and a detailed floristic analysis, complemented by various graphs and tables. The total number of vascular plant spp. on the island now stands at 296 (vs. 263, according to Trusty), representing 199 genera and 82 families. According to some statistical mumbo-jumbo, this total amounts to 80% of the “expected diversity.” Native spp. account for 74% of the total, and introduced spp. (all of which are angiosperms) for 26%. Among the native spp., 53% are angiosperms, 22% are endemic (of which 58% are ferns), 63% are herbaceous (plus 12% “arborescent” and 8% vines), and 20% are epiphytes (of which 69% are ferns). As was pointed out in part by Trusty, Isla del Coco is unusual, among oceanic Pacific islands, by virtue of its relatively low percentage of introduced, endemic, and “arborescent” spp., as well as its relatively high percentage of ferns and its forests dominated by a single tree sp. (Sacoglottis holdridgei Cuatrec.; Humiriaceae). We cannot help but wonder how much the fern diversity (including some of what follows) owes to the taxonomic proclivities of the pteridologists (two in particular) who have worked on the island. With that said: the largest vascular plant families on Isla del Coco are Melastomataceae (15 spp.), Dryopteridaceae (13 spp.), Hymenophyllaceae (13 spp.), Thelypteridaceae (13 spp.), Fabaceae (12 spp.), and Polypodiaceae (11 spp.), while the largest genera are Miconia (12 spp.), Elaphoglossum (8 spp.), and Thelypteris (8 spp.). According to this article, the checklist includes 10 spp. unidentified beyond family or genus (most of these had been assigned to a sp. by previous authors), and excludes eight introduced spp. that have been deemed “no longer present” on the island.

Ferm, J., P. Korall, G. P. Lewis & B. Ståhl. 2019. Phylogeny of the Neotropical legume genera Zygia and Marmaroxylon and close relatives. Taxon 68: 661–672.

Zygia (Fabaceae) is enlarged by the addition of five spp. of Marmaroxlyon (none present in Costa Rica) that are nested thereunder. In addition, four spp. were "not resolved as monophyletic," including Zygia brenesii (Standl.) L. Rico, Z. inaequalis (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) Pittier, Z. latifolia (L.) Fawc. & Rendle, and Z. unifoliolata (Benth.) Pittier (all occurring in Costa Rica). Surely these examples can all be explained by bad taxonomy or misidentifications (to put in harsher terms the authors' tactful wording).

Feuillet, C. 2020. Synopsis with new combinations of Heliotropium (Heliotropiaceae, Boraginales) for taxa from the West Indies previously in Tournefortia. Phytoneuron 2020-11: 1–3.

——. 2020. Corrections for Feuillet (2019): Heliotropium funkiae, a new name for Heliotropium album (Splitgerber ex De Vriese) Feuillet (Heliotropiaceae, Boraginales). Phytoneuron 2020-12:

So this is how it is going to be: eking these combinations out bit-by-bit, for maximum publication impact. The second paper listed above is especially pointless, as virtually all of its information is repeated verbatim in the companion piece. Thus we need to address only the latter. All in all, 11 taxonomic novelties are validated, but just two are relevant to our interests: Heliotropium funkiae Feuillet (honoring late Asteraceae authority Vicki Funk), supplanting the author's recent H. album (Splitg. ex de Vriese) Feuillet (which proved to be a later homonym) as the replacement for Tournefortia bicolor Sw. (see under "Feuillet," this column, in our last issue); and Heliotropium glabrum (L.) Feuillet, based on Tournefortia glabra L. (hard to believe that the epithet glabrum was not preoccupied in Heliotropium!). Also: Heliotropium verdcourtii Craven (2005) is accepted as the correct name for Tournefortia hirsutissima L., which strains credulity, given the existence of several widely accepted and prior synonyms with epithets available in Heliotropium [see The Cutting Edge 12(4): 3–4, Oct. 2005]. And finally, to reiterate: the traditional circumscription of Tournefortia will prevail in Manual Vol. 4, so none of this is especially critical for us.

Fraga, F. R. M. & J. M. A. Braga. 2020. Nomenclatural notes and typification of names in Maranta (Marantaceae). Phytotaxa 435: 133–163.

Clearly, we are living in the Age of Lectotypification, abetted (if perhaps not always aided) to a significant extent by the sudden availability of myriad type images on the Internet. It is no small irony that this era coincides with a time period when the importance of types is declining. Anyway, for whatever it is worth, these authors designate 19 lectotypes and one neotype for names in Maranta. Maranta friedrichsthaliana Körn. is the only accepted name for a member of the Costa Rican flora that is newly typified (with no adverse consequences). In this case, the authors appear to have studied actual herbarium specimens (one of which—the lectotype itself—is depicted).

Frohlich, M. W., M. Thulin & M. W. Chase. 2020. Ninety-three new combinations in Euploca for species of Heliotropium section Orthostachys (Boraginaceae sensu APG). Phytotaxa 434: 13–21.

The new combinations validated in this paper pertain mainly to Australia, and none of the 93 involves a sp. that occurs in Costa Rica. However, an incidental remark by the authors informs us that Euploca ternata (Vahl) J. I. M. Melo & Semir (2009), which we had assumed to be the correct name in Euploca for the sp. otherwise known as Heliotropium ternatum Vahl, is trumped in terms of priority by E. humilis (L.) Feuillet (2016). That said, the sp. in question will remain in Heliotropium (as H. ternatum) in the soon-to-be-published Manual treatment of Boraginaceae (in the traditional sense).

García, N., A. W. Meerow, S. Arroyo-Leuenberger & W. S. Judd. 2019. (2692) Proposal to conserve Zephyranthes (Amaryllidaceae), nom. cons. against an additional name, Sprekelia. Taxon 68: 596.

Sprekelia has just two spp., whereas "over 150 new combinations" would be required for spp. now included in Zephyranthes, were the priority of the two genus names to be respected during their merger. The "150" figure is a wildly disingenuous, since it includes 79 new combinations (and nomina nova) in Zephyranthes published in this very issue of Taxon (see our next entry) for spp. formerly included in other genera (such as Habranthus) and that might just as easily—and more justifiably—have been transferred to Sprekelia. Had that been done, priority could rest comfortably (as it always should), and this conservation proposal would be unnecessary and, indeed, indefensible. We can't imagine what the authors (let alone the editors) were thinking. Perhaps they became aware of the priority issue late in the game, after they had already finalized their infrageneric taxonomy for Zephyranthes and annotated scads of specimens. And speaking of editors: this journal can't seem to decide whether or not family names should be italicized.

——, ——, ——, R. S. Oliveira, J. H. Dutilh, P. S. Soltis & W. S. Judd. 2019. Generic classification of Amaryllidaceae tribe Hippeastreae. Taxon 68: 418–498.

Based on the usual considerations (cladistics, morphology, and nomenclatural stability), the authors (one of whom is Manual Amaryllidaceae contributor Alan W. Meerow) elect to (among other things) expand Zephyranthes to include various other genera that have been recognized as distinct, e.g., Habranthus and Sprekelia. Both of the latter are well known in horticultural circles, and Sprekelia formosissima (L.) Herb. was mentioned in the Manual as reported from cultivation in Costa Rica. These changes cause Zephyranthes to triple in size, vis-à-vis the sp. total of "ca. 50" indicated in the Manual. A complication is that the genus name Sprekelia Heist. predates (by 66 years!) Zephyranthes Herb.; therefore, the formal transfer of S. formosissima to Zephyranthes "will be pending until the proposal [see the previous entry] to conserve the latter name over Sprekelia is accepted..." (which is perhaps not a foregone conclusion!). Everything else in this article is either not of interest to us (e.g., infrageneric taxonomy), or not germane to Costa Rican floristics.

Gerlach, G. & F. Pupulin. 2020. Stanhopeinae mesoamericanae VI. On the identity of Polycycnis barbata (Orchidaceae), and other notes on the genus Polycycnis. Phytotaxa 432: 155–170.

Based on their astute study of original material (and concomitant lectotypification of Cycnoches barbatum Lindl.), these authors conclude that the name Polycycnis barbata (Lindl.) Rchb. f. properly applies to the sp. traditionally (as in the Manual) dubbed P. muscifera (Lindl. & Paxton) Rchb. f. That leaves P. barbata in sense of the Manual (and elsewhere) without a name, so the authors oblige with Polycycnis grandiflora G. Gerlach & Pupulin sp. nov. Well and good, so far, but then the authors throw us a curveball with their mystifying conclusion that the name Polycycnis barbata now becomes a synonym of P. muscifera. According to the publication dates of their basionyms (1849 and 1852, respectively), the reverse must be true (unless we are overlooking some critical detail): Polycycnis barbata now becomes the accepted name for the sp. previously known as P. muscifera, with the latter name a synonym of the former! The authors had this right up to a point, stating correctly that "Lindley published the first species of Polycycnis in 1849 under the name Cycnoches barbatum" (p. 155), and (p. 156) "also described, together with Paxton, the second species of the genus under the name Cycnoches musciferum (Lindley & Paxton 1852)." But a few pages hence (p. 159), they inexplicably cross themselves up by asserting that "Cycnoches musciferum...is the first valid name for the species later described as Cycnoches barbatum"—a statement to which they would, unfortunately, hitch their wagon. Features a genus description for Polycycnis and an annotated (with synonymy, for whatever it may be worth) enumeration of its accepted spp. Generously illustrated with drawings and color photos of both herbarium specimens and living plants.

Guimarães, P. J. F., F. A. Michelangeli, K. Sosa & J. R. de Santiago Gómez. 2019. Systematics of Tibouchina and allies (Melastomataceae: Melastomateae): a new taxonomic classification. Taxon 68: 937–1002.

It almost seems that Melastomataceae phylogenists are working at cross-purposes: while many berry-fruited genera have been lumped to create a truly gargantuan Miconia, Tibouchina—the largest of the capsular-fruited genera—is now (in this paper) being split up. We wonder: if the likes of Clidemia, Conostegia, Leandra, Maieta, Ossaea, and Tococa can be sacrificed to the insatiable maw of Miconia, why must Tibouchina be fragmented to preserve such genera as Centradenia, Chaetolepis, Heterocentron, Monochaetum, and Pilocosta? We could easily live with all of those being lumped into Tibouchina. Every systematist occupies a particular niche along the lumper/splitter continuum, but by the same token, each taxonomic situation must be evaluated according to its own merits; and it bears mentioning that one author (Michelangeli) is common to both of the aforementioned agendas in Melastomataceae. The diametrically opposed fates of Miconia and Tibouchina would appear to hinge on one prime consideration: the genera nested in Tibouchina are all themselves monophyletic, whereas those nested in Miconia are (with the exception of Maieta) not [see under "Michelangeli," this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(2), Apr. 2019]—making the contrasting resolutions of the two dilemmas somewhat more palatable. Getting down to the nitty-gritty for Tibouchina: the "almost 310 species" (all neotropical) hitherto included in that genus are now apportioned, in the new system, among four smaller genera, all of which (as dumb luck would have it) are represented in Costa Rica. Tibouchina sensu stricto is reduced to about 25 spp., of which only T. aspera Aubl. (mentioned in the Manual as to be expected in Costa Rica) and T. bipenicillata (Naudin) Cogn. are germane to us. Of the remaining six spp. treated under Tibouchina in the Manual, one (the former T. inopinata Wurdack) is transferred to the newly described genus Andesanthus P. J. F. Guim. & Michelang. (with nine spp. total); three [the former T. ciliaris (Vent.) Cogn., T. longifolia (Vahl) Baill., and T. naudiniana (Decne.) Cogn.] to the resurrected segregate Chaetogastra DC. (with 117 spp. total); and two [the non-native, cultivated, and escaped former T. heteromalla (D. Don) Cogn. and T. urvilleana (DC.) Cogn.] to the likewise resurrected Pleroma D. Don (with 157 spp. total). All the necessary new combinations are straightforward (at least for the Costa Rican spp.) and attributed to "P. J. F. Guim. & Michelang." We are puzzled by two of the authors' decisions. First, according to their only published cladogram, Pleroma is sister to Tibouchina sensu stricto; that being the case, recognition of Pleroma could have been foregone, obviating 157 name changes (some affecting widely cultivated spp., which will not please horticulturists). Second, recognizing the South American Brachyotum as separate from Chaetogastra may have been the authors' "most difficult decision," but having done so, we cannot fathom why they assigned the former Tibouchina naudiniana to the latter genus—even though it appears firmly nested among spp. maintained in Brachyotum; we glean that "lack of support" may have been a factor. Features a key (sadly, non-indented) to "Tibouchina and related genera," plus a nomenclator (with bibliographic citations, synonymy, and typology) that includes all of said genera, plus all the accepted spp. in each of the four Tibouchina segregates. Many new typifications are proposed.

Incidentally, we noticed that the Manual key to spp. of Tibouchina (sensu lato) is perfectly natural, with respect to the four splinter genera discussed above: the lone Costa Rican spp. of Andesanthus and Tibouchina (sensu stricto) come out in the two leads of couplet 2, our two spp. of Pleroma in the two leads of couplet 4, and our three Chaetogastra spp. in couplets 5 and 6. Handy, from a few perspectives, and perhaps a modest endorsement of the new system!

Hassemer, G. 2019. Novelties and notes on Plantago sect. Virginica (Plantaginaceae), including the description of a new species and a revised identification key. Webbia 74: 29–41.

Plantago australis Lam., the accepted name for one of the three spp. of its genus recorded from Costa Rica, is lectotypified (yawn). Also (among other items of no importance to us), all three Costa Rican representatives are included in a key to the Plantago spp. in “Brazil, Paraguay and Santa Cruz department, Bolivia.”

Hirai, R. Y. & J. Prado. 2019. Neotropical species of the Adiantum raddianum group (Pteridaceae). Willdenowia 49: 295–317.

The titular group, with 16 spp. accepted for the Neotropics by these authors, is characterized by “round-reniform indusia and veins ending in sinuses at the sterile segment margins.” There appear to be no substantive changes for Costa Rica, where only three spp. of the group are represented: Adiantum concinnum Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd., A. patens Willd., and A. raddianum C. Presl itself. Several lectotypes are designated in perfunctory fashion. Features a dichotomous (though, shamefully, non-indented) key to spp., synonymy and typology, morphological descriptions, distribution summaries, “remarks,” and sections entitled “Name of uncertain application” and “Specimens of uncertain identity.” Apart from the latter, and types, specimens are generally not cited (though selected ones are said to be available in “supplemental content online”). There are no indices. The introductory part is brief, concerned mainly with taxonomic history, phylogeny, and biogeography. All 16 spp. are illustrated (two per plate) with excellent composite line drawings.

Kaehler, M., F. A. Michelangeli & L. G. Lohmann. 2019. Fine tuning the circumscription of Fridericia (Bignonieae, Bignoniaceae). Taxon 68: 751–770.

Despite a recent, sweeping overhaul of the generic classification of Bignoniaceae tribe Bignonieae in which (among many other things) all the Mesoamerican spp. previously accommodated in Arrabidaea were transferred to Fridericia [see under "Lohmann," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(3), Jul. 2014], the taxonomy of the latter genus has remained "complicated," and is here refined using "molecular data and a broad sampling of taxa." As a result, one sp. is added to Fridericia and seven are removed, to three other genera. Just one of these transitions affects Costa Rica, i.e., the removal of Fridericia dichotoma (Jacq.) L. G. Lohmann [long known formerly as Arrabidaea corallina (Jacq.) Sandwith] to the genus Tanaecium. The appropriate new combination in Tanaecium is ostensibly validated here, but in our estimation the feat was already accomplished (albeit unintentionally) in a prior paper [see under "Frazão," this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(4), Oct. 2019]. This new paper duly presents the cladistic evidence for the transfer, but still does not provide clear morphological bases for the separation of Fridericia and Tanaecium according to their new circumscriptions (a key to the "clades of Fridericia" does not go far enough); therefore, Fridericia dichotoma will remain so named and classified in the impending Manual Bignoniaceae treatment.

Lizarazu, M. A. & S. E. Freire. 2019. A taxonomic revision of Heterosperma (Asteraceae: Coreopsideae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 104: 633–663.

Wow, is this a confusing paper, or what? The opening paragraph states that Heterosperma comprises "11 species distributed from the southwestern United States to northern South America," a range that would (or could) include Costa Rica. In an effort to establish whether this genus may actually occur in Tiquicia (which would be news to us), we read further. The "Distribution and habitat" summary for the genus restates the overall range as "Mexico to northwestern Argentina," then immediately contradicts itself by specifying that one sp. (Heterosperma pinnatum Cav.) "is found from the southern United States to northern Colombia." A distribution map (though somewhat difficult to comprehend) appears to substantiate the occurrence of H. pinnatum throughout most of that range (except Costa Rica and Panama). Turning now to the "Distribution and habitat" summary for H. pinnatum itself, one reads that it "is known from the United States, Honduras, and Mexico"—no mention of Colombia! The list of exsiccatae is mostly consistent with that summary, except that a Nicaraguan collection is also cited; no collections are cited from Colombia, nor from Guatemala (with two dots on the distribution map). Get your acts together, people! The genus Heterosperma is nowhere mentioned in the soon-to-be-published Manual draft treatment of Asteraceae by Alexánder Rodríguez (CR), and there is nothing in this paper to indicate that it has ever been found in Costa Rica; nonetheless, H. pinnatum could perhaps deserve mention as a sp. that "skips" the country and should be sought there—if only there were persuasive evidence that it indeed has been collected in Colombia!

Moran, R. C., J. Garrison Hanks & M. Sundue. 2019. Phylogenetic relationships of Neotropical lady ferns (Athyriaceae), with a description of Ephemeropteris, gen. nov. Taxon 68: 425–441.

A molecular-phylogenetic analysis of neotropical spp. generally classed (e.g., in Flora mesoamericana Vol. 1) in the genus Athyrium, using five plastid markers, results in the creation of yet another new fern genus (with the splitting option defended largely on the basis of the authors' inevitably subjective assessment of convenience). Ephemeropteris R. C. Moran & Sundue comprises three spp., two of which—the former Athyrium palmense (Christ) Lellinger and A. skinneri (Baker) Diels—occur in Costa Rica. These spp. always seemed to stand somewhat apart from the montane Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth (sensu Flora mesoamericana Vol. 1) by virtue of their frond architecture and habitat (in seasonally drier sites at lower elevations); as enumerated in this paper, they differ in numerous other respects, including creeping rhizomes, distichous leaves, and seasonal leaf production. The authorities for the new combinations at sp. rank are the same as those for the genus name. We learn for the first time that the former Athyrium skinneri had recently been transferred to the otherwise Asian genus Anisocampium (that having been effected in the elitist journal Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, to which we have no affordable access). Such a relationship is debunked in the present paper. A second revelation of this article is that the Mesoamerican elements of Athyrium filix-femina sensu latissimo (i.e., of Flora mesoamericana) are (mostly) resolved in an otherwise east Asian section of the genus. This would seem to offer strong support for the usage of the name Athyrium dombeyi Desv. (rather than A. filix-femina) for Costa Rican material of Athyrium sensu stricto—usage that has apparently become standard among pteridologists in recent years (with even "Athyrium filix-femina s.l." characterized as "North American" by these authors), though we cannot trace when or where the ultra-inclusive Flora mesoamericana concept of A. filix-femina was officially abandoned. Features a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to the genera of Athyriaceae and a succinct taxonomic revision of Ephemeropteris, with synonymy and typology, brief descriptions, distribution summaries, and discussions at all ranks, a key to spp., comprehensive specimen citations, and a distribution map. A previous assertion (which we had not seen) that Athyrium palmense and A. skinneri were conspecific is rejected (even though the phylogenetic results of this very paper appear to offer support for the hypothesis). All three Ephemeropteris spp. are depicted in a composite line drawing, and E. skinneri in a color photo from life.

Mota, M., J. R. Abbott, R. M. Salas, K. M. Neubig & J. F. B. Pastore. 2019. Three lonely Argentines: toward a new generic delimitation in Polygalaceae. Taxon 68: 522–535.

As the title suggests, there is little here of interest to us. Bredemeyera is revealed as polyphyletic, but "the emergence of two species...as new genera" resolves the problem. The sole Costa Rican representative, B. lucida (Benth.) Klotzsch ex Hassk., is not affected. So much for that.

Nampy, S., D. K. Venugopal, D. Francis & V. Mohan. 2019. New record of Iochroma arborescens (Solanaceae) for India, a potential invasive plant from America with notes on its typification. Rheedea 29: 222–226.

Here we learn three relatively minor details about Iochroma arborescens (L.) J. M. H. Shaw—i.e., our beloved Güitite, long better known to us as Acnistus arborescens (L.) Schltdl. First, as indicated in the title, it may now be recorded as introduced in southern India (annotate your copy!). Second, unbeknownst to us, the combination in Iochroma was made valid—in the same journal, one issue hence—by the same author who had bungled the initial attempt [see under “Shaw,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018]. And third, its basionym, Atropa arborescens L., has been neotypified (in this paper!).

Nesom, G. L., N. S. Fraga, W. R. Barker, P. M. Beardsley, D. C. Tank, B. G. Baldwin & R. G. Olmstead. 2019. Response to "The case for the continued use of the genus name Mimulus for all monkeyflowers". Taxon 68: 624–627.

This article defends the authors' narrow circumscription of Mimulus [see under "Barker," this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(3), Jul. 2012] against an attack, in this same issue, by 38 "molecular geneticists and evolutionary ecologists" who prefer the lumping alternative (we refrain from listing that paper here in order to avoid typing out all the author names!). Inevitable, these conflicts. From a Costa Rican (and Manual) perspective, we prefer the splitting option, because it retains the genera Hemichaena and Leucocarpus (accepted in the Manual), the only involved taxa occurring in our neck of the woods.

Øllgaard, B. 2020. Lycopodiaceae in Colombia: subfamilies Lycopodioideae and Lycopodielloideae. Phytotaxa 433: 195–224.

At least as recently as 1989 [in David B. Lellinger's The ferns and fern-allies of Costa Rica, Panama, and the Chocó (Part 1: Psilotaceae through Dicksoniaceae); Pteridologia 2A: 1–364], all the world's spp. (several hundred) of Lycopodiaceae were happily accommodated in a single genus, Lycopodium. Worked fine for us! But then the inevitable splitting mentality of pteridologists the world over began to creep in. The splinter genera Huperzia and Lycopodiella made their appearance in the 1995 Flora mesoamericana (Vol. 1) pteridophyte treatment, followed sometime later by the tongue-twisting pair Palhinhaea and Phlegmariurus [see, e.g., under "Øllgaard," this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(3), Jul. 2012]. Our confidence in the new classification crumbled with every new segregate, and now reaches rock bottom as we learn, from this otherwise largely irrelevant (to us) paper, of at least three additional ones—Austrolycopodium, Diphasiastrum, and Diphasium—that are each (conceivably with Pseudolycopodiella as well) represented by at least one sp. in Costa Rica! And if that were not bad enough, subfamilies have now been invoked to further magnify these taxonomic divides. Of course, we already knew the names of all these taxa from other sources [see, e.g., under "The Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group," this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(1), Jan. 2018], but had been able to glean very little about their compositions and distributions. Certainly there can be no compelling cladistic mandate for any of this, nor any cladistic barrier for a return to the halcyon days of a single genus. Well, at least we get a combined key to the subfamilies and genera (non-indented, according to the indefensible policy of this journal), as well as brief technical descriptions of the latter. And by the way: although this installment does not cover the third subfamily, Huperzioideae, we have it on good authority that the glory days of the genus Huperzia have come and gone: it is now completely out of the picture, at least for the Mesoamerican region. Hard to keep up with this stuff! For us, the outfall is this: of the 54 spp. of Lycopodiaceae treated in Flora mesoamericana, all but two—Lycopodiella alopecuroides (L.) Cranfill and Lycopodium clavatum L.—now sport different binomials. Nomenclatural stability, anyone?

Ormerod, P. 2019. Neotropical orchid miscellanea 2. Harvard Pap. Bot. 24: 275–278.

Two new sp. names, two new combinations, and five new synonymies are proposed in this self-described miscellany, but only one new synonymy is strictly germane to Costa Rican floristics. The casualty is the recently described [see the third entry under "Szlachetko," this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(2), Apr. 2017] Microchilus atwoodii Szlach. & Kolan., which (this author has decided) cannot be separated on any basis from M. nigrescens (Schltr.) Ormerod. Manual readers may recall that Microchilus was included in a broadly circumscribed Erythrodes for the (2003) Manual Orchidaceae treatment, wherein E. nigrescens (Schltr.) Ames was synonymized tentatively under E. killipii Ames. That is an impossibility (and an editorial oversight on our part), because the former name has priority. Order was restored by Ormerod some time ago [see The Cutting Edge 14(2): 9, Apr. 2007], so now Erythrodes killipii is subordinated (along with Microchilus atwoodii) to Microchilus nigrescens. It is also worth noting that the Manual concept of E. killipii included additional material now distinguished as Microchilus maasii Ormerod.

Pastore, J. F. B., J. R. Abbott, K. M. Neubig, C. Van den Berg, M. C. A. Mota, A. Cabral & W. M. Whitten. 2019. Phylogeny and biogeography of Polygala (Polygalaceae). Taxon 68: 673–691.

Our review of a prior paper by (some of) this group [see under "Pastore," this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(4), Oct. 2018] mentioned an "as yet unpublished" phylogenetic study showing "Polygala s.str." to be diphyletic along hemispheric lines. This, presumably, is that study. We still are not certain how, or if, it impacts Costa Rica floristics.

Perdiz, R. O., D. C. Daly, A. Vicentini & P. V. A. Fine. 2020. A new species of Protium (Burseraceae) from the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica. Phytotaxa 434: 183–191.

Although Protium santamariae Perdiz, Daly & P. Fine, the sp. described in this paper, is new to science, it is not really new to us, as it pertains to Costa Rican material hitherto (as in the Manual draft treatment of Burseraceae) referred to the largely South American P. aracouchini (Aubl.) Marchand. In fact, Manual Burseraceae author (and honoree of the new sp.) Daniel Santamaría had already gotten wind of this potential development and mentioned it briefly in his text. Whether the wholesale changeover can now be made, at this late stage of the game (our Vol. 4 files are already with the typesetter), remains to be seen. The good news is that we gain another Costa Rican endemic! The authors suggest that their new sp. is not even closely related to Protium aracouchini, and may be nearer to the South American P. krukoffii Swart. Protium santamariae is compared in a table and dichotomous key with three "morphologically similar" spp. (including both P. aracouchini and P. krukoffii) and provided with a distribution map and composite line drawing.

Pupulin, F. 2019. Zygopetalinae novae et criticae (Orchidaceae). Harvard Pap. Bot. 24: 291–339.

A new genus and eight new spp. are described in this paper, and several new combinations and synonyms are proposed. However, most of the action (including the new genus) pertains to South America (especially Ecuador). Just two of the new spp. occur (both endemically) in Costa Rica: Daiotyla rhodotyla Pupulin, documented from 800–900 m elevation on the Atlantic slope of the Cordillera de Tilarán and northern Cordillera de Talamanca; and Dichaea elvirae Pupulin (its epithet honoring the author's wife), from 1750–1800 m on the Pacific slope of the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca. The former sp. is segregated from Daiotyla albicans (Rolfe) Dressler, i.e., Chondrorhyncha albicans Rolfe of the 2003 Manual Orchidaceae treatment [some readers may recall that Chondrorhyncha was subsequently fragmented into several genera and, in the strict sense of its type, is no longer represented in Costa Rica; see The Cutting Edge 13(1): 13, Jan. 2006]. In fact, Bello 1995, the Manual voucher for C. albicans, is now a paratype of Daiotyla rhodotyla; however, the author confirms that D. albicans sensu stricto remains a member of the Costa Rican flora, occurring in the Cordillera Central and southward into western Panama. Dichaea elvirae presents a combination of characters (nonarticulate leaves and flowers with "a large, cushionlike callus that occupies all of the proximal portion of the lip") deemed "unique within the genus," and accordingly is not compared directly with any other sp. The only new combination relevant to Costa Rica is Dichaea eburnea (Dressler & Pupulin) Endrés ex Pupulin, which signifies a promotion for the taxon described not long ago as D. fragrantissima Folsom subsp. eburnea Dressler & Pupulin [see The Cutting Edge 14(1): 5, Jan. 2007]. Also in Dichaea, the alleged occurrence of D. eburnea in Nicaragua is rejected (on circumstantial evidence, it seems to us), while the otherwise Panamanian D. dressleri Folsom is reported for the first time from Costa Rica (at 800–850 m in the Valle de General). And finally: Kefersteinia alata Pupulin, described from western Panama, is also reported from Costa Rica for (supposedly) the first time [but see under "Bogarín," this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(2), Apr. 2012]. Dichotomous (though non-indented) keys are provided for all the spp. of Benzingia (another Chondrorhyncha segregate, though with only the former C. reichenbachiana Schltr. in Costa Rica) and for the Costa Rican spp. of Dichaea, and the paper is well endowed with distribution maps, excellent composite line drawings, and color photos (mostly of living material).

Seringer, A. 2019. Costa Rica – kleines Land, große Vielfalt/Costa Rica – small country, big diversity. Bromelie 2019: 100–107.

Armed only with a camera, a bromeliad fancier ventures into the hinterlands of untamed Costa Rica—the third time he has dared to do so. Plans to conquer Tapantí are thwarted by "rain and fog," but undaunted, the intrepid explorer is still able to penetrate as far as Orosi, Volcán Irazú, and San Isidro de El General. Features photos of numerous provisionally identified spp. (including "gray tillandsias" in San José). We are indeed fortunate that this erudite journal saw fit to devote space for a bilingual presentation of this gripping tale.

Skog, L. E., F. R. Barrie & J. L. Clark. 2020. A hitherto Chirita (Gesneriaceae) can now be identified as a Monopyle. Novon 28: 35–39.

According to these authors, the name Chirita lilacina Lem., the subject of their paper, "fell from use after 1883" and was only referenced one time thereafter, in the first (1895) edition of Index kewensis. However, that is not true, strictly speaking: the name was discussed in the Manual Gesneriaceae treatment (2010) by Ricardo Kriebel, wherein it was said to apply "correctamente a una sp. de Monopyle" and to perhaps represent "un nombre más viejo para una de las spp. tratadas aquí." To be fair, that quote was attributed (as "com. pers.") to J. K. Boggan who, although not a coauthor of this paper, is included on the resultant new combination Monopyle lilacina (Lem.) L. E. Skog, Barrie & Boggan. However, the sp. to which that name is here applied is not one of those that enters Costa Rica, as suggested in the Manual quote; rather, it is endemic to western Panama (Prov. Chiriquí and squeaking into Prov. Bocas del Toro along the Continental Divide). Workers on the Panamanian flora will be exasperated that this essentially new sp. (with an old name!) is not distinguished from its congeners in that country’s flora (the Flora of Panama Gesneriaceae treatment is not even cited). This will, presumably, all be clarified in the upcoming Flora mesoamericana account of Gesneriaceae(the preparation of which instigated this effort), as will the rather tentative application of sp. names in Monopyle for the Manual.

Tippery, N. P. & J. T. Sokolik. 2020. Phylogenetics and seed morphology of African Nymphoides (Menyanthaceae). Nordic J. Bot. 38(e02545): 1–10.

n his Manual account of Menyanthaceae (2007), our aquatic plants contributor Garrett Crow employed the name Nymphoides indica (L.) Kuntze for the single Costa Rican representative of the family, ascribing a pantropical distribution to same. Though widely embraced, such an inclusive taxon is not supported by the molecular evidence adduced by these authors, who accordingly resurrect the name Nymphoides humboldtiana (Kunth) Kuntze (synonymized by Garrett) for "plants in the Americas"—even though the latter "are nearly indistinguishable" morphologically from N. indica sensu stricto. Nymphoides indica in the sense of its type becomes restricted to Eurasia and Australia, while the new combination N. senegalensis (G. Don) Tippery is trotted out for the African contingent (which appears more closely related to the New World element than either is to N. indica sensu stricto). We'll see how this develops going forward.

Wood, J. R. I., P. Muñoz-Rodríguez, B. R. M. Williams & R. W. Scotland. 2020. A foundation monograph of Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) in the New World. PhytoKeys 143: 1–823.

So here it is, the second major “foundation monograph” for a genus of Convolvulaceae by this team, or at least, its nucleus [see under “Wood,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 22(3), Jul. 2015]. Naturally, we do not know or care what a “foundation monograph” may be, or how contributions like this are labeled by their authors. For us, the only important question is: does it function, on a local level, throughout its geographic scope? And by “function” we mean: does it provide a single name for every sp. recognized as distinct by local botanists familiar with the genus in the field? In the case of the present effort, we submit that the answer to that question is (with some minor qualifications) affirmative, at least for Costa Rica. This massive work treats an astounding 425 spp. of Ipomoea for the New World, here defined to include the Galápagos, Easter Island, and Hawaii. The previous Costa Rican generic total of 52 spp., as indicated in the Manual Convolvulaceae treatment (2010) by co-PI Barry Hammel (MO), is here augmented slightly to 55. The new figure is arrived at via the addition of four spp. and the deletion of one. Two of the additions are phylogenetic in nature, resulting from the recent merger (in obscure publications we have not seen) of the smallish genera Stictocardia and Turbina in Ipomoea; so get used to Ipomoea tiliifolia (Desr.) Roem. & Schult. and I. corymbosa (L.) Roth ex Roem. & Schult. (respectively) for the single Costa Rican representative of each of the two foundered genera. Also, Ipomoea abutiloides (Kunth) O’Donell will now serve for a sp. mentioned as expected in Costa Rica in the Manual discussion of Turbina. The two other additions to the Costa Rican Ipomoea contingent, as well as the sole deletion, are taxonomic, and all somewhat arguable. Ipomoea anisomeres B. L. Rob. & Bartlett and I. triloba L., both explicitly rejected from our flora in the Manual genus discussion of Ipomoea, are reinstated here, the former on the basis of a specimen previously determined (by both Hammel and late family specialist Daniel F. Austin) as I. piurensis O’Donell, the latter on the basis of the same specimen that was rejected [reassigned to I. batatas (L.) Lam.] in the Manual discussion! Deleted by these authors from the Costa Rican flora is Ipomoea suaveolens (M. Martens & Galeotti) Hemsl., with the contention that the Manual voucher for said sp. (the only known Costa Rican specimen) represents merely a white-flowered form of I. batatoides Choisy (Barry concedes the possibility, but remarks that, if it is true, the corolla shape of the latter sp. is “outrageously variable”!).

This new monograph is largely in agreement with the Manual with respect to the taxonomic concepts of the remaining (51) Ipomoea spp. in Costa Rica, although several name changes and other caveats bear mentioning. The following sp. names accepted in the Manual have here been replaced: Ipomoea asarifolia (Desr.) Roem. [according to these authors, misapplied in the Manual to the recently named (in a paper we never saw) I. paludicola J. R. I. Wood & Scotland (however, they are wrong about that: the Nicaraguan and Panaman specimens they cite for the real I. asarifolia, and their concept for that sp., are identical to the specimens they cite for I. paludicola from Costa Rica, and to the Manual concept of I. asarifolia!)]; I. calantha Griseb. [a synonym of I. jalapa (L.) Pursh]; I. ophiodes Standl. & Steyerm. (a synonym of I. regnellii Meisn.); I. piurensis [a synonym of I. acanthocarpa (Choisy) Asch. & Schweinf. (for which IPNI indicates a different authorship)]; I. variabilis (Schltdl. & Cham.) Choisy [misapplied in the Manual (and elsewhere) to I. mitchelliae Standl., but actually a synonym of I. batatas]; I. wrightii A. Gray (a synonym of I. heptaphylla Sweet); and I. sp. A (which, as we already knew, is correctly I. riparum Standl. & L. O. Williams [see under “Annotate Your Copy” in The Cutting Edge 19(3), Jul. 2012]). Also worth noting at sp. rank: Ipomoea chiriquensis Standl. is correctly so spelled (we somehow bungled it as “chiriquiensis” in the Manual); and I. leucantha Jacq. loses its hybrid sign (“×”), even though the authors cite a source suggesting that it is “polyphyletic.” Finally, there are also a few new developments at infraspecific ranks to report: Costa Rican populations of Ipomoea setosa Ker Gawl. and I. ternifolia Cav. should now be qualified as belonging to their respective autonymic subspp. (rather than var., in the case of the latter), while infraspecific recognition for the New World contingent of I. pes-caprae (L.) R. Br. [as subsp. brasiliensis (L.) Ooststr.] is retracted.

This monumental work features dichotomous (though, tragically, non-indented) keys (to spp. and infraspecific taxa), synonymy and typology, technical descriptions, and distribution summaries at all ranks, very selective specimen citations, notes (as needed), an extensive (15 pages!) section entitled “Excluded Species,” and an index to scientific names. One of the “excluded species” is Ipomoea amparoana Pilg., mentioned in the same vein in the Manual, the status of which is unchanged. The keys merit comment, as they are “provided in a somewhat unconventional way.” The user is first required to negotiate four “steps,” the first three of which pull out certain particularly distinctive taxa or groups, whle the fourth leads to four regional keys. Of the latter, Key B (“The North American Continent from Panama northwards”) is obviously the one of greatest interest to us. But still we are not home free: Key B is broken down into 10 “subkeys,” which can only be accessed by reading through the entire list of their descriptive summaries (which are, thankfully, rather basic). A bit of a challenge, to be sure, but then again, the authors were faced with an unenviable task. The sp. entries “are arranged non-alphabetically, “in a linear order, reflecting phylogenetic relationships” (as if such a thing were possible). Four spp. (none in Costa Rica) are given provisional names (spp. A–D). The lengthy and well-illustrated introductory part addresses history (of taxonomy and discovery), infrageneric classification (though none is formally adopted), taxonomic concepts, molecular phylogeny, geographic distribution, endemism, ecology, phenology, anthesis, economic uses, and morphological characters. Six spp. and two subspp. are described as new, one var. is promoted to sp. rank, and several vars. are converted to subspp., though none of this impacts any Costa Rican taxa (except indirectly, in the cases of Ipomoea setosa and I. ternifolia, mentioned previously); plus, 272 names are lectotypified (guaranteeing days of diversion for some poor data-entry person). Many spp. are illustrated (with color plates from life or line drawings), or provided with references to previously published illustrations.



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

Technical Support