Main | Family List (MO) | Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge Draft Treatments | Guidelines | Checklist | Citing | Editors The Cutting Edge Volume XXI, Number 1, January 2014 News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature | Season's Pick | Annotate your copy Bogarín, D., F. Pupulin, C. Arrocha & J. Warner. 2013. Orchids without borders: studying the hotspot of Costa Rica and Panama. Lankesteriana 13: 13–26. This paper presents brief summaries of geography, geology, climate and vegetation, origin and distribution of orchid floras, and history of orchid research for Costa Rica and Panama, together with an assessment of the current status of research in the two countries. The “hotspot” claim is supported by two bar graphs (their captions apparently reversed!), showing Costa Rica and Panama in the middle of the pack (compared with various other Mesoamerican and Andean countries) in terms of total number of orchid spp., but first and third (respectively) in spp./km2 (El Salvador, surprisingly, is second). Costa Rica and Panama are contrasted with regard to the vitality of their recent orchid research programs, and the authors announce a new cooperative effort involving JBL, USJ, and UCH (the Universidad Autónoma de Chiriquí, Panama). The paper chosen here for review is one of many included in an issue of Lankesteriana, edited by Alec M. Pridgeon (K), dedicated to the Proceedings of the Fourth Scientific Conference on Andean Orchids, held in Guayaquil, Ecuador, from 31 October–4 November, 2012. A few of the other papers may be of interest to some of our readers, and several of the abstracted posters are especially intriguing; however, as according to our usual policy with abstracts and theses, we will await formal publication before weighing in. Cáceres González, D. A., K. Schulte, M. Schmidt & G. Zizka. 2013. Diversity and levels of endemism of the Bromeliaceae of Costa Rica – an updated checklist. PhytoKeys 29: 17–62. This contribution follows hot on the heels of a Bromeliaceae checklist for Panama by the same authors [see under “Cáceres González,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(2), Apr. 2012]. Our review of that paper listed 10 spp. that had been indicated as Costa Rican endemics in the Manual Bromeliaceae treatment (2003) by Francisco Morales but which, according to recent collections in Panama, could no longer be counted as such. However, our apparently hasty evaluation could not account for an eleventh lost endemic implied by the authors’ arithmetic. This new checklist permits us to do so, in an indirect fashion, by adding four lost Costa Rican endemics to the aforementioned list and factoring in three new endemics. The additional lost endemics are Werauhia bicolor (L. B. Sm.) J. R. Grant, W. brunei (Mez & Wercklé) J. R. Grant, W. camptoclada (Mez & Wercklé) J. F. Morales, and W. singuliflora (Mez & Wercklé) J. R. Grant, all now known from Panama. Our putative new endemics are: Catopsis werckleana Mez, synonymized under C. nutans (Sw.) Griseb. by Chico but accepted as distinct by these authors; and Guzmania condensata Mez & Wercklé and Werauhia moralesii H. Luther, which evidently do not occur in Colombia or Panama (respectively), as indicated in the Manual. Aechmea penduliflora André, ascribed to Costa Rica in the Manual on the basis of a record later disavowed by Chico [see the first entry under “Morales,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 16(4), Oct. 2009], is here reinstated as a member of the flora with the citation of five historical collections, in disparate herbaria not routinely consulted by Manual contributors. All told, the authors claim to have added five spp. to the Manual total and excluded two others, for a net gain of three (198, vs. 195). However, Tillandsia rhomboidea André, one of the putative additions, is neutralized by T. acostae Mez & Tonduz, one of the putative exclusions, this being a simple case of new synonymy. Two of the other additions, Tillandsia guatemalensis L. B. Sm. and T. streptophylla Scheidw. ex C. Morren, were previously reported in these pages [see The Cutting Edge 10(4): 2–3, Oct. 2003, and 12(1): 3, Jan. 2005, respectively] while a third, Werauhia anitana J. F. Morales, is spurious, as that name (unbeknownst to these authors) applies to the sp. treated as “Werauhia cooperiana J. F. Morales” (a name that was never validated) in the Manual [see The Cutting Edge 12(3): 7, Jul. 2005]. Finally, the second excluded sp., Guzmania mitis L. B. Sm., has already been acknowledged by Chico [see the first entry under “Morales,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 16(4), Oct. 2009]. In summary, the only real news here for us (apart from numerous range extensions into Panama) is the (re)addition of Aechmea penduliflora to the flora, the resurrection of Catopsis werckleana from synonymy under C. nutans (with both spp. attributable to Costa Rica), and the synonymization of Tillandsia acostae under T. rhomboidea. The main body of this paper is the checklist (“Appendix”) itself, organized alphabetically by scientific name, with each sp. entry comprising a bibliographic reference to the protologue, a distribution summary, representative specimen citations, an indication of life form, and (rarely) a “note.” Limited analyses of the Costa Rican bromeliad flora are ventured in the introductory pages, where it is revealed (among other things) that 62.6% of our spp. are epiphytes, 22% are endemic, and 18.2% “have a shared endemism with Panama.” Cetzal-Ix, W., G. Carnevali, E. Noguera-Savelli & D. Jauregui. 2013. Morphological and anatomical characterization of a new natural hybrid between Cohniella ascendens and C. brachyphylla (Oncidiinae: Orchidaceae). Phytotaxa 144: 45–55. The new ostensible hybrid, Cohniella ×francoi Cetzal & Carnevali, is named for the collector of the type (and only known specimen), Franco Pupulin (JBL), who found it “near Santa Rosa National Park.” The putative parentage indicated in the title is posited on the basis of intermediacy, in both morphological and anatomical characters, between C. ascendens (Lindl.) Christenson and C. brachyphylla (Lindl.) Cetzal & Carnevali. All three entities are well characterized in these respects with data (in tabularized form) and illustrations. Both alleged parent spp. are said to be present in “the general Guanacaste area,” but checking the cited source we can confirm that statement only for C. brachyphylla (and no collections of either sp. are cited from Parque Nacional Santa Rosa per se). In addition to the illustrations (including composite line drawings and a color photo of flowers), a distribution map is provided for all three entities. ——, ——, —— & G. A. Romero-González. 2013. What is Cohniella cebolleta? Recircumscription and new and reinstated species and combinations (Orchidaceae). Syst. Bot. 38: 606–623. We cite this paper mainly for its key (dichotomous and indented) to “the complexes in Cohniella,” of which there are five, although just two are (we think) represented in Costa Rica. These latter are the complexes centered on Cohniella ascendens (Lindl.) Christenson [see, e.g., under Cetzal Ix et al., this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(1), Jan. 2011] and C. brachyphylla (Lindl.) Cetzal & Carnevali [see, e.g., under “Carnevali Fernández-Concha” et al., this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(4), Oct. 2010]. The “Cohniella cebolleta complex” itself does not occur in Costa Rica, notwithstanding the use of the name Oncidium cebolleta (Jacq.) Sw. in the Manual [Cohniella cebolleta (Jacq.) Christenson is here restricted to northern Colombia and Venezuela]; hence, the bulk of this contribution (a rigorous revision of the C. cebolleta complex) is irrelevant to us. Christenhusz, M. J. M., M. Jones & S. Lehtonen. 2013. Phylogenetic placement of the enigmatic fern genus Dracoglossum. Amer. Fern J. 103: 131–138. The genus Dracoglossum Christenh. [see The Cutting Edge 15(2): 5, Apr. 2008], harboring the familiar sp. we first learned as Tectaria plantaginea (Jacq.) Maxon, was created partly on the basis of molecular data that were then unpublished. Later, Dracoglossum was provisionally classed in the family Dryopteridaceae [see the first entry under “Christenhusz,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(3), Jul. 2012], ostensibly on the basis of additional molecular evidence. However, the results of the present paper, “based on a broad sampling of eupolypod ferns and four plastid genes,…provide strong support to suggest that Dracoglossum…is sister to Lomariopsis Fée, and…should therefore be placed in Lomariopsidaceae.” Fine by us. Christenson, E. A. 2013. Maxillaria; an unfinished monograph. Vols. 1 & 2 (ed. P. A. Harding, M. McIllmurray & M. Blanco). Patricia A. Harding, Lebanon, OR. 936 pp. According to introductory remarks by our friend Mario Blanco (USJ), a co-editor of this work, the late orchidologist Eric A. Christenson had begun to work on a monograph of Maxillaria (in the traditional, broad sense) only “a few years before his death,” which came prematurely in 2011 [see under “News and Notes” in The Cutting Edge 18(2), Apr. 2011]. If that is literally the case, then an astonishing amount of work was accomplished during those few years. This opulent, two-volume publication, initiated and funded by Eric’s older brother Robert C. Christenson and lovingly compiled by his close friends and colleagues, assembles all of that work in a pleasing and accessible manner, and will serve as an admirable monument. Mario rather charitably (in the remarks referenced above) characterizes this as “more correctly a taxonomic revision,” as opposed to a monograph; however, we would describe the final manifestation as more of a semipopular, illustrated catalogue (which seems appropriate as it was apparently intended for Timber Press). There are no keys or specimen citations to speak of, features that we would deem critical to a revision, although it is possible that these were envisioned for the finished product. The main body of the work consists of one- or two-page sp. entries, ordered alphabetically (A–L in Vol. 1, M–Z in Vo1. 2). These entries typically include bibliography and typology, synonymy, a formal description and distribution summary, etymology, references to illustrations, a discussion of variable length, and one or more illustrations (often color photos of living material). However, numerous names are with little or no information. Throughout, editorial comments are rendered conveniently in blue type; these comments were kept to a mininum, so most of the words are Eric’s. Figures captions, in gray type (scarcely distinguishable from the default black), often (though by no means always) use sp. names according to the more finely divided generic classification co-sponsored by Mario [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 15(2): 3–4, Apr. 2008]. A relatively brief introductory section touches on the usual topics, including taxonomic history, morphology, and taxonomy. Under the last heading may be found a list of generic synonyms and brief characterizations (including lists of representative spp.) of 20 sections recognized (at a particular point of time) by the author. The alphabetical sequence of spp. is interrupted rather disconcertingly, at the beginning of Vol. 2, by a chaotic hodge-podge of materials, including fragments of papers that were intended for publication (and in some cases were indeed published) and a rambling (albeit engaging) discourse on “Taxonomy Jargon.” Two new sectional names in Maxillaria are (inadvertently?) validated in this section, and a third is published invalidly (by virtue of lacking a description). Elsewhere, at least three new sp. names and five new combinations (one at forma rank) are validated, though none of these pertains to Costa Rica. As far as we can tell, these are the only new names published in this work (numerous others indicated as “sect. nov.” or “sp. nov.” were already published elsewhere). An index to scientific names is provided at the end of Vol. 2. Although it will take a good long while for us to digest all the new information in these two thick volumes, there do not appear to be many substantive changes affecting the Manual Maxillaria treatment by John T. Atwood (2003) that have not been published elsewhere in the intervening years. Our cursory perusal revealed the following: the name Maxillaria ampliflora C. Schweinf., accepted in the Manual, has been reduced to synonymy under M. carinulata Rchb. f., though with negligible consquences for its overall distribution; Maxillaria admonens I. Bock is synonymized under M. bracteata (Schltr.) Ames & Correll, rather than M. gomeziana J. T. Atwood as in the Manual; the names Maxillaria planicola C. Schweinf. and M. ponerantha Rchb. f. are said to have been misapplied to Costa Rican material by Atwood, e.g., in the Manual (the correct names for our material are not revealed by the author, though an editorial note on p. 686 suggests that “the Costa Rican ‘M. ponerantha’” may represent the otherwise Jamaican Maxillaria swartziana C. D. Adams); Maxillaria patens Schltr. and M. proboscidea Rchb. f., both traditionally confined to South America, are newly attributed to Costa Rica, for reasons that we cannot ascertain; and based on similarly inscrutable evidence, Maxillaria campanulata C. Schweinf., which had been considered a Costa Rican endemic, is attributed also to Colombia. On a more confusing note, Maxillaria punctostriata Rchb. f., accorded a separate entry as an accepted sp. in Vol. 2, is synonymized in Vol. 1 under M. hematoglossa A. Rich. & Galeotti (both names having been listed in the Manual as synonyms of Maxillaria cucullata Lindl., here tentatively restricted to Mexican material). Happily, that is the only relatively major editorial error that we stumbled upon. By the way, we could find no indications that the author of this work actually saw or consulted the Manual treatment, and it is not cited in his bibliography (which does include many more recent publications). Duncan, T. M. & M. D. Rausher. 2013. Morphological and genetic differentiation and reproductive isolation among closely related taxa in the Ipomoea series Batatas. Amer. J. Bot. 100: 2183–2193. The results of this study seem inconclusive to us, though they evidently “call…into question” the alleged hybrid origin of Ipomoea ×leucantha Jacq. (Convolvulaceae), an entity that has been attributed to Costa Rica. More significantly, our perusal of this paper has revealed an apparent error or oversight in the Manual Convolvulaceae treatment by co-PI Barry Hammel (MO), in which the putative parental spp. of I. ×leucantha were specified as I. lacunosa L. and I. trichocarpa Elliott: it would seem that the last-mentioned name has lately come to be regarded as a synonym of Ipomoea cordatotriloba Dennst. Ervin, G. N. 2012. Indian fig cactus (Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Miller) in the Americas: an uncertain history. Haseltonia 17: 70–81. Opuntia ficus-indica is cultivated worldwide (including in Costa Rica), often for its edible pads and fruits or as a host plant for the insects that yield cochineal dye, and has sometimes escaped and become invasive. Although its New World origins have never been questioned, there has apparently been some difference of opinion as to whether O. ficus-indica is native to Mexico or South America—specifically, Argentina, where it is extensively cultivated and feral as well. “The single most important conclusion” of this paper (which reviews molecular as well as historical data) is that O. ficus-indica “appears not to be a native species of South America,” and “with some certainty…originated in present-day Mexico.” Illustrated with numerous color photos taken in the field. Govaerts, R. 2013. Hellenia Retz., the correct name for Cheilocostus C. D. Specht (Costaceae). Phytotaxa 151: 63–64. Our readers may recall that a recent, molecular-based generic reclassification of Costaceae [see The Cutting Edge 13(3): 13–14, Jul. 2006] required that the Asian Costus speciosus (J. Koenig) Sm., naturalized in Costa Rica, be renamed as Cheilocostus speciosus (J. Koenig) C. D. Specht. The genus name Cheilocostus C. D. Specht (2006) was intended as a replacement name for Banksea J. Koenig (1783), judged confusable with Banksia J. R. Forst. & G. Forst. (1775); however, it turns out that an equivalent replacement name, Hellenia Retz. (1791), had been available for more than two centuries. Hellenia is thus reinstated in this paper and the implicit new combinations at sp. rank are validated, including H. speciosa (J. Koenig) Govaerts for our guy. Grusz, A. L. & M. D. Windham. 2013. Toward a monophyletic Cheilanthes: the resurrection and recircumscription of Myriopteris (Pteridaceae). PhytoKeys 32: 49–64. Building upon the results of a previous molecular study that we had overlooked, the authors remove 44 spp. that have generally (e.g., in Flora mesoamericana Vol. 1) been included in Cheilanthes to a new segregate, under the name Myriopteris Fée. It is the classic lumping vs. splitting debacle, and these authors are opting to split. The problem with including Myriopteris in Cheilanthes is twofold: first, it would require the concomitant lumping of several well-known genera (Adiantopsis, Doryopteris, Hemionitis, Notholaena, and Pellaea), as well as a few newbies that would not be missed, at least by us (Argyrochosma, Astrolepis, and Gaga). And second, the name Hemionitis has priority over Cheilanthes, which would necessitate at least 100 (if conservation were invoked) to more than 400 (if it were not) new combinations. An intermediate option, to include Myriopteris in Pellaea, is rejected on less convincing grounds (morphological distinctiveness and the consequent subsumption of Argyrochosma and Astrolepis, entailing extra new combinations). Having said all of that, the decision to accept Myriopteris has consequences for four spp. occurring (or alleged to occur) in Costa Rica: the former Cheilanthes bonariensis (Willd.) Proctor, C. eatonii Baker, C. lendigera (Cav.) Sw., and C. notholaenoides (Desv.) Maxon ex Weath. (those being the names that were used in Flora mesoamericana). The combination Myriopteris lendigera (Cav.) Fée was already available, and a new combination in Myriopteris for Cheilanthes notholaenoides is validated in the names of these authors. The other two situations are more complicated. The name Cheilanthes bonariensis had to be used because the epithet of the oldest applicable name, Pteris aurea Poir., was blocked in Cheilanthes; however, it is available in Myriopteris, and becomes the basis of the new combination validated by the authors. This should be easily remembered, because the sp. was formerly well known as Notholaena aurea (Poir.) Desv. in Central America. In the case of Cheilanthes eatonii, the authors believe that the prior Myriopteris rufa Fée “very likely represents the same species,” and are tentatively promoting it as the accepted name. Hammel, B. E., M. H. Grayum & R. Aguilar. 2014. Tapirira lepidota (Anacardiaceae), a unique new species from the Golfo Dulce region of Costa Rica. Phytoneuron 2014-10: 1–5. We have known of this novelty for quite some time, but have just now gotten around to formally describing it as we edit the Manual Anacardiaceae treatment. The unique aspect of Tapirira lepidota Aguilar & Hammel, implied by its epithet, is an indument of small, peltate scales evident on virtually all parts of the plant. Although peltate scales have not been reported in the genus Tapirira, a very similar indument can be seen in a few other Anacardiaceae, e.g., Campnosperma panamense Standl. The new sp. is compared with the widespread (and locally sympatric) Tapirira guianensis Aubl., from which it differs additionally by its smaller stature and larger fruits that are green (rather than purple) at maturity. Though largely confined to the Golfo Dulce lowlands (below 350 m), T. lepidota has also been found at 1022 m elevation in the Coto Brus region (very near the Panamanian border). Illustrated with color photos and a few line drawings. Kuijt, J. & T. A. Zanoni. 2013. Lectotypification of Oryctanthus occidentalis (L.) Eichler (Loranthaceae). Phytologia 95: 248–249. The deed is done, with Loranthus occidentalis L. (the basionym of Oryctanthus occidentalis) lectotypified in a manner consistent with prevailing usage. The only problem is, it had already been done, three years ago, in the exact same manner [see under “Dorr,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(1), Jan. 2011]. As rectified in both pulbications (we missed this in our review of the first paper), the protologue of L. occidentalis is correctly cited as “Syst. nat. ed. 10 988. 1759,” not “Amoen. acad. 5: 396. 1760,” as the Manual Loranthaceae treatment had it. Levin, G. E. 2013. A synopsis of the New World species of Drypetes section Drypetes (Putranjivaceae) with asymmetrical fruits, including description of a new species. PhytoKeys 29: 75–87. The informal alliance circumscribed in the title of this paper comprises three spp., of which only the new one occurs in Costa Rica. That would be the endemic Drypetes asymmetricarpa G. A. Levin, characterized by its “strongly asymmetrical drupes, which are unique among Central American Drypetes,” and have longer pedicels than those of the other two spp. in the group (though only immature fruits of D. asymmetricarpa are known). The new sp. occurs at low elevations (0–750 m), with collections cited from both the Atlantic (Cordillera de Guanacaste) and Pacific (Cordillera de Tilarán; vicinity of Puerto Quepos) slopes. This entity is not really new to us, and in fact was accounted for twice in the Manual Euphorbiaceae treatment (2010) by José González (LSCR): as Drypetes sp. 1 and D. sp. 2, the voucher for each of which is a paratype of D. asymmetricarpa (though the holotype of the last-mentioned name corresponds to D. sp. 2). The author acknowledges this historical usage, but does not directly address the variation upon which José’s provisional spp. were erected. We wonder whether the jury may still be out on this issue, as relatively few collections are involved and both pistillate flowers and mature fruits remain unknown. The author also cites as paratypes two specimens (Bello et al. 35 and 58) previously referred by himself (and presumably the Manual) to Drypetes lateriflora (Sw.) Krug & Urb. (though neither is the Manual voucher for that sp.). A key is provided to the three spp. (and two vars.) treated in this work, as well as an index to exsiccatae. The new sp. is depicted in an excellent composite line drawing. [Lodé, J.] 2013. New combinations. Cact.-Avent. Int. 100: 29–31. Several miscellaneous new combinations are ventured “for taxonomical reasons” by the editor of this hobbyist journal. Only one of these would apply to us: apparently responding to the tentative conclusion of another worker [see The Cutting Edge 15(4): 4, Oct. 2008], the author proposes to demote Mammillaria ruestii Quehl (recently discovered in Costa Rica) to subsp. rank under M. columbiana Salm-Dyck. However, his combination is invalid, as it omits mention of the intended basionym. Morales, J. F. 2013. Sinopsis del género Meliosma (Sabiaceae) en México y Centroamérica. Phytoneuron 2013-82: 1–86. This may be the final word from Francisco Morales (UBT) on the family Sabiaceae, one of his many secondary specialties. Chico will be contributing Sabiaceae treatments to both the Manual and Flora mesoamericana, and had previously published an account of the Costa Rican and Panamanian spp. [see The Cutting Edge 10(3): 7–8, Jul. 2003]. The present contribution must closely embody his Flora mesoamericana treatment, embellished with comprehensive specimen citations, an index to exsiccatae, and many illustrations. Furthermore, three Mexican spp. not recorded from within the Flora mesoamericana project limits are included. The major new development for us is the validation of the name Meliosma sancta J. F. Morales, A. Estrada & Cascante for a Costa Rican endemic sp. known by just two collections. These both hail from the Cordillera de Talamanca (sensu lato), at 650–1200 m elevation, though one is from the Caribbean slope and the other from the Pacific. The new sp. is compared especially with Meliosma brenesii Standl., from which it differs by its longer petioles, inflorescences, and sepals. Meliosma sancta was already included in Chico’s Manual draft treatment, albeit under a provisional name. In addition to the features already mentioned, this modestly self-described “sinopsis” boasts a dichotomous, indented key to spp. (30 are accepted in the study region) and, for each sp., synonymy and typology, a generous technical description, a distribution summary, common names, and a discussion of variable length. The sp. entries are ordered alphabetically. There is no genus description, nor is there an index to scientific names (only to common names). At least one illustration (generally a composite line drawing) is provided for each sp. ——. 2013. Forchhammeria iltisii (Resedaceae), una nueva especie del bosque seco de Costa Rica. Phytoneuron 2013-85: 1–7. The Costa Rican material here distinguished as Forchhammeria iltisii J. F. Morales was for many years shoehorned into the otherwise Mexican F. pallida Liebm., from which it differs by its subterete (vs. subangulate) stems and longer petioles, both sparsely papillate (vs. glabrous), and greenish yellow to yellowish orange mature fruits (vs. deep red to purple). Only during the past decade did the notion of two separate spp. emerge, spearheaded by longtime Capparaceae specialist Hugh H. Iltis (WIS), to whom the new sp. is dedicated. All known records of F. iltisii are from the northwestern quadrant of Costa Rica: on the shores of the Golfo de Papagayo, in the basin of the Río Tempisque, and on islands in the Golfo de Nicoya. The new sp. is here referred to Resedaceae, as according to suggestions in the recent literature [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 11(4): 7, Oct. 2004]. However, the final disposition of Forchhammeria has not yet been settled, and it will be treated in the traditional manner—under Capparaceae—in the Manual. Features a distribution map and color photos of the holotype specimen and living material. Pool, A. 2013. New species, combinations, and lectotypifications in Neotropical and northern Mexican Frangula (Rhamnaceae). Novon 22: 447–467. This comes in just under the wire for our impending Vol. 7. Actually, nothing is new here for us, as we were privileged to have access to a draft manuscript of this article while working in consultation with author Amy Pool (MO) as she progressed on her Flora mesoamericana treatment of Rhamnaceae. We were thereby able to incorporate all of her taxonomic conclusions in the Manual treatment, albeit using provisional names in some cases. But it is certainly good to now be able to use validly published names instead! Frangula is the genus name that will be used in both Flora mesoamericana and the Manual for most of the neotropical spp. (and all the Costa Rican ones) formerly included in Rhamnus, from which they are being segregated (or resegregated) based on molecular evidence [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 11(4): 5–6, Oct. 2004]. The two resulting genera are compared, with respect to 11 morphological characters, in a table. Three of the new combinations validated in this paper pertain directly or indirectly to taxa occurring in Costa Rica: Frangula capreifolia (Schltdl.) Grubov var. grandifolia (M. C. Johnst. & L. A. Johnst.) A. Pool, F. discolor (Donn. Sm.) Grubov. var. mesoamericana (L. A. Johnst. & M. C. Johnst.) A. Pool (which establishes the autonymic var. for Costa Rican material), and F. oreodendron (L. O. Williams) A. Pool. The author’s keen eye has also discriminated four spp. new to science, including two represented in Costa Rica: the endemic Frangula circumscissa A. Pool (1300–2000 m; vert. Carib. y cerca de la División Continental, Cords. de Tilarán y Central, N Cord. de Talamanca) and Frangula pendula A. Pool [(600–)1100–2300 m; ambas verts. Cord. Central, Cerros de La Carpintera, Valle Central, vert. Pac. y cerca de la División Continental, Cords. de Guanacaste (Volcán Rincón de La Vieja), de Tilarán y de Talamanca, Tablazo, Cerros de Escazú, Cerro Caraigres], which extends into western Panama. The former has been confused with F. oreodendron, while the latter had been subsumed within Rhamnus sphaerosperma (Sw.) Kartesz & Gandhi (as Rhamnus sphaerosperma Sw.), now restricted to the Greater Antilles. The appropriate comparisons are duly effected. All of the new spp. are depicted using scanned images of herbarium specimens. Rodrigues, A., S. Shaya, T. A. Dickinson & S. Stefanović. 2013. Morphometric analyses and taxonomic revision of the North American holoparasitic genus Conopholis (Orobanchaceae). Syst. Bot. 38: 795–804. A previous molecular study involving two of the authors of this paper [see under “Rodrigues” et al., this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(3), Jul. 2011] presaged the taxonomic changes that are here implemented formally: three spp. of Conopholis are now accepted, rather than two as according to the last revision of the genus (the conclusions of which were adopted for the Manual Orobanchaceae treatment by Francisco Morales). Costa Rican and Panamanian material that had been included in Conopholis alpina Liebm. var. alpina achieves sp. status under the name C. panamensis Woodson, whereas material from northern Mesoamerica that had been referred to the same var. is subsumed within the otherwise North American Conopholis americana (L.) Wallr. Features synonymy, typology, and brief technical descriptions for the genus and all three spp., a dichotomous, indented key to spp., and distribution summaries. Apart from types, no specimens are cited. The introductory section briefly reviews distribution, morphology, and taxonomic history, with more space devoted to the “fine-scale morphometric study” trumpeted in the title. Salmaki, Y., S. Zarre, O. Ryding, C. Lindqvist, C. Bräuchler, G. Heubl, J. Barber & M. Bendiksby. 2013. Molecular phylogeny of tribe Stachydeae (Lamiaceae subfamily Lamioideae). Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 69: 535–551. As already intimated by previous studies involving some of these same authors [see, e.g., under “Scheen,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(4), Oct. 2010], the large, cosmopolitan genus Stachys (with ca. 275 spp.) is paraphyletic with respect to 10 of the other 11 genera presently included in Lamiaceae tribe Stachydeae (with a total of ca. 470 spp.). Most of the nested genera are mono- or oligotypic, but the Old World Sideritis comprises ca. 125 spp. The authors “have not devised a satisfactory way to transform the taxonomy of Stachydeae into a more ‘natural’ classification at this point,” agonizing over the usual alternatives of lumping (to create an all-inclusive Stachys, requiring about 194 new combinations as well as numerous nomina nova) or splitting (which would require the description of “several” new genera, in conjunction with “more in-depth morphological and molecular investigations”). As none of the five spp. of Stachys occurring in Costa Rica was represented in the study, we are unable to speculate on their potential fate (though it seems unlikely that any would group with S. sylvatica L., the Eurasian type sp.). Seigler, D. S. & J. E. Ebinger. 2013. Hybridization between Vachellia collinsii and V. pennatula (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) in the New World tropics. Phytologia 95: 296–301. The indicated hybrid, named Vachellia ×ziggyi Seigler & Ebinger after some kind of cartoon character, is intermediate in various morphological aspects between its two putative parents and has been recorded so far from southern Mexico (Chiapas), Guatemala, and Nicaragua. We mention it here because Vachellia pennatula (Schltdl. & Cham.) Seigler & Ebinger has recently turned up in Costa Rica [see under “Leaps and Bounds” in The Cutting Edge 17(4), Oct. 2010], within the range of V. collinsii (Saff.) Seigler & Ebinger; so anything is possible! The new hybrid is illustrated with a composite line drawing. Spooner, D., P. Rojas, M. Bonierbale, L. A. Mueller, M. Srivastav, D. Senalik & P. Simon. 2013. Molecular phylogeny of Daucus (Apiaceae). Syst. Bot. 38: 850–857. The mono- or dispecific Euro-Mediterranean genera Margotia (inconsistently misspelled here as “Margottia”) and Pseudorlaya are nested within Daucus, as is another such genus, Turgenia, in one of the analyses. The authors betray little interest in the potential classificatory consequences of this situation, which could result (as usual) in either the lumping of the nested genera or a finer subdivision of Daucus. The latter option could affect Daucus montanus Humb. & Bonpl. ex Spreng., the only indigenous member of its genus recorded from Costa Rica; however, as that sp. was not included in the study, its relationship to the generic type, D. carota L. (Carrot, Queen Anne’s lace), is unclear. Urdampilleta, J. D., J. P. Coulleri, M. S. Ferrucci & E. R. Forni-Martins. 2013. Karyotype evolution and phylogenetic analyses in the genus Cardiospermum L. (Paullinieae, Sapindaceae). Pl. Biol. (Stuttgart) 15: 868–881. This study is of no particular interest to us, as to the results, but it does alert us belatedly to the existence of the third author’s unpublished Ph.D. thesis (2000, Univ. Nac. Córdoba, Argentina), comprising a taxonomic revision of the genera Cardiospermum (for the Neotropics) and Urvillea. All that we are able to glean from this paper is that Cardiospermum totals 16 spp. fide Ferrucci (vs. 15, according the the Manual Sapindaceae draft treatment by Francisco Morales), with Cardiospermum corindum L and C. halicacabum L. var. microcarpum (Kunth) Blume recognized as distinct entities. Both of the last mentioned names are synonymized under C. halicacabum by Chico, and the cladograms in this paper could be interpreted as condoning either viewpoint. Vasco, A., J. T. Mickel & R. C. Moran. 2013. Taxonomic revision of the Neotropical species of Elaphoglossum sect. Squamipedia (Dryopteridaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 99: 244–286. This revision accepts 16 neotropical spp. (one with three forms) of Elaphoglossum sect. Squamipedia Mickel & Atehortúa, which taxon may or may not include two (or more?) Old World spp. (the existence of Old World members is implied throughout the paper, beginning with the title, but nowhere made clear). The section, most diverse in the Andes, is characterized (borrowing liberally from the Abstract) by “long-creeping, green rhizomes; thin, translucent, light orange or brown rhizome scales; distichous leaves; paired peglike aerophores on each side of the rhizome slightly proximal to the petiole bases; a lack of phyllopodia; leaves that are typically <15 cm long; and echinulate spores.” It is also noteworthy in that four of its spp. have dissected laminae, unusual in an immense genus characterized almost uniformly by simple and entire laminae. The authors attribute four spp. of sect. Squamipedia to Costa Rica, including E. peltatum (Sw.) Urb. and all three of its formas, as well as E. lloense (Hook.) T. Moore, E. minutum (Pohl ex Fee) T. Moore, and E. squamipes (Hook.) T. Moore. The most significant departure from the second author’s Flora mesoamericana treatment (1995) is the abandonment of the genus name Peltapteris, which had included Elaphoglossum peltatum, morphologically distinctive by virtue of its (generally) dissected sterile laminae, but shown by molecular studies [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 12(2): 15, Apr. 2005] to be nested within Elaphoglossum. Furthermore, the name Peltapteris peltata (Sw.) C. V. Morton f. potentillifolia (Christ) C. F. Reed, accepted in Flora mesoamericana for a taxon attributed to Costa Rica, is now synonymized under Elaphoglossum peltatum f. flabellatum (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) Mickel. The only other surprise for us is the use of the name Elaphoglossum lloense to include Mesoamerican material previously subsumed under E. teleglottis Mickel, here consigned to synonymy (although the Flora mesoamericana Costa Rican voucher for E. teleglottis has since been redetermined as E. lenticulatum A. Rojas, an unrelated sp.). Features synonymy and typology, formal descriptions, and distribution summaries at all ranks, a dichotomous and indented key to spp. and forms, extensive (though not comprehensive) specimen citations, distribution maps, a section on “Excluded species,” indices to scientific names and exsiccatae, and an enumeration of taxa by country. The brief introductory portion addresses taxonomic history, morphology, and phylogeny. Three new spp. are described and one varietal name is lectotypified, none of this being of particular relevance to us. All of the spp. (and forms) are depicted in composite line drawings and/or photocopies of herbarium specimens. Wilmot-Dear, C. M. & I. Friis. 2013. The Old World species of Boehmeria (Urticaceae, tribus Boehmerieae). A taxonomic revision. Blumea 58: 85–216. This sequel to a revision of the New World Boehmeria spp. by the same authors [see The Cutting Edge 4(2): 8, Apr. 1997] is of limited interest to us, since no indigenous sp. in the genus is common to the two regions. We cite it only because the Old World sp. Boehmeria nivea (L.) Gaudich. has been introduced in Costa Rica; even so, that sp. was also included in the previous installment. Workers on neotropical floristics may thus be excused for taking a pass on this, though it appears to be more rigorously executed than its New World counterpart. Wu, Z.-Y., A. K. Monro, R. I. Milne, H. Wang, T.-S. Yi, J. Liu & D.-Z. Li. 2013. Molecular phylogeny of the nettle family (Urticaceae) inferred from multiple loci of three genomes and extensive generic sampling. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 69: 814–827. It seems that Cecropiaceae is not only nested within Urticaceae, but biphyletic as well; thus, their treatment as a single family (under the latter name) in the upcoming Manual account is vindicated. On the other hand, Boehmeria, Myriocarpa, Parietaria, Pouzolzia, and Urera appear polyphyletic, and (taking the authors’ cladogram at face value) each might need to be divided into as many as four smaller genera for monophyly to be achieved. In most cases, the type sp. and/or spp. occurring in Costa Rica were not examined, precluding speculation as to potential ramifications for us; however, in the case of Urera, one might venture that U. caracasana (Jacq.) Gaudich. ex Griseb. and U. lianoides A. K. Monro & Al. Rodr., at least, could wind up in a different genus from U. baccifera (L.) Gaudich. ex Wedd. (the type sp.). Finally, both Pilea and Urtica are paraphyletic, each with respect to a single, very small genus that could easily be absorbed with no major nomenclatural disruptions. TOP