Main | Family List (MO) | Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge Draft Treatments | Guidelines | Checklist | Citing | Editors The Cutting Edge Volume XXV, Number 1, January, 2018 News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature | Season's Pick | Annotate your copy AGAVACEAE. The Manual Agavaceae account (2003) by co-PI Mike Grayum (MO) treated just one sp. of Furcraea, F. cabuya Trel., with two vars. attributed to Costa Rica: the autonymic var., and F. c. var. integra Trel. (with spineless leaves). The discussion of F. cabuya alluded to the presence in the country of a second sp., Furcraea foetida (L.) Haw., and closed with the following observation: "Pocos géneros de plantas noetropicales necesitan una revisión taxonómica más que Furcraea." Little did we know that the desired revision already existed at the time in the form of a 2001 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México doctoral thesis, by Abisaí Josué García Mendoza, entitled "Revisión del género Furcraea (Agavaceae)." We will never understand how people can put so much time and effort into their doctoral research (in our experience, often the best work they will ever produce in their lifetimes) and then never publish it. That is the case (so far) with this dissertation, which has passed largely under the radar during the past 16 years, and came to our attention only quite recently, and by a circuitous route. Thanks are due to family specialist Joachim Thiede, who provided us with a (nearly) complete electronic copy. We do not, as a rule, review dissertations in these pages, and will not do so, in detailed fashion, for this one. Suffice it to say that it is the real deal, 337 pages in length, with all the features one could hope for in a standard taxonomic revision. Several new taxa proposed by the author (including a new subgenus) have never been published effectively, but none of those concerns us. Twenty-five spp. of Furcraea are accepted (vs. 20, as according to the Manual), but four are given provisional names (Furcraea spp. 1–4). The big news for Costa Rica is that Furcraea cabuya var. integra and F. foetida end up being one and the same, with the latter the accepted name. But there is a caveat here: the author's conclusion of synonymy was reached without seeing the type of var. integra (which could not be found at the time, though it is now present at MO). Whatever the case, he cites five Costa Rican specimens under F. foetida, so we can now boast two spp. of Furcraea (and seven of Agavaceae). Incidentally: García-Mendoza co-authored the Furcraea treatment in Flora mesoamericana Vol. 6 (1994), but that was published well before his dissertation was completed and does not differ materially from the Manual account. LOASACEAE. Some time ago, the genus Loasa, according to its traditional circumscription, was split into four smaller genera on the basis of a "hypothetical" phylogeny, which had not at the time been confirmed rigorously [see The Cutting Edge 7(2): 6, Apr. 2000]. The three Costa Rican spp. involved wound up in two different genera, Chichicaste (monospecific) and Nasa, which was the classification employed in Manual Vol. 6 (2007). Now, Costa Rican specimens previously identified as Chichicaste grandis (Standl.) Weigend have been returned to MO determined by Rafael Acuña (BONN), our Costa Rican colleague and correspondent working on his Ph.D. in Germany, as "Aosa grandis (Standl.) R. H. Acuña & Weigend"—suggesting to us that the genus Chichicaste did not pass muster when subjected to molecular-cum-cladistic analyses. However, you may wish to hold off on your annotations, because the last-mentioned combination still has not been validly published, as far as we can determine. SCROPHULARIACEAE. While undertaking routine identifications at INBio, co-PI Barry Hammel encountered some unexpected problems in the Manual Scrophulariaceae treatment, specifically, in the genus Veronica (Plantaginaceae, to some). What turned out to be vil y vulgar Veronica serpyllifolia L. did not key convincingly to that sp., due principally to misrepresentations of certain critical dimensions. Cutting right to the chase: the pedicel length of V. serpyllifolia should be corrected (in couplet 3 and the sp. description) to "1–4 mm," and the style length to "1–2.5 mm." Although the original dimensions were somewhat misleading, the corrected versions do not compromise the key unduly, as they overlap only slightly (pedicel length) or not at all (style length) with their counterparts in the other lead of the couplet (which applies to Veronica arvensis L. and V. peregrina L.). Barry also takes issue with the "planta perenne" vs. "plantas anuales" distinction claimed in couplet 3, on the grounds that perennation is virtually impossible to assess from specimens of these resolutely herbaceous plants, all with fine, filiform roots.. TOP