| |
Main |
Family List (MO) |
Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments |
Guidelines |
Checklist |
Citing |
Editors
The Cutting Edge
Volume XXI, Number 3, July 2014
News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature |
Season's Pick
Applequist, W. L. 2013. A nomenclator for Homalium (Salicaceae). Skvortsovia 1: 12–74.
All published names referable to Homalium are accounted for here, with correct authority citations, bibliographic references to protologues, type citations, and indications of synonymy. Accepted names ("fewer than 150" at sp. rank) are boldfaced. The names are organized alphabetically within six main sections, as follows: "Generic-level synonyms," "Subdivisions of genera," "Species and infrageneric taxa," "Binomials lacking corresponding names in Homalium," "Excluded names," and "Designations not validly published." We note no changes for the two spp. occurring in Costa Rica (see under Flacourtiaceae in Manual Vol. 5).
This article appears in the inaugural issue of the Russian serial Skvortsovia, self-described as "a new international journal of salicology and plant biology" and dedicated to the late A. K. Skvortsov (1920–2008), an authority on Salicaceae (among other things).
Batista, J. A. N., K. Proite, B. M. Carvalho, A. A. Vale & L. P. Felix. 2014. From Cuba to most of the Neotropic [sic]: Habenaria bicornis (Orchidaceae) is widespread from Mexico to southeastern Brazil. Lankesteriana 13: 165–184.
The name Habenaria bicornis Lindl. (based on a Cuban type and applied to some Panamanian collections) absorbs H. goyazensis Cogn. (based on a Brazilian type) as a synonym, with the geographic distribution of the combined entity reformulated as summarized in the title of the paper. The sp. in question has evidently not been reported from Costa Rica (under any name), but may be expected to turn up there, as it has been collected in both Honduras and Panama. A revised description of H. bicornis is provided, together with a distribution summary, specimen citations, a distribution map, and a dichotomous key that includes three other "morphologically similar" spp. The only member of the last-mentioned group known from Costa Rica is Habenaria rodeiensis Barb. Rodr., from which H. bicornis differs inter alia in its longer floral spurs (25–46 mm, vs. ca. 22 mm in H. rodeiensis, according to the Manual). Illustrated with assorted drawings and photos.
This paper is included, together with numerous others reviewed in this column, in a special issue of Lankesteriana commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Jardín Botánico Lankester. For more information (beyond what is presented in the issue itself!), see the blurb authored (apparently) by Franco Pupulin in Orchids (West Palm Beach) 83: 201 (2014).
Bellot, S. & S. S. Renner. 2014. The systematics of the worldwide endoparasite family Apodanthaceae (Cucurbitales), with a key, a map, and color photos of most species. PhytoKeys 36: 41–57.
Apodanthaceae comprises just two genera, Apodanthes and Pilostyles, both of which were included traditionally (e.g., in Flora costaricensis) in Rafflesiaceae. A third genus, Berlinianche, is here rejected on grounds both nomenclatural (its name is invalid) and phylogenetic (it is nested in Pilostyles). The exclusively neotropical Apodanthes is considered monospecific (based partly on molecular analyses carried out by the authors), while the more cosmopolitan Pilostyles is permitted 10 spp. All 11 spp. in the family are commingled in a single distribution map and a dichotomous (though unindented) key. A family description is provided as well as, for each sp., full synonymy and typology and a "Note" (which includes host records and a distribution summary). Now, Apodanthes caseariae Poit. has been well-documented to occur in Costa Rica (as confirmed by this paper), where it has been regarded as the only member of its family. Pilostyles, on the other hand, has never been reported from Costa Rica, as far as we are aware, and is one of those near-mythical taxa—like Batis (Bataceae), Cyrilla (Cyrillaceae), or Rapateaceae—that we fantasize about finding and are always on the lookout for, in the right situation. So imagine our surprise to see "Costa-Rica" listed matter-of-factly, in this paper, among the countries in which Pilostyles blanchetii (Gardner) R. Br. is known to occur! This is not, of course, an outrageous proposition, the same sp. having been collected in central Panama (Cerro Jefe, on Bauhinia), and P. mexicana (Brandegee) Rose in El Salvador and Honduras (on Calliandra). However, the map (Fig. 2) does not show a blue dot for Costa Rica, and, according to the first author (pers. comm.), therein lies the truth of the matter: the text is in error and the map is correct, as her accumulated specimen database and other sources show no Costa Rican record for P. blanchetii. So now the ball is back in our court, and Pilostyles will remain on our short list of taxa to hunt down.
Bogarín, D., Z. Serracín & Z. Samudio. 2014. Illustrations and studies in neotropical Orchidaceae. The Specklinia condylata group (Pleurothallidinae) in Costa Rica and Panama. Lankesteriana 13: 185–206.
This oddly titled contribution undertakes to finely subdivide the sp. "group" centered on Specklinia condylata (Luer) Pridgeon & M. W. Chase, i.e., Pleurothallis condylata Luer of the Manual, or Sarcinula condylata (Luer) Luer according to yet a different viewpoint [see The Cutting Edge 13(4): 6, Oct. 2006] that is also rejected by these authors. The Manual Orchidaceae treatment (2003) portrayed Pleurothallis condylata as restricted in Costa Rica to the Península de Osa. However, largely on the basis of collections that have accrued since that time, the distribution of the titular "group," now comprising five spp., has been extended northward (exclusively on the Pacific slope) to Parque Nacional Carara, including the northern Cordillera de Talamanca and the Valle de General. A Specklinia condylata "group" could not even have been postulated at the time the Manual treatment was published, because the names of four of its spp. did not yet exist; indeed three are validated in this very paper, and the fourth appeared just two years ago in a paper we have yet to see. The last-mentioned name is Specklinia vierlingii Baumbach, based on material collected at some unspecified site in Costa Rica and exported (illegally, we are guessing) to Germany. The present authors, who had been on the verge of describing the same sp. themselves, provide an improved characterization and explicit specimen citations, documenting occurrences at ca. 300–900 m elevation from Parque Nacional Carara to the Valle de General. The three spp. described in this paper are Specklinia acoana Bogarín (its epithet honoring the Asociación Costarricense de Orquideología), known by two collections from ca. 950–1000 m elevation in the Valle de General vicinity; S. berolinensis Bogarín, known only from the vicinity of Berlín de Pérez Zeledón, at ca. 1400–1650 m elevation in the northern Cordillera de Talamanca; and S. icterina Bogarín, known by a few collections from ca. 500–950 m elevation in the Valle de Coto Brus and thereabouts. Specklinia condylata sensu stricto ranges at ca. 200–600 m elevation from the northern Cordillera de Talamanca (in the Tarrazú region) and Parque Nacional La Cangreja disjunctly to the Península de Osa (the Manual voucher having been correctly identified), thence into western Panama (being the only member of the "group" to extend beyond Costa Rica). The five spp. of the S. condylata "group" are compared in a tabular format and distinguished by means of a dichotomous, indented key. Not surprisingly, "the separation among species is largely based on floral characters," and "it is almost impossible to identify a specimen without flowers." Features distribution maps, line drawings, and photos, representing each sp.
With the addition of the four new spp. discussed above and four others described in the article by Fernández et al. (see this column), our celebrated running count of orchid spp. described from Costa Rica since ca. 1993 balloons to 343.
Braem, G. J. 2014. The enigmatic (?) case of the most beautiful Phragmipedium popowii. Austral. Orchid Rev. 79(2): 49–58.
We thought that the nomenclatural odyssey of the sp. called "Phragmipedium humboldtii (Warsz. ex Rchb. f.) J. T. Atwood & Dressler" in the Orchidaceae Manual treatment (2003) had finally ground to a halt a few years ago when an article by Franco Pupulin (JBL) and Robert L. Dressler (JBL) essentially restored the name used in the Manual, employing a stratagem that required only the deletion of the parenthetical "ex Rchb. f." [see under "Pupulin," this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(4): Oct. 2011]. But now we are back to Square One. The present author reiterates a point made a decade ago, upon the publication of Phragmipedium popowii Braem, Ohlund & Quéné [see The Cutting Edge 12(1): 5, Jan. 2005], but which was glossed over by Pupulin & Dressler, viz.: Cypripedium humboldtii, the ostensible basionym of Phragmipedium humboldtii, was not described in any way, by either Reichenbach or Warszewicz, and is thus invalid (a nomen nudum). We believe he presents a convincing (if contentious) case in this regard; but then again, we've been taken in by all the various arguments served up along the way! Construed as invalid, Cypripedium humboldtii could not, of course, function as a basionym for Phragmipedium humboldtii, which would thus have to pass muster as a new taxon name (it does not, there being no Latin description). The author of the present paper also dismisses Phragmipedium warscewiczii (Rchb. f.) Christenson, another contending name [see The Cutting Edge 13(3): 4–5, Jul. 2006], on the grounds that its would-be basionym, Selenipedium warscewiczii Rchb. f., lacks a description and is likewise a nomen nudum. He concludes (once again) that Phragmipedium popowii is the correct name for the taxon in question. However, backing up a bit, we suspect that Braem may himself be glossing something over in his appraisal of Selenipedium warscewiczii: while that name indeed lacks a description, we would argue that it was validated by means of a reference (indirect though it may have been) to the previously published Cypripedium caudatum Lindl. [var.] roseum hort. ex Delchev., which itself is accompanied by a very detailed description. In other words, Selenipedium warscewiczii is effectively a replacement name for Cypripedium caudatum var. roseum, as already assumed by Pupulin & Dressler (in their paper referenced above) as well as IPNI. Accepting those judgments, in conjunction with Braem's assessment of Cypripedium humboldtii, reinstates Phragmipedium warscewiczii as the correct name for this "most beautiful" sp.—assuming that it indeed applies to the same entity, a notion that was accepted by Pupulin & Dressler and is, at least, not contended by Braem (perhaps that will be his next gambit!). Illustrated with assorted drawings and photos.
Chaowasku, T., D. C. Thomas, R. W. J. M. van der Ham, E. F. Smets, J. B. Mols & L. W. Chatrou. 2014. A plastid DNA phylogeny of tribe Miliuseae: insights into relationships and character evolution in one of the most recalcitrant major clades of Annonaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 101: 691–709.
Miliuseae, the largest tribe in one of the largest subfamilies of Annonaceae, is largely paleotropical, with just four genera in the Neotropics. The neotropical genera, three of which (Desmopsis, Sapranthus, and Stenanona) are represented in Costa Rica, form a strongly supported clade that is closely related to the Old World genus Meiogyne. One of the principal results for this study is bad news for us: "Stenanona is nested within Desmopsis with strong support." The authors do not speculate on the taxonomic consequences of this revelation, presumably because of their limited sampling (featuring just two spp. of Desmopsis and one of Stenanona).
Cohen, J. I. 2014. A phylogenetic analysis of morphological and molecular characters of Boraginaceae: evolutionary relationships, taxonomy, and patterns of character evolution. Cladistics 30: 139–169.
This study, purported to be the first of its kind for Boraginaceae (in the narrow sense), concludes (among other things) that the genus Cynoglossum (with a single sp. introduced in Costa Rica), as presently defined, is non-monophyletic, in agreement with other recent studies of the same group [see, e.g., under "Weigend," this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(4), Oct. 2013]. Beyond that, there is little information here of interest to us (Hackelia is scarcely mentioned).
Durán A., F. J. 2013. Julio E. Sánchez Pérez (1945–2013), una vida por los aves. Brenesia 80: 1–3.
Julio Sánchez was an ornithologist, but many of us knew him very well during his 30-year tenure (1978–2008) at the Museo Nacional de Costa Rica. Prior to that, he had been an administrator at Parque Nacional (then Refugio de Fauna Silvestre) Palo Verde. A native of Cartago, Julio passed away last July, at the age of 67, in the city of his birth. Soft-spoken but with an acerbic wit, Julio Sánchez will not be forgotten. Our condolences to his wife, Ligia, and their families.
Estrada Chavarría, A. 2013. Patrones espaciales e identificación de áreas importantes para la conservación de la flora en el Pacífico Central costarricense. Brenesia 79: 1–26.
This self-described "esfuerzo pionero" comprises statistical analyses of "the spatial patterns of richness, endemism and diversity" for the flora of the area decribed in the title. The study region corresponds to the Área de Conservación Pacífico Central (see the map on the inside back cover of the Manual), which occupies 5603 km2 (about 11% of the country) and spans an altitudinal range of 0–3491 m. Data were compiled from 48,740 herbarium records, accounting for a total of 5640 native spp. (plus 253 introduced spp.), representing 1562 genera and 237 families. This amounts to 60% of the country total (estimated in Manual Vol. 1 as 9361 spp.), and the 491 Costa Rican endemics in the region represent 49% of the estimated country total for that category. The earliest plant collections from the study region (by Henri Pittier) date from 1888, but 80% have been made during the past 20 years (during which time Francisco Morales has been the champion collector). Statistical extrapolation projects an estimated "riqueza total" of 7085 spp., which is not surprising, since 32% of the spp. in the present total are known from just one or two "recolectas u observaciones." An attempt is made to identify the portions of the study region of highest priority for conservation purposes, based on a number of factors: "floristic confluence," concentration of endemism, extent of forest cover, degree of current protection, magnitude of altidudinal grandient, etc. Singled out is an area, representing about 27% of the study region, extending from the town of Carara (100 m elevation) to the Río Savegre basin (ascending to 3400 m). Although numerous parks and reserves are located within this zone, the author specifically mentions two areas—Fila Chonta and the middle basins of the Ríos Naranjo and Savegre—with great expanses (more than 10,000 ha) of forest and little or no protection. Includes many maps and several tables.
Fernández, M., D. Bogarín, A. P. Karremans & D. Jiménez. 2014. New species and records of Orchidaceae from Costa Rica. III. Lankesteriana 13: 259–282.
The claim is made that the JBL crew has described "more than 180 new Costa Rican [orchid] species and records in the last 12 years," at a rate of "up to 20 additions per year in the last decade," and it is predicted that "the novelties might increase rather than decrease in the coming years." All of this is easy to believe, especially considering the bonanza of novelties unburdened in this most recent issue of Lankesteriana. Four new spp. are described in the article under review, including three that are endemic to Costa Rica. The new spp. are: Epidendrum jorge-warneri Karremans & Hágsater (honoring the current director of JBL), compared with E. anoglossoides Ames & C. Schweinf. and known only from the type locality (ca. 2417 m, on the Pacific slope of the southern Cordillera de Talamanca); Platystele catiensis Karremans & Bogarín (its epithet derived from CATIE), based on the lowland elements (<1000 m) shoehorned into P. oxyglossa (Schltr.) Garay in the Manual Orchidaceae treatment (and the authors suspect that even the upland elements of the latter sp. may prove to be misidentified); Platystele sylvestrei Karremans & Bogarín (its epithet commemorating Charles Lankester's old "El Silvestre" farm), compared to P. oxyglossa and known from ca. 1400–2200 m elevation on both slopes of the Cordilleras de Tilarán and de Talamanca (extending into Prov. Chiriquí, Panama); and Platystele tica Karremans & Bogarín, comprising minuscule plants of dubious affinity known with certainty only from ca. 300–450 m elevation in the Valle de General. Six additional spp. are reported, ostensibly for the first time, as new to Costa Rica; however, two of these country records (Lepanthes ankistra Luer and L. otopetala Luer) were already mentioned in a previous paper from this same group [see under "Karremans," this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(4), Oct. 2013]. Hey, we can perfectly understand how these guys might have trouble keeping track of their voluminous output! That leaves the following four to consider here: Lepanthes truncata Luer & Dressler, previously regarded as a Panamanian endemic, collected at 382 m elevation on the Atlantic slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca in Costa Rica; Ponthieva villosa Lindl., of Colombia to Peru and (now) at 1513 elevation on the Atlantic slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca (Parque Nacional Tapantí) in Costa Rica; Restrepia aberrans Luer, another erstwhile Panamanian endemic, collected at 790 m elevation on the Atlantic slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca in Costa Rica; and Trichosalpinx caudata Luer & R. Escobar, previously known only from Panama and Colombia and "vegetatively almost indistinguishable" from T. orbicularis (Lindl.) Luer, now recorded from Costa Rica at 100–250(–1200+) m on the Llanura de San Carlos (Boca Tapada), the Pacific slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca, and the Península de Osa. Both Restrepia aberrans and Trichosalpinx caudata have been characterized in these pages as "expected" in Costa Rica [see The Cutting Edge 4(3): 7–8, Jul. 1997, and 5(2): 5, Apr. 1998]. Finally Sobralia bletiae Rchb. f., known for some time to occur in Costa Rica and even treated fully in the Manual, "is illustrated for the first time based on Costa Rica material." Which may qualify as a "first" for that particular claim! All 11 spp. dealt with in this paper, new spp. and new records alike, are illustrated with composite line drawings and photos from life.
Hágsater, E. & E. Santiago Ayala. 2014. El grupo Epidanthus, subgrupo Selaginella de Epidendrum. Lankesteriana 13: 283–290.
Several years ago, Epidendrum astroselaginella Hagsáter & E. Santiago and E. stenoselaginella Hagsáter & E. Santiago were discriminated as new spp. from southern Central American material that had previously gone by a single name, Epidendrum selaginella Schltr. [see The Cutting Edge 16(3): 5–6, Jul. 2009]. This article takes a closer look at the three spp. involved ("subgrupo Selaginella"), all of which occur in Costa Rica. The subgroup itself is briefly characterized, and a dichotomous key, distribution map, composite line drawings, and photos all contribute to an improved understanding of its component spp.
Hodel, D. R. 2013. Chamaedorea Palms 20 years after. Palms (1999+) 57: 161–175.
This contribution is effectively a supplement to the author's ground-breaking book Chamaedorea palms: the species and their cultivation (1992), succinctly summarizing the changes and new developments that have occurred since that work was published. The 18 new spp. of Chamaedorea (Arecaceae) described (six from Costa Rica) during the past two decades are enumerated in a table, which reveals that the author himself was responsible for all but two of said novelties. A second table lists eight names that were synonymized in the Manual Arecaceae treatment (2003) by co-PI Mike Grayum. The author acquiesces to most of these synonymizations, but takes exception to the inclusion of Chamaedorea minima Hodel and C. sullivaniorum Hodel & N. W. Uhl in C. pumila H. Wendl. ex Dammer, and of Chamaedorea tenella H. Wendl. in C. geonomiformis H. Wendl.; he might also have mentioned the inclusion of Chamaedorea pedunculata Hodel & N. W. Uhl in C. macrospadix Oerst., one that we were never entirely comfortable with! Illustrated with many color photos of living material.
Iamonico, D. 2014. Lectotypification of Linnaean names in the genus Achyranthes (Amaranthaceae). Taxon 63: 405–407.
One of the names lectotypified, Achyranthes aspera L. var. indica L., applies (though perhaps only as a synonym) to a taxon that occurs in Costa Rica. As far as we can tell, usage is not affected.
—— & I. Sánchez-del Pino. 2014. Lectotypification of the Linnaean name Gomphrena vermicularis (Amaranthaceae). Taxon 63: 403–404.
Ditto.
Jenny, R. 2014. What is in an orchid name: a tribute to the early naturalists in Costa Rica. Lankesteriana 13: 291–317.
Biographical sketches are presented for Pablo Biolley, Alberto Manuel Brenes, Richard Pfau, Henry Pittier, Adolphe Tonduz, and Karl Wercklé, together, in each case, with information pertaining to a particular eponymous orchid sp. The author, being Swiss (or at least based in Switzerland), was presumably in an ideal position to unearth details about his countrymen, i.e., all save Brenes and Wercklé from the foregoing list (and even Brenes studied in Geneva and Lausanne). The information regarding the hitherto obscure Pfau is especially welcome. The cause of his premature death (at age 41) is not revealed, but both Biolley and Wercklé were apparently claimed by demon alcohol (we believe the same to be true of Tonduz, though no such suggestion is made here). Replete with drawings and photos of both people and plants (with Pfau portrayed only as a young boy).
Jiménez, J. E. 2013. Claves dicotómicas para el reconocimiento de los árboles de El Rodeo, Valle Central de Costa Rica. Brenesia 80: 4–35.
This contribution delivers exactly what it promises. The key, comprising the bulk of the article, works for all 266 tree spp. that have been recorded from the Zona Protectora El Rodeo, which harbors the last significant tract of relatively intact forest in the Costa Rican Valle Central. For the purposes of this project, "tree" is defined as a plant at least 5 m tall and 10 cm DBH. The selection of spp. was based on a recent floristic account [see under "Cascante-Marín," this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(4), Oct. 2013], with five new records added (based mainly on the author's own collections): Exothea paniculata (Juss.) Radlk. (Sapindaceae), Lonchocarpus guatemalensis Benth. (Fabaceae), Pittoniotis trichantha Griseb. (Rubiaceae), Spondias radlkoferi Donn. Sm. (Anacardiaceae), and Urera simplex Wedd. (Urticaceae). Five spp. that are naturalized in El Rodeo but occur naturally elsewhere in Costa Rica are included. The key is partitioned into eight subsidiary keys, coordinated by a master key based on sap coloration and gross leaf morphology [with the only palm to make the cut, Acrocomia aculeata (Jacq.) Lodd. ex Mart., coming out directly in the master key]. In fact, the entire key is based overwhelmingly on vegetative characters, rarely with supplementary reproductive characters added parenthetically. According to the author, the tree flora of El Rodeo harbors about 14% of the tree-sp. total for the country as a whole. He expects his key to be useful not only at El Rodeo, but also for neighboring sites throughout the 700–1400 m altitudinal belt on the Pacific slope of the Cordilleras de Tilarán and Central. This looks like a job very well done, and we can hardly wait to put it to the test!
——. 2013. Primer registro del género Bredemeyera Willd. (Polygalaceae) para Costa Rica. Brenesia 79: 81–82.
The discovery announced in the title was previously reported in these pages [see under "Leaps and Bounds" in The Cutting Edge 20(2), Apr. 2013], but this more ample account provides supplemental context, specimen citations, and photos.
Karremans, A. P. 2014. Lankesteriana, a new genus in the Pleurothallidinae (Orchidaceae). Lankesteriana 13: 319–332.
It seems that the taxonomy of traditional Pleurothallis (sensu lato) has fallen in the same trap as befell that of traditional Grammitis (Polypodiaceae): subdivision into smaller genera, marked by (as the new genera prove non-monophyletic) further division into even smaller genera. Once the names of segregate genera have become established and familiar, at least to the young turks among us, taxonomists seem loathe to abandon those names and retreat to larger monophyletic genera. So the names are retained, and more new ones created. And on it goes. Anathallis was reinstated as a genus separate from Pleurothallis only 13 years ago [see The Cutting Edge 9(1): 9–10, Jan. 2002]; however, on the basis of more comprehensive sampling, it has already been branded as non-monophyletic [see, e.g., under "Karremans" et al., this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(2), Apr. 2013], the spp. occurring in "two highly supported clades...that are not sister to each other." Those spp. in the clade that includes the type sp. of Anathallis may, of course, remain in that genus, the course followed by the present author. Most of the 19 spp. in the other clade (i.e., all of those known at the time) were recently segregated from Anathallis under the genus name Panmorphia Luer [see The Cutting Edge 13(4): 6, Oct. 2006], but it turns out that the type sp. of Panmorphia belongs to Anathallis sensu stricto. Hence the need for a freshly coined name, viz., Lankesteriana Karremans, chosen to honor both the Jardín Botánico Lankester and the journal in which this article appears (fittingly, in an issue celebrating the 40th anniversary of JBL). All 19 new combinations in Lankesteriana at sp. rank are validated in the name of the author, and affect the following spp. occurring (at least osensibly) in Costa Rica: the former Pleurothallis abbreviata Schltr., P. barbulata Lindl., P. casualis Ames, P. caudatipetala C. Schweinf., P. cuspidata Luer, P. duplooyi Luer & Sayers, P. fractiflexa Ames & C. Schweinf., and P. haberi Luer. The new genus is distinguished from Anathallis sensu stricto and other similar genera in narrative form and by means of a dichotomous key; briefly, it comprises very small plants (never exceeding 3 cm in height) that differ from Anathallis inter alia by their flowers with the lateral sepals usually fused and convergent (vs. free and spreading) and the ovary trialate (vs. cylindrical). It bears mentioning that the genus Trichosalpinx is also diphyletic, in the analysis presented in this paper, with one clade (that harboring the type sp.) sister to Anathallis and the other sister to Lankesteriana. The author withholds a final decision on whether or not to include the "few species" belonging to the latter clade in Lankesteriana, but currently believes that "such a move is...unfavorable" (meaning that yet another new genus name may be in the offing). We do not know whether this doomed Trichosalpinx clade may include any Costa Rican represtentatives. Lastly, a disparate (non-monophyletic) assemblage of spp. traditionally included in Pleurothallis is transferred to Stelis (on the basis of the prior research involving the author that was cited previously), entailing an additional 27 new combinations or nomina nova validated in the name of the author. But although the author regards these spp. as "more accurately placed [in Stelis] than previously," he reveals a preference for "smaller, better defined and informative generic concepts" (was there ever a doubt?) and leaves the door open for further reshuffling down the line. Whatever the case, it seems that just one sp. that occurs in Costa Rica is involved in the ongoing action: the former Pleurothallis dolichopus Schltr., which must now be called Stelis lamprophylla (Schltr.) Karremans (the epithet dolichopus being preoccupied in Stelis). Features a distribution map and various photos.
Lohmann, L. G. & C. M. Taylor. 2014. A new generic classification of tribe Bignonieae (Bignoniaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 99: 348–489.
Quite the bombshell, this. But as luck would have it, we were provided with an advance copy by the second author, and have therefore had ample opportunity to familiarize ourselves with this paper and its manifold consequences for neotropical floristics. Said familiarity was achieved concomitant with our editing of the Manual Bignoniaceae draft treatment which, let it be said, is now absolutely up to snuff. But moving right along: the exclusively New World tribe Bignonieae, well-supported as monophyletic, comprises "at least 393 species" and "constitutes the most diverse and abundant clade of lianas in tropical New World lowland forests." At least in Costa Rica, all native lianas in the family (save the comparatively herbaceous Tourrettia) belong to this tribe, and only a few of its members are (secondarily?) shrubby. The tribe is further characterized by anomalous secondary growth and "opposite and compound, usually 3-foliolate" leaves, "with the terminal leaflet often replaced by a tendril." From our unschooled perspective, tribe Bignonieae has always been one of those taxa (like Apiaceae or Brassicaceae) that seems too finely subdivided into very small, poorly characterized genera. This study, based on both morphology and molecular analyses, takes some steps to remedy that situation by newly synonymizing 32 generic names. We will begin by listing the genera represented in Costa Rica that emerge unscathed from this reorganization: Anemopaegma, Callichlamys, Lundia, Martinella, Pleonotoma, Pyrostegia (introduced in Costa Rica), Stizophyllum, Tynanthus, and Xylophragma. So there are no name changes for us in any of those genera nor, for that matter, in Adenocalymma, even though its circumscription has been substantially altered (to include the South American Memora and Sampaiella). However, the taxonomy of the remainder of the tribe has been overhauled radically, requiring that we absorb the following new concepts: Amphilophium has been enlarged to include various genera traditionally recognized as distinct, including both Distictella [arguably present in Costa Rica; see The Cutting Edge 16(3): 10; Jul. 2009] and Pithecoctenium; the circumscription of Arrabidaea remains unchanged, vis-à-vis the Mesoamerican spp. traditionally included therein, but all of its spp. have now been transferred to Fridericia, due to the incorporation of a monospecific Brazilian genus that entrains an older name; Ceratophytum and Paragonia have now been subsumed under Tanaecium, and Clytostoma, Cydista, Mussatia, and Phryganocydia under Bignonia (formerly applied to a single North American sp.); Macfadyena, Melloa, and Parabignonia all now yield to Dolichandra (previously restricted to a single south American sp.); and finally, although Mansoa (in the sense we have come to know it) remains largely intact, three spp. are segregated (along with one from a different genus) into Pachyptera, including the former Mansoa kerere (Aubl.) A. H. Gentry, sparingly represented in Costa Rica.
The main portion of this paper consists of a comprehensive nomenclatural catalogue, ordered alphabetically by genus and sp., in which full synonymy and typology are provided, together with distribution summaries and (for the genera) generous technical descriptions (frequently amended) and discussions. A description of tribe Bignonieae leads the way, followed by a dichotomous and indented key to genera. Many (144) new combinations are validated in the name of the first author, most of these being straightforward (i.e., the same epithet is retained) except for (with respect to Costa Rica) two cases in Fridericia: the former Arrabidaea corallina (Jacq.) Sandwith and A. verrucosum (Standl.) A. H. Gentry, which become Fridericia dichotoma (Jacq.) L. G. Lohmann and F. schumanniana (Loes.) L. G. Lohmann, respectively (the older epithets dichotoma and schumanniana having been preoccupied in Arrabidaea, but again available in Fridericia). Along the way, one genus name and 78 sp. names are lectotypified, and one sp. name is neotypified (we don't believe there are any repercussions from any of this, at least for Costa Rica). Indices are provided for the newly typified names and all scientific names treated in the new classification. The introductory section includes tables comparing previous classifications of tribe Bignonieae, as well as all the currently accepted genera in terms of vegetative and reproductive characters. Representative morphological traits of individual genera are depicted in two micrographic plates and 12 composite line drawings. Would that all new classifications were presented with such clarity and conviction!
Mazo, L. C., A. Gómez-Gutiérrez, S. R. Quintanilla, J. E. Bernal & P. Ortiz-Valdivieso. 2014. Consideraciones sobre la historia de la prioridad taxonómica de Oncidium ornithorhynchum. Lankesteriana 13: 337–351.
This article, pointless and indulgent in our estimation, laboriously recounts the "history of the nomenclatural and taxonomic priority" of Oncidium ornithorhynchum Kunth (Orchidaceae), a name currently applied to a sp. that may or may not be present in Costa Rica [see under "Jiménez Machorro," this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(2), Apr. 2010]. Perhaps this paper will be of some use to orchidophiles with a need to interpret the usage of said name in certain historical works, though why this particular name was selected for such intense scrutiny is beyond us (thousands of others being equally meritorious).
Muñoz-Rodríguez, P., J. M. Cardiel & D. Atha. 2014. Acalypha subgenus Linostachys (Euphorbiaceae, Acalyphoideae): a global review. Phytotaxa 166: 199–221.
Trumpeted as a "critical review" and the first "worldwide treatment" since 1924, this is in no sense a taxonomic revision, and in some cases confuses more than it illuminates. Acalypha subgen. Linostachys (Klotzsch ex Schltdl.) Pax & K. Hoffm., with 28 spp. according to these authors (out of ca. 500 in the genus), is distinguished from subgen. Acalypha (the only other subgenus?) by its racemose or paniculate (vs. spicate) inflorescences, non-accrescent (vs. accrescent) bracts, and female flowers with 4 or 5(6) sepals (vs. 3). Of the Acalypha spp. accepted in the Manual Euphorbiaceae treatment (2010) by José González (LSCR), three belong in subgen. Linostachys: Acalypha costaricensis (Kuntze) Knobl. ex Pax & K. Hoffm., A. schlechtendaliana Müll. Arg., and A. villosa Jacq. Those names are all accepted in this paper, but A. schlechtendaliana is indicated as restricted to Mexico; José's Manual treatment is cited under "References," but there is little indication that the authors actually bothered to look at it, or the specimens cited therein (not to mention specimens from Belize and Guatemala determined as A. schlechtendaliana in TROPICOS). And there are two other, rather more baffling, curveballs for us in this article: first, the name Acalypha muelleriana Urb., based on a Venezuelan type and new to us, is applied to certain material from southern Central America that differs from A. villosa (as far as we can tell) mainly in lacking "minute, lustrous resinaceous droplets" on the surfaces (mainly abaxial) of the leaf-blades (such droplets being characteristic of A. villosa). No Costa Rican collections of A. muelleriana are cited, but we find two in TROPICOS (both from the Turrialba region) so determined by the second author of this paper (in 1999!). The second curveball concerns the name Acalypha pittieri Pax & K. Hoffm., treated in the Manual (and elsewhere) as a synonym of A. macrostachya Jacq., a sp. that does not even belong to subgen. Linostachys. Here, A. pittieri is accepted, albeit tentatively, for a sp. in subgen. Linostachys endemic to Isla del Coco; the authors note that the lectotype (designated here), which happens to be the only extant specimen known, "is quite similar to A. muelleriana," but they "prefer to accept both species until we can study more material." Features synonymy and typology at all levels, a brief description of subgen. Linostachys, a dichotomous (though sadly, non-indented) key to spp., and an alphabetical list of accepted spp. with a distribution summary, voucher citation, references, and a "Note" for most entries. The introductory section deals mostly with taxonomic history and geographic distribution (including a map and tables).
Ossenbach, C. 2013. Charles H. Lankester (1879–1969): his life and legacy. Lankesteriana 13: 359–374.
According to this biographer, Charles Herbert Lankester "was without a doubt the most dominant figure of Central American orchidology during his time." Lankester's heyday was ca. 1912–1935, when the overwhelming majority of new orchid spp. based on his Costa Rican gatherings were both collected and described. A native of England, Lankester first traveled to Costa Rica in about 1903 (we gather), and settled there permanently in 1922. By 1925, he had already "reached...what appears to be the peak of his success as a planter and as an orchidologist." Working from his bases in the general vicinity of Cartago, Lankester collected plant materials (mainly, though not exclusively, orchids) that would eventually result in the description of over 100 new spp. Most of his new orchid collections were worked up by Harvard orchidologist Oakes Ames, then engaged in a fierce competition with his German counterpart Rudolf Schlechter to describe as many tropical American spp. as possible (the rivalry ending with Schlechter's death in 1925). The Appendix in this paper lists 110 (according to our quick count) new spp. of Orchidaceae based on Lankester's collections, plus 11 other such spp. in as many different families. The feather in Lankester's cap was undoubtedly the new orchid genus Lankesterella Ames, which Lankester earned by famously admonishing Ames to "Look again" at a specimen the latter had initially written off as a bromeliad. But life goes on, as the song says, long after the thrill of living is gone, and Charles Lankester would live out his final days in relative poverty in a San José suburb. This meticulously documented paper provides much more information that we have abstracted here, together with many well-chosen photos and other illustrations.
Patchell, M. J., E. H. Roalson & J. C. Hall. 2014. Resolved phylogeny of Cleomaceae based on all three genomes. Taxon 63: 315–328.
The authors of this paper endorse the separation of Cleomaceae from Capparaceae and confirm that traditional Cleome is not monophyletic. However, they are concerned about "the current trend...to split Cleome into many smaller segregates" (see, e.g., under "Iltis," this column, in our last issue), which they allege to be "occurring in a somewhat haphazard manner." Hence this study, which "represents the most thorough taxon and character sampling of the family to date" (although "less than half of the species in the family were included"). Fifteen clades were identified in Cleomaceae, all of which are either strictly Old World or strictly New World. The Old World taxa are of particular interest nomenclaturally, since they include the type sp. of Cleome. The authors succeed in defining the limits of Cleome sensu stricto (which does not include any New World members), but otherwise "are left with no clear-cut solution to revising generic names of Old World taxa." This situation impacts Cleome viscosa L., an Old World sp. that is widely adventive in the New World (including Costa Rica) and was recently shunted to the segregate genus Arivela, even more recently renamed Corynandra (see under "Cochrane," this column, in our last isse). But the last-mentioned taxon, under whatever name, is here revealed as polyphyletic. Things look rosier for the New World clades, and it seems likely that the generic names Cleoserrata, Melidiscus, Physostemon, Podandrogyne, Tarenaya, and perhaps even Andinocleome (which had yet to be coined when this paper went to press)—each of which applies to at least one sp. in the Costa Rican flora—will prevail, though (at least in the case of Tarenaya) not necessarily in the prevailing sense. Nonetheless, the taxonomic situation in Cleome remains "a mess," in the opinion of these authors, and "what is needed is a comprehensive taxonomic revision of the entire family." From the perspective of the Manual, even if the New World generic classification were resolved, we could not sweep Cleome viscosa under the rug and would thus probably have to revert to traditional Cleome sensu lato. And speaking of which, what are the cladistic obstacles to restoring the old usage? Only that a few genera traditionally recognized as distinct would be lost, viz., Podandrogyne, Polanisia, and perhaps most significantly, the highly aberrant, monospecific, Old World Dipterygium (but once again: relationships are more important than differences!).
Pelissari, G. & S. Romaniuc Neto. 2014. Ficus tubulosa (Moraceae), a new Amazonian species and the re-establishment of Ficus trachelosyce. Phytotaxa 170: 207–212.
Ficus trachelosyce Dugand is endorsed as distinct from the more widespread F. pertusa L. f., contrary to the opinion of the late family authority C. C. Berg, but in agreement with the Manual Moraceae treatment (2007) by José González (LSCR). The basis for the separation (syconium morphology) is the same as that given in the Manual (which, however, is not cited). Both taxa are illustrated (F. trachelosyce quite crudely), and a distribution map is presented that more or less confirms the geographic ranges indicated in the Manual. The new Amazonian sp. does not concern us.
Peterson, P. M., K. Romaschenko & Y. Herrera Arrieta. 2014. A molecular phylogeny and classification of the Cteniinae, Farragininae, Gouiniinae, Gymnopogoninae, Perotidinae, and Trichoneurinae (Poaceae: Chloridoideae: Cynodonteae). Taxon 63: 275–286.
Of the twenty genera emphasized in this study, just three are represented in Costa Rica: Gouinia, Gymnopogon, and Triplasis. All of the latter hold up as monophyletic save Gouinia, which can be made so by the removal (here advocated) of a single Brazilian sp., for which the genus name Schenckochloa (accepted in the most recent edition of Mabberley's plant-book) was already available. So there is nothing new here for us.
Pool, A. 2014. Taxonomic revision of Gouania (Rhamnaceae) for North America. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 99: 490–552.
This is the kind of article that could be disastrous for us: a revision of a moderately important genus that appears just as the relevant Manual treatment is at the page-proof stage. However, in this case disaster was averted, as we have been in close communication with the author during her work on Rhamnaceae for Flora mesoamericana [see under "Pool," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(1), Jan. 2014]. As a result, the Manual Rhamnaceae treatment will be not only up-to-date, but much improved. "North America," as defined here, includes all of Mesoamerica as well as the Caribbean. Fifteen spp. of Gouania are accepted for the region, of which five are described as new (one dedicated to Barack Obama!). None of the new spp. occurs in Costa Rica, but we will need to absorb one significant name-change: Gouania velutina Reissek turns out to be the correct name for the sp. we had learned as G. eurycarpa Standl. (the latter correctly applied to a sp. of northern Mesoamerica). Also present in Costa Rica: Gouania colombiana Suess., G. hypoglauca Standl., G. lupuloides (L.) Urb., and G. polygama (Jacq.) Urb. Features synonymy, typology, and detailed descriptions for the genus and all of its spp., a dichotomous, indented key to spp., distribution and phenology summaries, conservation assessments, discussions, specimen citations (sometimes "selected"), a section entitled "Rejected name," an index to exsiccatae (though not for scientific names), and distribution maps. South American specimens are also cited, where appropriate. The well-illustrated introduction addresses taxonomic history and (mainly) morphology, with all 15 spp. compared in an extensive table. Each of the five new spp. is depicted in a photographic plate.
Puppo, P. 2014. Revision of the Calceolaria tripartita s. l. species complex (Calceolariaceae) using multivariate analyses of morphological characters. Phytotaxa 167: 61–78.
There is nothing much new here for us, with Calceolaria tripartita Ruiz & Pav. being the only one of the three accepted sp. in its namesake complex to occur in Costa Rica. Two names that have sometimes been used for accepted spp. are synonymized under C. tripartita, including C. chelidonioides Kunth, which has been applied (rarely) to Costa Rican material. Although Calceolaria tripartita is acknowledged as highly variable, "no further subdivision is supported morphologically." The bulk of this paper is devoted to the multivariate analyses. The very brief and synoptic "Taxonomic treatment" features a key to spp. and alphabetical sp. entries, each sporting synonymy (as appropriate) and typology, a basic description, and a distribution summary. Living material of all three spp. is depicted in a composite photographic plate.
Rodrigues, J. G., J. A. Lombardi & M. B. Lovato. 2014. Phylogeny of Cissus (Vitaceae) focusing on South American species. Taxon 63: 287–298.
More grinding of the wheels: Cissus is not monophyletic, as umpteen different papers have reported over the past decade or so. We seem to be in a rut on this. The last significant contribution [see under "Liu" et al., this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(2), Apr. 2013] established that Cissus trianae Planch., a neotropical sp. occurring in Costa Rica, belongs in a clade (with several Australian spp.) that needs to be removed from Cissus for monophyly to prevail. However, no taxonomic action was taken. All of which pretty well summarizes the present paper. Let's hope the next one on this subject is conclusive.
Rojas-Alvarado, A. F. & J. M. Chaves-Fallas. 2013. A new hybrid of Serpocaulon (Polypodiaceae) from Costa Rica. Amer. Fern J. 103: 175–181.
The taxon in question, named Serpocaulon ×sessilipinnum A. Rojas & J. M. Chaves, is claimed to be a hybrid between S. fraxinifolium (Jacq.) A. R. Sm. and S. ptilorhizon (Christ) A. R. Sm., mainly on the basis of morphological intermediacy and sympatry. A hybrid status is supported by the production of spores (depicted photographically) with no cellular content. Two collections are cited, from similar elevations (ca. 1400–1600+ m) on the Pacific slope but disparate parts of the country: one from the Cordillera de Guanacaste (Volcán Santa María), the other from the southern Fila Costeña. The new taxon is compared with its putative parent spp. in a table, and all three entities are illustrated in each of two composite line drawings. We wonder whether the new epithet requires correction (to sessilipinna?), as we find no evidence for the existence of "pinnum" as either a substantival or adjectival element.
Rumsey, F. J., H. Schaefer & M. Carine. 2014. Asplenium auritum Sw. sensu lato (Aspleniaceae: Pteridophyta) - an overlooked neotropical fern native to the Azores. Fern Gaz. 19: 259–271.
The photos confirm that the Azorean material is essentially identical to Costa Rican plants (or at least some of them) that have generally been determined as Asplenium auritum. The authors consider that "this represents another example of a neotropical element naturally present in the Azorean flora," so a pattern has evidently emerged. They do not seem to cite any other examples explicitly, but provide literature references that would presumably serve that need. We find this to be mildly interesting.
Rzedowski Rotter, J. 2014. William Russell Anderson (1942–2013). Acta Bot. Mex. 107: 5–7.
Tributes to the late Malpighiaceae authority continue to pour in. Although he was born in Tucson, Arizona, Bill Anderson evidently went to high school in Huntington, West Virginia (little we knew!). Subsequently, he attended Duke University, where he was influenced by Robert L. Wilbur, before obtaining his doctorate at the University of Michigan under the late Rogers McVaugh. Following a stint at the New York Botanical Garden, Bill returned to Ann Arbor as a member of the faculty. There, he collaborated with McVaugh for many years as the general editor of the latter's monumental Flora novo-galiciana series, while pursuing his own ground-breaking research on Malpighiaceae.
Scataglini, M. A., F. O. Zuloaga, L. M. Giussani, S. S. Denham & O. Morrone. 2014. Phylogeny of New World Paspalum (Poaceae, Panicoideae, Paspaleae) based on plastid and nuclear markers. Pl. Syst. Evol. 300: 1051–1070.
This is a big study, but with just a single result of potential impact to Costa Rican floristics: Paspalum microstachyum J. Presl, widespread in Costa Rica, was "either excluded or included in [Paspalum] based on plastid or nuclear markers, respectively." The situation remains unresolved.
Stevens, W. D. & A. L. Arbeláez. 2014. A new ocellate species of Matelea (Apocynaceae, Asclepiadoideae) from Mesoamerica. Phytoneuron 2014-54: 1–3.
The so-called "ocellate" complex of the neotropical genus Matelea comprises 11 spp. characterized by "a bright white, reflective ocellus at the tip of each corolla lobe." Matelea corniculata W. D. Stevens & Arbeláez, described here as new, is compared with the Chiapan M. emmartinezii W. D. Stevens, from which it differs in various floral details. The new sp. is based on just two collections, one from southeastern Nicaragua and the other from the Estación Biológica La Selva in Costa Rica. The fact that La Selva "is one of the most intensely studied plots on the earth" underscores the rarity of this sp. (indeed, the five Mesoamerican spp. in the "ocellate" complex are known by a collective total of just 18 specimens). Illustrated with a fine composite line drawing by the second author.
Vanderplank, J. 2013. A revision of Passiflora section Dysosmia. Bot. Mag. 30: 318–387.
Passiflora sect. Dysosmia DC. (Passifloraceae) comprises 21 spp. and 10 vars. (according to this revision), and is represented in Costa Rica by two spp. that were treated in the 2007 Manual account by Alexánder Rodríguez and Armando Estrada (CR) under the names Passiflora ciliata Aiton and P. foetida L. Taxonomically speaking, this work appears to maintain the status quo for Costa Rica, but the same cannot be said with respect to nomenclature. The name Passiflora ciliata remains in place for us, though this author, unlike our Manual authors, recognizes vars. (for the record, Costa Rican populations are assigned to the autonymic var.). However, the familar name Passiflora foetida is not associated explicitly with any Central American material. Instead, the author has revived the wholly obscure Passiflora vesicaria L., at least (we think) for Costa Rican material previously called P. foetida (with "Costa Rica" again specified under the autonymic var.). The situation is nebulous for the rest of Central America, as no other country in the region is mentioned under either P. foetida or P. vesicaria. And that is one of the major shortcomings of this work: a dearth of specimen citations and the consequent lack of a clear and unambiguous taxonomic resolution for all geographic regions concerned. Features a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp. and similar keys to vars. (as appropriate), synonymy and typology, adequate descriptions, distribution summaries (often inadequate), occasional, token specimen citations (as suits the author), and discussions. There is no formal description of the section, and there are no indices. The introductory portion deals mainly with history, taxonomic and otherwise. Each sp. and var. is depicted in a basic composite line drawing by the author, and many in color photos as well. There is a single color plate, of the type for which this journal is known.
Vitali, M. S. & J. N. Viera Barreto. 2014. Phylogenetic studies in Smallanthus (Milleriae, Asteraceae): a contribution from morphology. Phytotaxa 159: 77–94.
The results of this cladistic analysis of morphological characters portend no consequences fot the two spp. of Smallanthus in Costa Rica (both of which were included in the study), but may spell trouble for one of the outgroup genera, Rumfordia. Based on the two spp. represented in the study, Rumfordia was "not recovered as a monophyletic group"; to wit, R. floribunda DC. (the type sp.) appears sister to Smallanthus and separate from R. guatemalensis (J. M. Coult.) S. F. Blake (the only sp. occurring in Costa Rica). From this evidence, one might speculate that Rumfordia guatemalensis may eventually suffer a generic change of status, should more rigorous studies offer additional support.
Whitten, W. M., K. M. Neubig & N. H. Williams. 2014. Generic and subtribal relationships in Neotropical Cymbidieae (Orchidaceae) based on matK/ycf1 plastid data. Lankesteriana 13: 375–392.
This very wide-ranging study (involving 289 taxa) generally corroborates prevailing notions of orchid classification, with the following noteworthy exceptions (considering only those taxa known from Costa Rica): the recent, highly subdivided reclassification of Maxillaria sensu lato by Dariusz Szlachetko and associates [see under "Szlachetko" et al., this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(2), Apr. 2013] is rejected as "without merit," mainly because it embraces paraphyletic genera; Maxillaria cacaoensis J. T. Atwood proves to belong to the segregate genus Camaridium (rather than Mapinguari, as had been previously supposed), and the indicated new combination is validated in the name of the first author; and Stanhopea appears paraphyletic (with respect to Sievekingia) and Warczewiczella diphyletic, but the authors question their own results and cite "mislabeled DNA samples" or "missing data" as possible error sources.
Zamora, N. A. & T. M. Moura. 2014. Mucuna tapantiana (Fabaceae: Faboideae: Phaseoleae), a new species from Costa Rica. Kew Bull. 69(1): 9490(1–5).
With this hard-copy issue of Kew Bulletin, a new system is in place that dispenses with consecutive pagination in deference to on-line publication. So we must now deal with "article numbers," in addition to volume and issue numbers; and, of course, the articles are themselves separately paginated. For whatever reason, the order of the articles in the issue does not follow that of the "article numbers." All of which makes these papers somewhat difficult to cite, though we have taken what we hope to be a reasonable stab at it. Perhaps the editors will rethink this policy and take a cue from other primarily or exclusively on-line publications that employ more logical schemes. Having said all of that, we now have a name for "Mucuna sp. A" of Manual co-PI Nelson Zamora's Fabaceae treatment (2010): it is Mucuna tapantiana N. Zamora & T. M. Moura. That makes for a clean sweep, as Mucuna spp. B and C of the Manual have also been formally named [see under "Moura" et al., this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(3), Jul. 2012, and 20(3), Jul. 2013]. Features a distribution map, composite line drawing, and photos of living material.
Zemanek, A. 2012. J. Warszewicz (1812–1866). Wiadom. Bot. 56(3/4): 31–32.
Not much text here, which is just as well, since it is in Polish and thus impenetrable to us. But we do get two new (to us) portraits of Józef Warszewicz (the spelling used here), a pioneer plant collector in Costa Rica. One of these is a photo that looks to have been taken around the same time (perhaps even in the same session) as the one reproduced in Manual Vol. 1.
Zuntini, A. R. & L. G. Lohmann. 2014. Synopsis of Martinella Baill. (Bignonieae, Bignoniaceae), with the description of a new species from the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. PhytoKeys 37: 15–24.
No big changes here for Costa Rica, with the widespread Martinella obovata (Kunth) Bureau & K. Schum. holding firm as our only representative of its oligospecific genus. The new Brazilian sp. mentioned in the title does, however, inflate the generic sp. total by 50%. This contribution is branded as a synopsis (rather than a revision) because it lacks sp. descriptions and specimen citations (except in the case of the new sp.). What it does provide is a genus description, synonymy and distribution summaries at all (well, both) levels, a dichotomous key to spp., assessments of conservation status, discussions, and a distribution map. Only the new sp. is illustrated.
TOP
|
|
