| |
Main |
Family List (MO) |
Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments |
Guidelines |
Checklist |
Citing |
Editors
The Cutting Edge
Volume XXV, Number 4, October 2018
News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature |
Season's Pick | Annotate your copy
Acuña, R., I. F. Chinchilla & M. Weigend. 2018. An unusual disjunction in Loasaceae: Central American Chichicaste grandis is nested in Brazilian Aosa. Phytotaxa 365: 273–287.
We had advance warning of this from herbarium annotations [see under "Annotate Your Copy" in The Cutting Edge 25(1), Jan. 2018]: the monospecific genus represented by Chichicaste grandis (Standl.) Weigend is revealed by morphological and molecular analyses as deeply nested within Aosa and sister to the Hispaniolan A. plumieri (Urb.) Weigend. As a result, and despite its morphological distinctiveness, C. grandisbecomes the eighth sp. ofAosa, to which it is formally transferred as A. grandis (Standl.) R. H. Acuña &Weigend. We originally learned the sp. in question (which does occur in Costa Rica) as Loasa grandis Standl., and had to scramble at the last minute to accommodate the change to Chichicaste in Manual Vol. 6 (2007)—all for nought! A so-called "Taxonomic treatment" deals principally with A. grandis, for which we get synonymy and typology, distribution and phenology summaries, a distribution map, an evaluation of conservation status, and comprehensive specimen citations. At genus rank, a distribution map and modified key to the spp. of Aosa are provided, but not a revised description of the genus. Aside from A. grandis and A. plumieri, the genus Aosa is restricted to eastern Brazil.
Biffin, E., W. R. (B.) Baker, B. Wannan & Y.-S. Liang. 2018. The phylogenetic placement of Australian Linderniaceae and implications for generic taxonomy. Austral. Syst. Bot. 31: 241–251.
This paper has potential repercussions for Costa Rican floristics, inasmuch as many spp. of Lindernia and related genera are subcosmoplitan weeds, or cultivated as ornamentals. A prior paper on roughly the same subject [see under "Fischer," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(2), Apr. 2014] appeared too late to impact the Manual Scrophulariaceae treatment (2015) in a major way, though it was cited there and its implications were mentioned. Those included the transfer of certain spp. of traditional Lindernia [including L. crustacea (L.) F. Muell., among its Costa Rican representatives] to Torenia, and of others [including L. diffusa (L.) Wettst.] to the resurrected segregate Vandellia. Furthermore, the distinction of Micranthemum from Lindernia sensu stricto was called into question, though no taxonomic changes were implemented. The results of this new molecular study provoke certain changes to the taxonomy of the earlier paper, i.e.: Lindernia reclaims a flock of spp. from Vandellia, and Torenia is expanded a bit. However, with respect to sp. names, the status quo (i.e., as according to the Fischer paper) prevails for Costa Rica. On a similar note, the authors consider that they "have insufficient evidence to determine whether Micranthemum is separate from Lindernia, or...should be subsumed within it," but claim that the issue "is a focus of [their] ongoing molecular research" (we will keep our fingers crossed!).
Bogarín, D., O. A. Pérez-Escobar, D. Groenenberg, S. D. Holland, A. P. Karremans, E. M. Lemmon, A. R. Lemmon, F. Pupulin, E. Smets & B. Gravendeel. 2018. Anchored hybrid enrichment generated nuclear, plastid and mitochondrial markers resolve the Lepanthes horrida (Orchidaceae: Pleurothallidinae) species complex. Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 129: 27–47.
The high-sounding machinations described in the title get the job done, resolving a total of seven spp. from the sp. complex centered on Lepanthes horrida Rchb. f. These are: Lepanthes chameleon Ames, L. horrida, L. maxonii Schltr., L. nymphalis Luer, L. wendlandii Rchb. f., and two spp. described as new. With the exception of the Panamanian L. maxonii, all the spp. in the group are typified by material collected in (or virtually in) Costa Rica (indeed, most are Costa Rican endemics), and all of those described at the time were accepted in the Manual Orchidaceae treatment (2003) by Carlyle A. Luer. The two new spp. are: Lepanthes amicitiae Bogarín & Pupulin, based on three collections made by the JBL crew from 2000–2500 m elevation in westernmost Panama (Prov. Chiriquí) to atop or astride the Costa Rican boundary; and Lepanthes genetoapophantica Bogarín & Gravend. (the epithet of which alludes to the genetic work that revealed its existence), based on numerous collections (all by JBL) from 2000–2650 m elevation on both slopes of the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca (and into westernmost Panama, on the Pacific slope). A synoptic "Taxonomic treatment" (the only part of significant interest to us) at the end of the paper provides a dichotomous and indented key to the spp. of the complex, plus distribution summaries and brief discussions for each, but no descriptions (except for the new spp.) or specimen citations (except for types, and the new spp.). All seven spp. are illustrated with reduced composite line drawings and color photos of flowers. The two Costa Rican novelties described here, plus two others mentioned under "Luer" (further ahead in this column)—which we are including for reasons known only to us—nudge our running count of new orchid spp. for the country published during the lifetime of this blog up to 395.
Borhidi, A. L. 2018. Revisión crítica del género Rogiera Planch. (Rubiaceae, Guettardeae) y la validez del género Rovaeanthus Borhidi (Rubiaceae, Rondeletieae). Acta Bot. Hung. 60: 13–29.
For this, we refer our readers to our last review of an article by this author [see under "Borhidi," this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(1), Jan. 2018]. Pretty much only the genus names and sp. totals have changed.
Boza Espinoza, T. E., P. M. Jørgensen & J. M. MacDougal. 2018. A taxonomic revision of Passiflora sect. Xerogona (Passifloraceae) using principal component analysis. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 103: 258–313.
The titular section, "characterized by its capsular fruit that dehisces in an unusual way known nowhere else among angiosperms," comprises 15 spp. (together with two subspp.) ranging throughout the Neotropics. The following four spp. occur in Costa Rica: Passiflora capsularis L., P. costaricensis Killip, P. pusilla J. M. MacDougal, and P. quinquangularis S. Calderón ex J. M. MacDougal.All of those were duly treated in the Manual Passifloraceae account (2007) by Alexánder Rodríguez and Armando Estrada (CR), so the status for us is basically quo. This is a standard revision, with synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions at all ranks, distribution maps, dichotomous and indented keys to spp. (and subspp.), distribution and phenology summaries, discussions, and representative specimen citations. There are no indices. The introductory pages deal mainly with taxonomic history and the principal component analysis. All the accepted taxa are illustrated with black-and-white photos of living material.
Calvo, J. & N. Roque. 2018. Taxonomic revision of the Neotropical genus Campuloclinium (Eupatoriae, Compositae). Syst. Bot. 43: 602–627.
This revision recognizes 12 spp. of Campuloclinium, a genus that is "centered in southeastern South America," and with a "presumed native geographical area" extending "from Central Brazil to Central Argenina..., and from eastern Brazil...to northwestern Argentina and central Bolivia in the West..." As acknowledged by the authors, "the type species, C. macrocephalum (Less.) DC., also appears scattered in Mesoamerica"; they state that "its origin there is uncertain," but admit that they were unable to study much Mesoamerican material. In Costa Rica, C. macrocephalum is known by just three more or less recent collections, all from apparently natural habitats in the Cordillera de Guanacaste [see under "Season's Pick" in The Cutting Edge 22(3), Jul. 2015].Features synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions at all ranks, a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp., distribution and phenology summaries, "Notes," representative specimen citations, distribution maps, a section on "Excluded Names," and indices to scientific names and exsiccatae. The brief introductory section focuses on taxonomic history. All the spp. are illustrated with photos of living and/or dried material.
Canal, D., N. Köster, K. E. Jonse, N. Korotkova, T. B. Croat & T. Borsch. 2018. Phylogeny and diversification history of the large Neotropical genus Philodendron (Araceae): accelerated speciation in a lineage dominated by epiphytes. Amer. J. Bot. 105: 1035–1052.
This, "the largest phylogenetic reconstruction for Philodendron to date" (with "125 taxa" included), reveals that the genus (as traditionally circumscribed) is monophyletic, as are each of its three subgenera and the sister genus Adelonema. These results refute recent studies by a different lab [see under "Wong," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(2), Apr. 2016] that portrayed Philodendron as non-monophyletic, with P. subgen. Pteromischum (Schott) Mayo sister to Adelonema, and prompted those authors to confer generic status upon Adelonema (formerly classed as a section of Homalomena) and to suggest comparable action (which they did not themselves pursue)for subgen. Pteromischum. Those studies were subsequently cited by other authors as grounds (slender, at best) for the elevation of Philodendron subgen. Meconostigma (Schott) Engl. to generic rank (under the name Thaumatophyllum), which they effected [see under "Sakuragui," this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(3), Jul. 2018]. The results of the present study support, but by no means mandate, the recognition of Adelonema as a distinct genus (we are on record as favoring its classification as a fourth subgenus of Philodendron). The same can be said of the elevation of subgen. Meconostigma; it is, after all, monophyletic, and ranking is arbitrary. However, this much is certain: anyone who chooses to embrace generic ranking forPhilodendronsubgen. Meconostigma(as Thaumatophyllum) will be obligedto follow suit for subgen. Pteromischum (as Elopium)—its sister taxon (albeit with weak support) according to this study—thus restricting traditional Philodendron to its autonymic subgenus. The last-mentioned taxon harbors more than 80% of the total of ca. 560 spp. estimated by these authors for Philodendron sensu lato, and is currently subdivided into 10 sections (as well as various subsections and series); however, not one of those sections was recovered as monophyletic in this study! For more on this subject, see under "Vasconcelos," further along in this column.
Carnevali, G., E. A. Pérez-García, C. L. Leopardi-Verde, J. L. Tapia-Muñoz, W. R. Cetzal-Ix, I. M. Ramírez-Morillo & G. A. Romero-González. 2018. The Encyclia ambigua complex (Laeliinae, Orchidaceae), a synopsis and notes on Encyclia virens and Epidendrum alatum. Phytotaxa 372: 1–21.
The sp. complex of the title is restricted to "Megamexico," i.e., regions to the north of Costa Rica, but one of the "notes" does concern us. The authors report "a protologue that predates the one that is usually cited" (e.g., in the Manual) for Epidendrum alatum Bateman, the basionym of Encyclia alata (Bateman) Schltr. (which does occur in Costa Rica). Thus, annotate your copy of Manual Vol. 3 (2003: 98) to correct the protologue citation of the former name as follows: Epidendrum alatum Bateman, Proc. Hort. Soc. London 1838(2): 25. 1838. N.B.: the authors of this paper themselves bungled the new protologue citation! We obtained the correct one from IPNI.
Cascante-Marín, A., J. Sánchez-González & W. S. Alverson. 2018. A new Quararibea (Malvaceae) from the Caribbean lowlands of Costa Rica. Novon 26: 262–267.
Quararibea reflexipetala Cascante, J. Sánchez-Gonz. & W. S. Alverson, endemic to a small portion (the lower basin of the Río Bananito, in the northern Cordillera de Talamanca) of the area indicated in the title, is compared with Q. pendula W. S. Alverson (also restricted to the Atlantic lowlands, but straying into Panama), from which it differs in numerous characters conveniently contrasted in tabular form. It is also illustrated photographically (including color photos of living material). The new sp. was already included, as "Quararibea sp. A," in the first author's Manual draft treatment of Bombacaceae (sorry!), slated for imminent publication, so no drastic changes will be required.
Christmas, M. J., E. Biffin & A. J. Lowe. 2018. Measuring genome-wide genetic variation to reassess subspecies classifications in Dodonaea viscosa (Sapindaceae). Aurstal. J. Bot. 66: 287–297.
The bewildering morphological variability of the cosmopolitan (though perhaps originally Australian) Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. continues to challenge and frustrate taxonomists. This study reveals distinct "patterns of genetic differentiation" and "population structuring across the [Australian] continent," supporting currently recognized subspp. "defined by leaf morphology," but only "in part." The authors thus "recommend that phenotypic variation be reassessed in light of the genetic structure" they have documented. Time will tell whether this represents a critical step toward a definitive resolution, or just another false start
Daniel, T. F. & E. A. Tripp. 2018. Louteridium (Acanthaceae: Acanthoideae: Ruellieae: Trichantherinae): taxonomy, phylogeny, reproductive biology, and conservation. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. ser. 4, 65: 41–106.
No sooner do we finish editing the Manual Acanthaceae manuscript, than this appears! No matter, really, it has no significant repercussions for us: of the 11 spp. here accepted for the Mexican and Central American genus Louteridium, just one, L. costaricense Radlk. & Donn. Sm., occurs south of Honduras (in Costa Rica and Panama). Status quo. This is a fully realized monographic work, including synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions at all ranks, a dichotomous and indented key to spp., distribution and phenology summaries, conservation assessments, discussions, and comprehensive specimen citations. There are no indices. The extensive and well-illustrated introductory part, addresses phylogeny (with an original molecular analysis), morphology, chromosome numbers, distribution (including maps), floral ecology and reproductive biology, and conservation. Three sections are recognized (on the basis of the molecular study), one of which is described as new; however, the sp. entries are ordered alphabetically. No other new taxa are described, and no lecto- or neotypes are designated. All but two of the spp. are illustrated with color photos from life (as L. costaricense) and/or composite line drawings.
Devecchi, M. F., W. W. Thomas & J. R. Pirani. 2018.Taxonomic revision of the neotropical genus Homalolepis Turcz. (Simaroubaceae). Phytotaxa 366: 1–108.
We knew this was coming [see under "Devecchi," this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(2), Apr. 2018], just not so soon! The paraphyletic status of the largely South American genus Simaba (in its traditional sense) is here resolved taxonomically and nomenclaturally with the segregation of 28 spp. into the resurrected Homalolepis Turcz., under which all the necessary new combinations are validated. So it is that Simaba cedron Planch. of Manual Vol. 8 (2015), the only sp. treated in this work that extends into Central America, becomes Homalolepis cedron (Planch.) Devecchi & Pirani. And that is the only noteworthy development for us. Otherwise, this is a rigorously executed taxonomic revision, featuring synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions at all ranks, a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to sections and spp. (and another to distinguish Homalolepis from Simaba and Simarouba), distribution and phenology summaries, notes, representative specimen citations, distribution maps, and indices to scientific names and exsiccatae. The generous and copiously illustrated introductory part addresses taxonomic history, distribution, morphology, reproductive biology, chemistry, uses, and infrageneric phylogeny. All the spp. are illustrated, if only by a drawing or photo of a herbarium specimen. In addition to the new combinations, seven spp. are described as new, and seven names are lectotypified.
Edwards, R. D., J. T. Cantley, M. M. Chau, S. C. Keeley & V. A. Funk. 2018. Biogeography and relationships within the Melanthera alliance: a pan-tropical lineage (Compositae: Heliantheae: Ecliptinae). Taxon 67: 552–564.
Unbeknownst to us, the concept of Melanthera has varied wildly over the years, from as few as three to at least as many as 35 spp. These authors claim that the results of their molecular analyses "do not favour...the broader generic concepts," but instead "support the recognition of five genera." However, our cursory inspection of the one published cladogram suggests that it could be adduced as support for either of the extreme views mentioned previously, as well as various intermediate classifications. For all practical purposes, the point is moot for us: the twoMelanthera spp. recognized in the Flora mesoamericana Asteraceae treatment (2018) represent the generic type [M. nivea (L.) Small] and a closely allied (and perhaps synonymous) entity, so they are not going anywhere.
Franck, A. R. 2018. (2628) Proposal to conserve Hedyotis pentandra Schumach. (Pentodon pentandrus) (Rubiaceae) against H. pentandra (Retz.) Forsyth f. (Vahliaceae). Taxon 67: 651–652.
Hedyotis pentandra Schumach. & Thonn. (we would deviate from TL-2 and advocate joint authorship in this case) is the intended basionym of "Pentodon pentandrus (Schumach. & Thonn.) Vatke," the long-accepted name for a sp. that was mentioned in the family heading of the Manual Rubiaceae treatment (2014) as having been collected very near the Costa Rican border (in southern Nicaragua) and thus to be expected in Tiquicia. However, it turns out that our would-be basionym was still-borne, a later homonym of Hedyotis pentandra (Retz.) Forsyth f., which applies (perhaps as a heterotypic synonym) to an unrelated sp. in the family Vahliaceae (whatever that is). Rejection of this proposal would require the elimination of the parenthetical authorities for Pentodon pentandrus, and a shift in its effective priority from 1827 to 1875; as a result, the correct name for the sp. (barring some other outlandish conservation proposal) would become an as-yet-unpublished combination in Pentodon based on Oldenlandia macrophylla DC. (1830). Bring it on, we say!
Hassemer, G., D. Iamonico & L. A. Funez. 2018.(2631) Proposal to conserve the name Commelina erecta (Commelinaceae) with a conserved type. Taxon 67: 810–811.
Careful study by the authors has revealed that "all elements of original material" for Commelina erecta L., the long-accepted name for a well-known and widespread sp., "are referable as" Commelina communis L. (also well-known and widespread, though not recorded from the Mesoamerican region). Were this proposal to be rejected, the correct name for the sp. (common in Costa Rica) presently called Commelina erecta would become C. angustifolia Michx.
Iamonico, D. 2018. Nomenclature of the Italian species of subtribe Conyzinae (Asteraceae: Astereae). Taxon 67: 798–800.
Two names applicable to spp. occurring in Costa Rica are lectotypified here, apparently with no consequences for us: Conyza albida Willd. ex Spreng. [a synonym of C. sumatrensis (Retz.) E. Walker, according to Flora mesoamericana, or Erigeron sumatrensis Retz., according to this author] and Erigeron karvinskianus DC. (an accepted name). The collection "Karwinsky s.n. (M)," from Mexico, was cited as the holotype of the last-mentioned name in the most recent Flora mesoamericana volume [see under "Davidse," this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(3), Jul. 2018], but this author found three specimens at M meeting the required specifications.
Juárez, P., R. Flores & M. A. Blanco. 2018. Bauhinia proboscidea (Fabaceae: Cercidoideae), a new species from Costa Rica and Panama, with notes on B. beguinotii, B. gorgonae and B. pansamalana. Phytotaxa 361: 25–40.
Bauhinia proboscidea P. Juárez, Rod. Flores & M. A. Blanco now becomes the official name for the sp. dubbed "Bauhinia sp. B" in the Manual Fabaceae treatment (2010) by co-PI Nelson Zamora. As in the Manual, it is compared with the likewise arborescent Bauhinia beguinotii Cufod., which occurs on the Atlantic slope of Costa Rica, but also with B. gorgonae Killip ex R. S. Cowan (endemic to Colombia) and B. pansamalana Donn. Sm. (of northern Mesoamerica). The new sp. was not described for the Manual in part because its flowers were still inadequately known, a problem that was solved by these authors by raising a plant from seed to bloom (in just two years!) at JBL. Although it was flagged in the Manual as a Costa Rican endemic, Bauhinia proboscidea is here reported from westernmost Panama, on the basis of three collections from the Península de Burica. All four spp. mentioned in the title are treated similarly in this paper, with typology, distribution summaries, comments, evaluations of conservation status (slightly amended in a subsequent "Erratum"; see Phytotaxa 362: 244. 2018), and specimen citations (though only the new sp. is described); all are also featured in the same distribution map. Bauhinia proboscidea is contrasted with its alleged sister sp., B. pansamalana, in a table, and a key is provided to the five neotropical Bauhinia spp. with three fertile stamens (B. gorgonae is not among them, but the Mexican B. coulteri J. F. Macbr. and the Brazilian B. pinheiroi Wunderlin are added to the mix). The author's cite a 1999 Universidad Nactional Autónoma de México master's thesis, revising Mesoamerican Bauhinia (sensu lato), of which we have been ignorant up to now; in that work, three Costa Rican specimens of B. proboscidea were cited, but attributed to B. pansamalana (one was even the basis for the author's illustration for the last-mentioned sp.!). Bauhinia proboscidea is illustrated with a composite line drawing (by the first author) and color photos from life.
Knapp, S., G. E. Barboza, L. Bohs & T. Särkinen. 2018. (2639) Proposal to reject the name Solanum frutescens (Solanaceae). Taxon 67: 820–821.
The name Solanum frutescens A. Braun & C. D. Bouché, published in an "index seminum" and largely ignored for the past 165 years, "likely...corresponds to the taxon now called" S. macrotonum Bitter (1912), which occurs in Costa Rica. We don't have much sympathy for the authors' agenda to "preserve usage of S. macrotonum" (the sp. being a rather obscure one, in the grand scheme of things), but the uncertainty regarding the application of S. frutescens argues strongly (in our view) for its rejection.
Lavin, M., R. T. Pennington, C. E. Hughes, G. P. Lewis, A. Delgado-Salinas, R. Duno de Stefano, L. P. Queiroz, D. Cardoso & M. F. Wojciechowski. 2018. DNA sequence variation among conspecific accessions of the legume Coursetia caribaea reveals geographically localized clades here ranked as species. Syst. Bot. 43: 664–675.
The title tells nearly the whole story: on the hunt for "potentially undetected species," the authors "assessed the phylogenetic relationships among the eight taxonomic varieties" of the widespread and highly variable Coursetia caribaea (Jacq.) Lavin. Sure enough, three of those vars., all either Mexican or South American, emerged as "distantly related" to the autonymic var., and are therefore elevated to sp. rank. With only the autonymic var. represented in Central America, the changes for Costa Rica are minimal: mainly, delete Cracca ochroleuca (Jacq.) Benth. & Oerst. from synonymy in the Manual Fabaceae treatment (2010), and replace "Bol." with "Perú" in the distribution summary of C. caribaea. Features a "taxonomic treatment" of the three resurrected spp., of which only the "Key to Coursetia caribaea and morphologically similar species" (dichotomous and indented) is of interest to us.
Lobo C., S. 2018. An updated list of Pteridophyta and Lycophyta type material deposited at the National Herbarium of Costa Rica (CR). Phytoneuron 2018-49: 1–16.
This enumeration accounts for "137 holotypes, 239 isotypes (s.l.), 22 syntypes, and 766 paratypes (s.l.)," representing 257 spp. and 960 specimens more than were listed in the last comparable assessment [see The Cutting Edge 10(2): 12, Apr. 2003]. The increase is partly due to the recent incorporation into CR of the INBio herbarium (formerly INB), which added 254 type specimens to the total. Amazingly, just two authors, Hermann Christ (1833–1933) and Alexander Rojas (JVR), are responsible for describing 48% of the spp. represented by types at CR (90% of which are from Costa Rica)! The main body of this paper ("Table 1") is a list of names, with an indication of their family affinity, geographical origin, and type status; specimen citations themselves are not provided. A second table lists 13 specimens "used in the descriptions of different taxa," most or all of which involve paratypes, excluded syntypes, or taxa of differing rank.
López-Mendoza, A., R. Grether, S. L. Camargo-Ricalde & R. M. Fonseca. 2018. Lectotypifications and new records of Mimosa (Leguminosae) from Mexico. Phytoneuron 2018-68: 1–7.
Just one each of the three lectotypifications and 11 new records (all of the latter from the state of Guerrero) are of significance to Costa Rican floristics. Mimosa affinis B. L. Rob. (the accepted name for a sp. that occurs in Costa Rica) is lectotypified, without taxonomic complications, and M. polydactyla Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. is reported for the first time from Guerrero. Thus, the Manual distribution statement for the latter sp. should be amended to read: "S Méx. (Chis.; Gro.), CR–Perú...(etc.)." Curiously, the geographic range given here for Mimosa affinis does not include Costa Rica, even though the Manual voucher remains so determined in TROPICOS (and was originally determined as M. affinis by the second author of this paper).
Lovo, J., R. C. Winkworth, A. S. B. Gil, M. C. E. Amaral, V. Bittrich & R. Mello-Silva. 2018. A revised genus-level taxonomy for Trimezieae (Iridaceae) based on expanded molecular and morphological analyses. Taxon 67: 503–520.
A prior study from this same lab [see under "Lovo," this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(4), Oct. 2012] revealed both Neomarica and Trimezia as polyphyletic, raising the specter of taxonomic changes pending "further molecular analyses." Here we have those additional analyses, together with the consequent nomenclatural adjustments. The good news is that the few Costa Rican spp. affected by all of this are—unaffected! Neomarica variegata (M. Martens & Galeotti) Henrich & Goldblatt and the cultivated N. caerulea (Ker Gawl.) Sprague remain in place, as do Trimezia martinicensis (Jacq.) Herb. and T. steyermarkii R. C. Foster, both discovered more recently in the country [see, e.g., under "Leaps and Bounds" in The Cutting Edge 20(2), Apr. 2013]. Some fine tuning of generic sp. totals and distributions will no doubt be required, but in terms of names we are on solid ground. A key is provided to distinguish the five genera of Iridaceae tribe Trimezieae Ravenna recognized by these authors.
Luer, C. A. & A. L. V. Toscano de Brito. 2018. Miscellaneous new species in the Pleurothallidinae (Orchidaceae). Harvard Pap. Bot. 23: 47–51.
None of the six new spp. described in this paper is alleged to occur in Costa Rica, but two are based on collections originating (ostensibly) from westernmost Panama, so close to the Costa Rican border as to raise eyebrows: Masdevallia driesseniana Luer & Sijm and M. rostriflora Luer & Sijm, both from Prov. Chiriquí, "near Amistad" (wherever that is!), at elevations of 1300 and 1800 m (respectively). The latter is compared with the former, and the former with the Peruvian Masdevallia audax Königer. Both are illustrated with reduced composite line drawings. We should add this: each of the two aforementioned new spp. is predicated on a single collection, prepared from a cultivated plant, a practice that we find disconcerting, but which is all too frequent among orchidologists.
Morales, J. F. 2018. New species and combinations of Apocynaceae, Bignoniaceae, Clethraceae, and Cunoniaceae from the Neotropics. Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 75(2, e071): 1–10.
A new (Brazilian) sp. of Apocynaceae and a new (Honduran) sp. of Cunoniaceae do not concern us, but the innovations in the other two families of the title—both to be included in our final Manual volume—do. A recent overhaul of the generic classification of Bignoniaceae [see under "Lohmann," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(3), Jul. 2014] furnished all the necessary new combinations at sp. rank but, as is often the case with such large-scale efforts, neglected the infraspecific categories. Here, two new combinations at varietal rank are validated for the purposes of the upcoming Manual treatment (co-written by this author): Bignonia aequinoctialis L. var. hirtella (Benth.) J. F. Morales (based on Bignonia sarmentosa Bertol. var. hirtella Benth.), which occurs in Costa Rica, and Tanaecium pyramidatum (Rich.) L. G. Lohmann var. tomentosum (Bureau & K. Schum.) J. F. Morales [based on Paragonia pyramidata(Rich.) Bureau var. tomentosa Bureau & K. Schum.], which establishes the autonymic var. to be used for Costa Rican material. In the process, both basionyms are lectotypified, as is Anemopaegma tonduzianum Kraenzl., a synonym of B. a. var hirtella. We think there is a problem, however, with the last-mentioned name: here is a case where ICN Art. 11.6 surely applies (see also under "Vincent," further along in this column). Bignonia sarmentosa var. hirtella established the autonym B. s. var. sarmentosa, which automatically has priority; therefore, the correct name for this var. in Bignonia (as also in Cydista) must be a combination (as yet unpublished in Bignonia) based on B. sarmentosa. Moving on to Clethraceae: the new sp. Clethra secazu J. F. Morales (its epithet an anagram of "Escazú"), endemic to Costa Rica, is described and compared principally with C. vicentina Standl. (which, curiously, occurs in adjacent countries but "skips" Costa Rica). The new sp. is distributed at elevations of 1400–2100 m, mainly on the Pacific slopes of the Cordilleras Central and de Talamanca and the Cerros de Escazú (but with one collection each cited from the Atlantic slope of the northern Cordillera de Talamanca and the Valle Central). It is already included in the author's Manual draft treament of Clethraceae [see The Cutting Edge 10(2): 3, Apr. 2003] as "Clethra sp. 1," and had previously been misdetermined as C. licanioides Standl. & Steyerm. (a sp. of Guatemala and Honduras). Clethra secazu is depicted in several color photos of living material.
——& I. L. Morais. 2018. Studies in the Neotropical Apocynaceae LIII: novelties in Odontadenia. Novon 26: 159–164.
Don't ask us how we missed this (in our own in-house journal!) for our July issue. Better late than never. The only significant development for us in this article is the new combination Odontadenia semidigyna (P. J. Bergius) J. F. Morales, based on Echites semidigynus P. J. Bergius, a name that has passed largely under the radar for the past quarter millennium or so. It will replace the posterior synonym O. macrantha (Roem. & Schult.) Markgr. in the upcoming Manual Apocynaceae (sensu lato) treatment. A lectotype for E. semidigynus is designated (and illustrated with a black-and-white photo).
Moura, T. M., R. E. Gereau, T. E. Särkinen & A. P. Fortuna-Perez. 2018. A new circumscription of Nissolia (Leguminosae–Papilionoideae–Dalbergieae), with Chaetocalyx as a new generic synonym. Novon 26: 193–213.
The new taxonomy espoused in this paper was prompted by various phylogenetic studies (inevitably overlooked by us) revealing Nissolia as nested within Chaetocalyx. The two genera (both with ca. 15 spp.) are thus combined under the older name, Nissolia. This means changes for the two Costa Rican spp. heretofore assigned to Chaetocalyx: C. latisiliqua (Poir.) Benth. ex Hemsl. becomes Nissolia latisiliqua (Poir.) T. M. Moura & Fort.-Perez, while C. scandens (L.) Urb. transmutates to Nissolia vincentina (Ker Gawl.) T. M. Moura & Fort.-Perez (the epithet scandens being preoccupied in Nissolia). The infraspecific classification previously visited upon Chaetocalyx scandens (and deployed in the Manual Fabaceae treatment) is dispensed with (without comment) for Nissolia vincentina. The main body of this paper is a nomenclator, lacking descriptions (except for the genus itself) but including synonymy and typology, distribution summaries, notes, and specimen citations for all 29 accepted spp. (plus one var.). Sixteen lectotypes are newly designated (including one each for Nissolia fruticosa Jacq. and the basionym of N. vincentina), plus one epitype.
Nesom, G. L. 2018. Taxonomic review of Chloracantha (Asteraceae, Astereae). Phytoneuron 2018-58: 1–17.
The "Chloracantha complex" has been treated by most previous authors as monospecific, comprising C. spinosa (Benth.) Nesom (or Aster spinosus Benth., as we first learned it), generally with several vars. In his recent Flora mesoamericana Asteraceae treatment [see under "Davidse," this column, in our last issue], John Pruski (MO) pronounced the characters used to distinguish the vars. as "sin valor taxonómico importante," and scotched the infraspecific classification of C. spinosa. The present author, in this synoptic treatment, begs to differ and heads in the opposite direction, effectively elevating all the former vars. of Chloracantha spinosato sp. rank and thereby creating a genus of four spp. Three of these entities are restricted to the southwestern United States and Mexico, with the fourth ranging from southern Mexico to Panama. This last, which occurs (or occurred; there are no recent collections) sparingly in Costa Rica, here receives the name Chloracantha australis Nesom (a nomen novum based on C. spinosa var. strictospinosa S. D. Sundb.). The author provides full synonymy and typology, a genus description (but no sp. descriptions), a dichotomous and indented key to spp., distribution summaries (and maps), discussions, limited specimen citations, and numerous images of herbarium specimens. The taxonomic treatment of this "complex" in the Manual Asteraceae account will be decided by author Alexánder Rodríguez (CR).
Ohashi, H. & K. Ohashi. 2018. Grona, a genus separated from Desmodium (Leguminosae tribe Desmodieae). J. Jap. Bot. 93: 104–120.
Morphological and molecular studies (as yet unpublished) involving the authors show that two sections of the genus Desmodium (Fabaceae) "constitute a single monophyletic group" that "is clearly separated" from the one including the type sp., D. scorpiurus (Sw.) Poir. Without further ado, the two errant sections are removed to a separate genus under the ponderous name Grona Lour., with all the attendant new combinations validated in the names of "H. Ohashi & K. Ohashi." Because no cladograms accompany this paper, we are unable to weigh in on the advisability of this new taxonomy. So on it goes... It seems that just four spp. occurring in Costa Rica are affected: the former Desmodium adscendens (Sw.) DC., D. barbata (L.) Benth., D. heterocarpon (L.) DC., and D. triflorum (L.) DC., all now with the dubious distinction of membership in the brotherhood of Grona. This strikes us as a rather disparate assemblage that we would not have thought to group together, based on our admittedly superficial acquaintances. The transfers are straightforward, although we would argue that the authors' "Grona heterocarpa" must be corrected to G. heterocarpos (what could be the excuse for changing the original Greek to Latin?). New combinations are also validated for infraspecific taxa, e.g., the former Desmodium heterocarpon subsp. ovalifolium, ascribed to Costa Rica in co-PI Nelson Zamora's Manual treatment (2010). As to the infraspecific taxa of the former D. barbatum, we profess abject ignorance...
Ormerod, P. 2018. A synopsis of the genus Xylobium (Orchidaceae: Maxillareae [sic]). Harvard Pap. Bot. 23: 57–75.
Surprisingly, there is but one significant change here, with respect to the Manual Orchidaceae treatment (2003) by Robert L. Dressler (JVR): the prior Xylobium undulatum (Ruiz & Pav.) Rolfe is installed as the accepted name for the sp. called X. squalens (Lindl.) Lindl. (now a synonym) in the Manual. Furthermore, the recognition of two South American vars. of X. undulatum [one based on Xylobium variegatum (Ruiz & Pav.) Garay & Dunst., cited as a "sensu" synonym in the Manual] consigns Costa Rican material to the autonymic var. of that sp. This contribution, rightly characterized as synoptic, provides synonymy and distribution summaries at all ranks, a description of the genus (but none for lesser taxa, excepting novelties), a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp. and vars., selected specimen citations, discussions, and an enumeration of "Excluded species." The name Xylobium brachypus (Rchb. f.) Hemsl., cited in the Manual (and elsewhere) as a synonym of X. colleyi (Bateman ex Lindl.) Rolfe, is here banished to the "Excluded species" category as (effectively) a nomen dubium, based on a mixed collection. Selected taxa (but only Xylobium undulatum var. undulatum, among those recorded from Costa Rica) are depicted in line drawings. There are no indices. One new sp. is described, and two new combinations validated in other genera (among the "Excluded species"), but these are not relevant to us. The author recognizes a total of 18 spp. in Xylobium (vs. "ca. 30," according to the Manual treatment).
Palacios-Rios, M. & M. D. Arana. 2018. A synopsis of Woodwardia (Blechnaceae) in Veracruz State, Mexico, and typification of W. spinulosa. Willdenowia 48: 23–28.
Woodwardia spinulosa M. Martens & Galeotti is the only sp. of its genus recorded from Costa Rica, where it has been collected at least five times in the Cerros de Escazú (at 1600–2000+ m elevation). That fact is not known to these authors, who frame the geographic range of W. spinulosa as extending only as far south as Nicaragua. As indicated in the title, they do lectotypify the name (and provide a color photo of the chosen specimen), so this has limited relevance to us. The two other spp. treated (and keyed) are Mexican endemics.
Pastore, J. F. B., M. Mota, J. R. Abbott & J. McNeill. 2018. (2627) Proposal to conserve the name Senega against Senegaria, Anthallogea, Corymbula, Leptrochia, Pylostachya, and Sexilia (Polygalaceae). Taxon 67: 650–651.
According to a phylogenetic study (as yet unpublished) helmed by the first author of this note, "Polygala s.str." [which we assume to be what remains of traditional Polygala after the removal of Asemeia, Hebecarpa, etc.; see under "Abbott," this column, in The Cutting Edge 18(4), Oct. 2011] is diphyletic along hemispheric lines; the type sp. of Polygala belongs to the Old World clade, hence the New World clade must be branded with a different genus name. None of the seven candidates evaluated by these authors has been adopted to any significant extent. Our pal Rafinesque authored six of the competing names, all of which have priority over the one he did not author. Guess which name is favored by these authors? Give us a break! And RIP, priority. In any event, we are uncertain as to whether any members of "Polygala s.str." (or Senega, or whatever) occur in Costa Rica.
Paudyal, S. K., P. G. Delprete, S. Neupane & T. J. Motley. 2018. Molecular phylogenetic analysis and generic delimitations in tribe Chiococceae (Cinchonoideae, Rubiaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 187: 365–396.
This molecular phylogenetic study, involving 125 spp. in 27 genera, confirms the monophyly of the titular tribe, but not all of its genera. Of greatest concern to us are Coutarea and Exostema in their traditional senses (e.g., of the Manual and Flora mesoamericana), with one and two (respectively) spp. in Costa Rica. Neither was resolved as monophyletic, andCoutarea(together with the oligospecific Hintonia) is nested within Exostema sensu lato. In part, this is old news; an attempt to resolve the polyphyly of Exostema by segregating 12 spp. into Solenandra [see The Cutting Edge 14(3): 3, Jul. 2007] yielded the combination S. mexicana (A. Gray) Borhidi for the only affected sp. occurring in Costa Rica. Both the paper and the combination were cited in the Manual Rubiaceae treatment (2014), but the classification was not adopted. This new study accepts Solenandra, but goes a step further by enlarging it (at the expense of Exostema) to include a total of 22 spp. Three new mono- or oligospecific genera (none occurring in Costa Rica) are concocted from spp. formerly included in Coutarea or Exostema, reducing the former genus to just two spp. and the latter to eight. Hintonia (with a single sp. in Costa Rica) remains unaffected, as do our other two representatives of this generic cluster, Coutarea hexandra (Jacq.) K. Schum. and Exostema caribaeum (Jacq.) Schult. Other classificatory options were, of course, available from a cladistic standpoint; in particular, all the aforementioned genera (including Solenandra) could have been lumped into a single genus (with Coutarea being the oldest name), or the three new genera could have been foregone and included in Coutarea. We trust that the authors chose the most sensible course of action. A synoptic "Taxonomic treatment," providing all the necessary new combinations, terminates the paper. Some other innovations, involving other genera of tribe Chiococceae, do not impact Costa Rican floristics.
Pederneiras, L. C., S. Romaniuc-Neto & V. F. Mansano. 2018. Nomenclatural revision of Ficus sect. Americanae (Moraceae): typification of Ficus americana and allied species. Phytotaxa 361: 244–250.
One neotype and 22 lectotypes are designated in this paper, including seven of the latter for synonyms of Ficus americana Aubl. subsp. americana or F. schippii Standl., taxa that occur in Costa Rica. Moving right along...
Pellegrini, M. O. O., C. N. Horn & R. F. Almeida. 2018. Total evidence phylogeny of Pontederiaceae (Commelinales) sheds light on the necessity of its recircumscription and synopsis of Pontederia L. PhytoKeys 108: 25–83.
Previously published phylogenies of Pontederiaceae have shown Eichhornia to be "hopelessly polyphyletic," comprising "three distinct lineages"; one could also describe it as paraphyletic, with respect to Pontederia and the Old World genus Monochoria. Those results are corroborated by the present study, which combines plastid and morphological data. Taxonomic resolution of the problem pits the option of sinking Eichhornia and Monochoria "into a broader, but morphologically cohesive Pontederia" vs. that of splitting Eichhornia "into three ill-defined genera, in order to maintain Pontederia and Monochoria..." The authors settle on the first option, which "is considerably more taxonomically stable and would greatly facilitate the identification of Pontederiaceae specimens..." That said, they maintain the aforementioned "ill-defined" taxa (along with Monochoria and Pontederia sensu stricto) as subgenera, which they seem to have no trouble defining. The end result of all this is that Pontederiaceae becomes digeneric, with only Heteranthera and Pontederia sensu lato. No one would bat an eyelash, were it not for the fact that a name-change is now necessitated for the so-called Water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms (henceforth Pontederia crassipes Mart.), an economically important (mostly in a negative way) sp. about which very much has been published. If it makes anyone feel better, the splitting option mentioned above would not help matters, as E. crassipes does not group with the type sp.of Eichhornia and would still require a different genus name (apparently the obscure Piaropus Raf.); the only way to preserve the binomial Eichhornia crassipes would be through some elaborate conservation scheme. The "synopsis" includes revised descriptions of Pontederia (sensu lato) and each of its five subgenera, keys (non-indented) to the subgenera and the spp. of each, synonymy and (sometimes) typology, distribution summaries, and (where needed) nomenclatural and/or taxonomic notes. There are no indices. New combinations in Pontederia are validated in the names of "M. Pell. & C. N. Horn"; for Costa Rica, these were needed only for the former Eichhornia diversifolia (Vahl) Urb. and E. heterosperma Alexander; the other spp. mentioned or treated in full under Eichhornia in the Manual Pontederiaceaeaccount (2003) already have names (generally cited) in Pontederia. Selected spp. (most of them) are depicted in color photos from life. Numerous new typifications are effected. Incidentally: the authors attribute to Costa Rica Pontederia ovalis Mart. (of Pontederia sensu stricto), which "most authors" have distinguished from P. cordata L. (if at all) only at varietal rank. That taxon was not mentioned in the Manual (under any name), and we can find no basis for its alleged occurrence in Costa Rica.
Peterson, P. M., R. J. Soreng, S. M. Phillips & J. H. Wiersema. 2018. (2620) Proposal to reject the name Poa amabilis (Eragrostis amabilis) (Poaceae). Taxon 67: 644–645.
The names Eragrosis amabilis (L.) Wight & Arn. and E. tenella (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. & Schult., of equal prioirity, have both enjoyed acceptance, in recent decades, for the same widespread sp., one of the more common members of its genus in Costa Rica. We first learned said sp. as Eragrostis tenella, the name used by the late Richard W. Pohl (citing E. amabilis in synonymy) in his Flora costaricensis Gramineae treatment (1977). However, most subsequent floristic accounts of Poaceae have done the reverse, e.g.,Flora mesoamericana (1994), Flora de Nicaragua (2001), and the Manual (2003), all of which implemented E. amabilis as the accepted name while citingE. tenella as a synonym. The turnabout was occasioned by a 1988 paper, helmed by the highly respected nomenclatural authority Dan H. Nicolson (US), which argued that the first publication to adopt one of the competing names over the other favored E. amabilis. However, that claim is disputed by the present authors, who instead bestow the honor on another paper that favored E. tenella. But still the plot thickens: examination of the reigning lectotype of Poa amabilis L. (the basionym of Eragrostis amabilis) by the third author of this paper has revealed that it represents a different sp. altogether, presently known as Eragrostis viscosa (Retz.) Trin.! In drafting this proposal, the authors considered three options: (1), outright rejection of the name Poa amabilis (which would reinstall Eragrostis tenella as the correct name for the sp. in question); (2), doing nothing (which would likewise reinstall E. tenella as an accepted name, but implement E. amabilis as the correct name for the sp. now called E. viscosa—which, by the way, also occurs in Costa Rica!); and (3), conservation of Poa amabilis against P. tenella L., and with a conserved type representing the sp. to which both names have long been applied (which would maintain the nomenclature used in Flora costaricensis, Flora de Nicaragua, and the Manual). Of course, these authors have gone with the first option, but from a strictly Mesoamerican perspective, the third option is vastly preferable.
Poulsen, A. D., H. B. Mathisen, M. F. Newman, M. Ardiyani, Ø. Lofthus & C. S. Bjorå. 2018. Sulettaria: a new ginger genus disjunct from Elettaria cardamomum. Taxon 67: 725–728.
Elettaria (Zingiberaceae) has heretofore been deemed to comprise 10 accepted spp., though only seven were attributed to the genus in the Manual Zingiberaceae treatment (2003). Only the generic type sp., E. cardamomum (L.) Maton (the principal cardamom of commerce), was included in the last-mentioned work. All the spp. are distributed in peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra, and Borneo, with the the exception of E. cardamomum itself, which "originates in India and Sri Lanka" (a fact which, we have just now discovered, was not indicated in the Manual, so annotate your copy!). These molecular analyses reveal traditional Elettaria as polyphyletic, resulting in the validation of the new genus name of the title to accommodate the Indomalesian component (together with a handful of spp. included most recently in Amomum, making 15 spp. altogether). Elettaria is thereby restricted to its type, E. cardamomum, and possibly two other spp. (now included in Amomum) from the Indian subcontinent. We can only suggest that the distribution statement for Elettaria in the Manual be amended to "1–3 spp., India y Sri Lanka."
Prance, G. T. 2018. Rhizophoraceae. Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 120: 1–63.
This is one we never saw coming. Rhizophoraceae is here considered as separate from Anisophylleaceae, with which it has sometimes been allied (though they are now classed in different orders). Worldwide, Rhizophoraceae can claim 16 genera and some 145 spp., but only three genera and 26 spp. occur in the Neotropics and are grist for this mill. One of the three neotropical genera, Sterigmapetalum, is strictly South American, leaving us with just Cassipourea and Rhizophora, as per the Manual treatment of the family (2014) by Alexánder Rodríguez (CR). The two accounts also agree to a surprising extent as regards the sp.-level taxonomy of the two last-mentioned genera. Three spp. of Cassipourea were recognized for Costa Rica in the Manual: C. elliptica (Sw.) Poir., C. killipii Cuatrec., and C. "sp. A," the last restricted in the country to the Barra del Colorado region and possibly endemic. Those same three taxa are also accepted in the monograph under review (which recognizes 14 spp. of Cassipourea in the Neotropics), withC. "sp. A" described as a new sp., Cassipourea undulata Prance, now extended into Panama. However, C. killipii is not attributed to Costa Rica (albeit to southeastern Nicaragua!); Costa Rican material ascribed to Cassipourea killipiiin the Manual is here subsumed within C. elliptica, as far as we can tell, as are all the aberrant specimens cited in the Manual discussion of the latter sp. It bears mentioning that a second of the three new spp. described in this work, Cassipourea toroensis Prance, is also a Mesoamerican endemic, and should perhaps be expected in Costa Rica, as it occurs quite near the border in westernmost Panama (Prov. Bocas del Toro, as the epithet implies); indeed, several collections from the Atlantic slope of Costa Rica in the MO herbarium appear to us quite inseparable from Panamanian material annotated by this author as C. toroensis. Turning now to Rhizophora: as in the Manual, both R. mangle L. andR. racemosa G. Mey. (the only neotropcial spp. of the genus) are attributed here to Costa Rica, along with their hybrid, R. ×harrisonii Leechm.; however, Freddy Quesada 92, the Manual voucher for R. racemosa, is here cited under R. ×harrisonii (and the Flora mesoamericana Costa Rican voucher for the latter is cited here under R. racemosa), so the hybrid entity clearly remains controversial. Features technical descriptions at all ranks, dichotomous and indented keys to genera and the spp. of each, synonymy and typology, distribution and phenology summaries, evaluations of conservation status, selected specimen citations, discussions, distribution maps, a section on "Doubtful and excluded names," and indices to exsiccatae and common and scientific names. The genera are organized in the text by tribes (Cassipourea and Sterigmapetalum in one, Rhizophora in another). The introductory portion (very brief by the standards of this series) addresses the systematic position of Rhizophoraceae vs. Anisophylleaceae (compared in a table), as well as morphology and wood anatomy. Representative spp. of each genus (including all of those occurring in Costa Rica, as well as Cassipourea toroensis) are depicted in composite line drawings and/or black-and-white photos of herbarium material. Numerous lectotypes and such are designated. Incidentally: the author's treatment of neotropical Anisophylleaceae (not represented in Costa Rica) is bound in this same volume.
Pruski, J. F. 2018. Compositae of Central America-VII. Digitacalia, Dresslerothamnus, Pentacalia, Zemisia, their microcharacters, and some other Senecioneae. Phytoneuron 2018-53: 1–112.
One gets the feeling that this paper was intended to have been published prior to the author's Flora mesoamericana Asteraceae treatment (see under "Davidse," this column, in our last issue) but that, for whatever reason, things did not go as planned. That being the case, there is very little here that is new to us, in terms of Costa Rica, although we do benefit from a more generous presentation than was possible in FM (with more elaborate keys, more extensive discussions and specimen citations, illustrations, etc.). The one new development that does concern us is a retraction, involving the sp. treated as "Género A sp. A" in Flora mesomericana, and attributed there to Costa Rica (with a voucher cited). That sp. is here provided with a valid name, Zemisia thomasii (Klatt) Pruski (comb. nov., based on Senecio thomasii Klatt), but restricted to northern Mesoamerica (southern Mexico to El Salvador and Honduras); the "citation of the plant in Costa Rica [in FM]...was a clerical error." He giveth, and He taketh away!
Roalson, E. H., D. A. Simpson & I. Larridon. 2018. (2618) Proposal to conserve Bulbostylis, nom. cons. (Cyperaceae) against an additional name, Nemum. Taxon 67: 642.
Phylogenetic studies have revealed that the smallish (eight spp.) African genus Nemum Desv. ex Ham. (1825) is nested within the large (215 spp.), cosmopolitan genus Bulbostylis Kunth (1837). Need we say more?
Sanín, D. & A. Salino. 2018. Five new synonyms in Serpocaulon (Polypodiaceae). Phytotaxa 360: 125–134.
This peculiar contribution comprises a taxonomic treatment of two spp., Serpocaulon sessilifolium (Desv.) A. R. Sm. and S. wagneri (Mett.) A. R. Sm.—which, apart from belonging to the same genus, seem to have no connection—on the slender pretense of newly synonymizing five names under one or the other. Both of the accepted spp. occur in Costa Rica, obliging us to mention this article; however, none of the new synonyms means anything to us, or has been used in the Mesoamerican region. Perhaps the only repercussion for the Flora mesoamericana pteridophyte volume (Vol. 1; 1995) is the extension of the geographic range of S. wagneri (as Polypodium wagneri Mett. in FM) to Brazil. For both spp., the authors provide synonymy, typology, brief descriptions, distribution summaries, selected (though extensive) specimen citations, discussions, and various illustrations. Additionally, lectotypes are designated for two synonyms. Surely this all could have waited.
Särkinen, T., P. Poczai, G. E. Barboza, G. M. van der Weerden, M. Baden & S. Knapp. 2018. A revision of the Old World black nightshades (Morelloid clade of Solanum L., Solanaceae). PhytoKeys 106: 1–223.
This massive contribution would have little relevance to us, but for the fact that Solanum americanum Mill., native (at least ostensibly) to the New World (including Costa Rica), has become a pantropical weed. Thus it is fully treated here, and we may compare it with S. nigrum L., an Old World native that has become invasive in the New World. The name Solanum nigrum has been misapplied historically in Costa Rica to all three members of the so-called "Morelloid clade" recognized for the country (see the discussion under S. americanum in Manual Vol. 8; 2015); however, genuine S. nigrum was not accepted as occurring in Costa Rica by Manual Solanaceae author Lynn Bohs (UT) nor (implicitly) in the present work, whichrestricts its New World distribution to "temperate North America." For anyone wishing to be on the hunt for the real Solanum nigrum in Costa Rica: it is separated from S. americanum, in this revision, by a key couplet characterizing the former sp. as having "glandular trichomes present (e.g. along stems, petioles and leaves), plants usually sticky to touch when fresh," vs. glandular trichomes absent and plants not sticky in S. americanum. We will not belabor the many fine features of this opus magnus; the fact that 223 pages are devoted to just 19 spp. speaks for itself. Perhaps it is asking too much, but a comparable revision of the New World "Morelloids" would be nice to have!
Shaw, J. 2018. Iochroma reshuffle. Plantsman n. s., 17: 124–125.
Bad news is forestalled for our Güitite [Acnistus arborescens (L.) Schltdl.; Solanaceae], but is by now inevitable. Molecular studies that we had not seen revealed the monospecific Acnistus as nested within the much larger (ca. 25 spp.) Iochroma. The fact that Acnistus is the older name prompted the present author to propose conservation of Iochroma, which was subsequently recommended [see under "Applequist," this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(3), Jul. 2017]. Here he attempts to validate (among other things) a new combination in Iochroma for A. arborescens, but in our estimation, bungles the deal. He fails by not indicating the basionym, Atropa arborescens L., with a full and direct reference to its author and place of publication, as required by ICN Art. 41.5. Instead, he cites the basionym erroneously as "Acnistus arborescens Schltdl.," and provides a bibliographic link only to the combination of Schlechtendal (who himself explicitly referenced the Linnaean antecedent). No doubt someone will get this right in the near future (we don't care). Incidentally: the author of this paper had no involvement in the molecular work that led to this nomenclatural activity (though he has written on the horticultural aspects of Iochroma). So this is essentially the same sort of caper for which GLOVAP [see under "Christenhusz," this column, in The Cutting Edge 25(2), Apr. 2018] has been castigated, albeit on a much smaller scale. Happens all the time.
Silveira, J. B. & R. S. Secco. 2018. Taxonomic studies in Moutabea (Polygalaceae) in Brazil. Phytotaxa 365: 225–244.
This amounts to a virtual monograph of the enigmatic genus Moutabea, most (if not all) the spp. of which occur in Brazil. Nine spp. are recognized by these authors, vs. a generic total of 11 indicated in the Manual Polygalaceae treatment (2014) and The plant-book; however, two names are newly synonymized. Unexpectedly, even the sole Costa Rican representative of the genus, Moutabea gentryi T. Wendt, is included; its distribution was specified as "CR–N Col." in the Manual, but several collections from western Brazil can now be reported. Features synonymy, typology, technical descriptions, and discussions at all ranks, tabular comparisons of and a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp., distribution summaries and maps, evaluations of conservation status, and specimen citations. There are no indices. The very brief introductory part is mainly concerned with taxonomic history. All the spp. are depicted in serviceable composite line drawings.
Šlenker, M., J. Zozomová-Lihová, T. Mandáková, H. Kudoh, Y. Zhao, A. Soejima, T. Yahara, K. Skokanová, S. Španiel & K. Marhold. 2018. Morphology and genome size of the widespread weed Cardamine occulta: how it differs from cleistogamic C. kokaiensis and other closely related taxa in Europe and Asia. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 187: 456–482.
A previous article involving several of these same authors [see under "Marhold," this column, in The Cutting Edge 23(2), Apr. 2016] reaffirmed the distinction of Cardamine occulta Hornem. (native to east Asia) from C. flexuosa With. (native to Europe), with which it had often been confused, but did not adequately address the morphological attributes or geographic distributions of those widely adventive spp. (one or both of which might be expected to occur in Costa Rica). The present paper (presumably the one cited as "in prep." in its predecessor) remedies that situation with respect to morphology, but not so much for geography. Cardamine occulta is compared in narrative style to four other related spp. (including C. flexuosa and C. hirsuta L., both recorded from Costa Rica), and a "Taxonomic overview" at the end of the paper provides a dichotomous key to all five spp., as well as descriptions and drawings for all save C. hirsuta. Full documentation of the geographic distributions of these Old World spp. (several adventive in the New World) remains elusive. The "cleistogamic" sp. of the title is described here as new, but restricted to east Asia.
Smith, G. F. & E. Figueiredo. 2017. Notes on Agave panamana Trel. (Asparagaceae: Agavoideae / Agavaceae) from Panama, Central America, with reference to morphological variation in Agave angustifolia Haw. Bradleya 35: 33–45.
We've seen this before: authors (these same ones) based in the Old World making a futile attempt to comprehend or clarify the taxonomy of New World genera by studying one or a few cultivated specimens [see, e.g., under "Smith," this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(2), Apr. 2017]. The limitations and pitfalls of such an approach are numerous, and need not be belabored here. This time around the target is Agave panamana, generally accepted by New World workers as a synonym of A. angustifolia. For some reason (have they ever even been to Panama?), these authors have sought to challenge or at least test that hypothesis based on their detailed description of a single individual of "Agave panamana" cultivated in South Africa (but with a Panamanian provenance). This entity is compared (in narrative and tabular form) with A. angustifolia sensu stricto (presumably also represented by South African material, though this is not made clear), with predictably murky results: although "most of the characters of A. panamana fall within the range of variation generally accepted for A. angustifolia,...there is at least some evidence that supports the acceptance of A. panamana as a species in its own right." Real good!
Toscano de Brito, A. L. V. 2018. New combinations in Crocodeilanthe (Pleurothallidinae, Orchidaceae). Harvard Pap. Bot. 23: 53–55.
The classification of Orchidaceae seems to get murkier with each passing day. Crocodeilanthe, long treated as a subgenus of Pleurothallis [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 5(3): 5, Jul. 1998], has in recent decades been restored to generic rank, then subsumed by various authors into Stelis. This author embraces Crocodeilanthe as a distinct genus of ca. 90 spp., enlarging it somewhat to include Pseudostelis, another taxon that once served as a subgenus of Pleurothallis [see, e.g., The Cutting Edge 7(2): 9, Apr. 2000] and was later recognized (by some authors) as a separate genus. As to the cladistic rationale for resurrecting Crocodeilanthe, the author is a bit evasive, stating that the genus in question is "closely related to Stelis" (without saying exactly how closely), "but not embedded in it," and that "the transfer of all Crocodeilanthe species to Stelis...is not justified" (without elaborating). So be it. Among the four new combinations validated here (pursuant to the subsumption of Pseudostelis) are two that pertain to spp. occurring in Costa Rica: Crocodeilanthe simplex (Ames & C. Schweinf.) Toscano and C. spiralis (Lindl.) Toscano, for the spp. treated in the Manual Orchidaceae account (2003) as Pleurothallis simplexAmes & C. Schweinf. and P. deregularis (Barb. Rodr.) Luer, respectively (Physosiphon spiralis Lindl., the basionym of C. spiralis, is the oldest name applicable to the former P. deregularis, but its epithet is preoccupied in both Pleurothallis and Stelis).
Tripp, E. A. & M. A. Luján. 2018. Venezuelan Ruellia (Acanthaceae): a monograph. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 119: 1–76+.
Among the 29 Ruellia spp. recognized for Venezuela and treated in this work are just five that occur (at least in cultivation) in Costa Rica: Ruellia blechum L., R. geminiflora Kunth, R. inundata Kunth, R. simplex C. Wright, and R. tetrastichantha Lindau. While it is good to have this supplemental information for those spp., the comments that are most substantive for our purposes concern a sp. that apparently is not found in Tiquicia, viz., Ruellia ciliatiflora Hook. Some of our readers may recall that the name Ruellia nudiflora (Engelm. & A. Gray) Urb., long used for a sp. in Costa Rica, was recently synonymized under R. ciliatiflora by another Acanthaceae specialist [see under "Daniel," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(2), Apr. 2014]. These authors take issue with that conclusion, and present compelling morphological and molecular arguments (based on their own studies) "to warrant recognition of two separate species" (though R. nudiflora does not occur in Venezuela). Given that the first author of this monograph is also a co-author of the Ruellia account in the Manual draft treatment of Acanthaceae, the die is cast for us! The same logic applies to restoration of sp. ranking for R. tetrastichantha which, for the past 67 years, has generally been treated as a var. of Ruellia tubiflora Kunth. The authors rationalize their "departure from the more common use" implicitly on the grounds that the two taxa differ consistently (in corolla coloration) and have not been found to hybridize.
Vargas, O. M. 2018. Reinstatement of the genus Piofontia: a phylogenomic-based study reveals the biphyletic nature of Diplostephium (Asteraceae: Astereae). Syst. Bot. 43: 485–496.
The "phylogenomic-based study," published last year (we overlooked it) by the author and colleagues, showed Diplostephium to be diphyletic, in a doomsday scenario involving such heavy-hitters as Archibaccharis and (especially!) Baccharis (as well as a fair number of relatively minor genera). So the lumping option would appear to be a no-go. This paper tackles the nomenclatural implementation of the genus name Piofontia Cuatrec. for the so-called "Northern Andean clade" of traditional Diplostephium, with the latter name now restricted to the "Central Andean clade." Time marches on, and the just-published Flora mesoamericana Asteraceae volume [see under "Davidse," this column, in our last issue] gets a bit older (see also under "Nesom," this column). That work attributed two Diplostephium spp. to its study region, both restricted to southern Central America and represented in Costa Rica: Diplostephium costaricense S. F. Blake and an undescribed entity dubbed "Diplostephium sp. A." Needless to say, both of those belong (evidently, in the case of "sp. A") to the "Northern Andean clade," henceforth Piofontia; so get used to the combination Piofontia costaricensis (S. F. Blake) O. M. Vargas, here validated (along with many others). A lengthy description is provided for Piofontia (now with 60 spp.), and its differences from Diplostephium sensu stricto (now with 48 spp.) are discussed and summarized in a key couplet. Selected spp. of each genus are depicted in composite color plates showing living material.
Vasconcelos, S., M. L. Soares, C. M. Sakuragui, T. B. Croat, G. Oliveira & A. M. Benko-Iseppon. 2018.
New insights on the phylogenetic relationships among the traditional Philodendron subgenera and the other groups of the Homalomena clade (Araceae). Molec. Phylogen. Evol. 127: 168–178.
This paper does not cite that of Canal et al. (2018; see under "Canal," this column, for background), and the reverse is also true; thus, despite one author in common, the two investigations would appear to have been undertaken quite independently. They agree in showing Adelonema as sister to Philodendron sensu lato (i.e., in the traditional sense), thus supporting (though not requiring) recognition of the former taxon at generic rank. However, in the present study Thaumatophyllum [i.e., Philodendron subgen. Meconostigma (Schott) Engl.] appears as sister (with strong support) to a clade harboring (also with strong support) Philodendron subgenera Philodendron and Pteromischum (Schott) Mayo—unlike the Canal study, which suggested that Thaumatophyllum was sister to subgen. Pteromischum. Therefore, while also supporting (though not requiring) the elevation of Thaumatophyllum to the rank of genus, the present study in no way mandates similar treatment for subgen. Pteromischum. Despite this result, the authors stick to their guns; although they admit that "the inclusion of Adelonema into Philodendron as its fourth subgenus, and thus the maintenance of Meconostigma and Pteromischum as subgenera, would demand less profound taxonomic changes," they go on to "suggest the resurrection of the genus Elopium Schott to encompass the species of Pteromischum, which is consistent with the previous decisions [both misguided!] of separating H[omalomena]. sect. Curmeria into Adelonema...and P. subg. Meconostigma into Thaumatophyllum..." We are reminded of an old Turkish proverb (paraphrased here): "No matter how far you have gone down the wrong road—turn back!" Once a phylogeny has been established, nomenclatural stability becomes the single most important consideration, but the "publish or perish" ethic will motivate other sorts of behavior.
Vincent, M. A., J. L. Zarucchi & K. N. Gandhi. 2018. A new varietal combination in Mimosa pigra (Fabaceae). Phytoneuron 2018-70: 1–2.
Mimosa asperata L. has been treated variously as a distinct sp. (as in Manual Vol. 5), or a synonym or var. of M. pigra L. When treated as a var. (as in Flora de Nicaragua), the name of choice has been Mimosa pigra var. berlandieri (A. Gray ex Torr.) B. L. Turner. These authors invoke ICN Art. 11.6, stating that "an autonym has priority over the name at the same rank that established it," to argue that Mimosa pigra var. asperata Zarucchi, Vincent & Gandhi (a combination validated herein) must instead prevail. We have our doubts about this; after all, M. pigra var. berlandieri is not "the name at the same rank that established" var. asperata; that honor goes to M. asperata var. pigra. So perhaps the authors got this wrong, or else Art. 11.6 merits rewording. We assume (though it is not made clear) that this taxon will be ranked as a var. in Flora of North America. For more regarding Art. 11.6, see the first entry under "Morales," further back in this column.
Wen, J., L.-M. Lu, Z.-L. Nie, X.-Q. Liu, N. Zhang, S. Ickert-Bond, J. Gerrath, S. R. Manchester, J. Boggan & Z.-D. Chen. 2018. A new phylogenetic tribal classification of the grape family (Vitaceae). J. Syst. Evol. 56: 262–272.
Based on morphological and phylogenetic evidence that has accrued to date, the authors recognize 16 extant genera in Vitaceae. These group into five major clades, here accorded tribal status, with three of the tribes described as new. Of course, that is outside our bailiwick, but two developments at the rank of genus do pique our interest. We had concluded from an earlier study [see The Cutting Edge 13(2): 13, Apr. 2006] that the genus Ampelocissus (with a single sp. in Costa Rica) was on the rocks, and could wind up either absorbing two much smaller Indomalesian genera, or else split in twain, with its New World component achieving generic status. Subsequent evidence supports the aborption of the two Indomalesian genera (at least, as according to their types), as well as the "splitting in twain" option, but not separate generic status for New World Ampelocissus; rather, according to the scenario envisioned by these authors, Ampelocissus should be limited to its Old World component (including the two Indomalesian genera), and "at least some species of the Neotropical Ampelocissus should be transferred to Vitis..." It so happens that our own Ampelocissus javalensis (Seem.) W. D. Stevens & A. Pool is one of the two New World spp. featured in the published cladogram and clearly grouping with Vitis (the combination Vitis javalensis Seem. is already available, by the way). The other intriguing development concerns Cissus trianae Planch., which occurs in Costa Rica and was previously identified as belonging to a clade that "need[s] to be removed from Cissus to maintain the monophyly of the genus" [see under "Liu," this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(2), Apr. 2013]. Said removal was not formalized then, and the present authors (including all of those from the previous paper) back off a bit from their earlier pronouncement. The clade in question is now portrayed "as sister to the core Cissus clade"—which would not necessitate its banishment to a separate genus—and the authors temper their assessment to, "it may warrant generic status" (pending the usual further studies). This issue of the Journal of Systematics and Evolution is devoted to "Recent Advances in Systematics and Evolution of the Grape Family Vitaceae."
Whittemore, A. T. 2018. What is Sambucus mexicana (Adoxaceae)? J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 12: 69–73.
We asked ourselves the same question while editing the Manual Adoxaceae treatment (yet to be published) by Alexánder Rodríguez (CR). The name Sambucus mexicana C. Presl ex DC. (along with several others) has been widely applied throughout much of the Western Hemisphere to a highly varied assemblage of material. This author does not attempt to resolve the complicated taxonomy of the genus, merely the correct application of the name with respect to its type material. He concludes that the original material must have been collected "from the area around Monterey, California," and that "the name S. mexicana must be applied to plants from California and adjacent areas." He adds that "none of the plants found [in central and southern Mexico and Central America] resembles the type of S. mexicana." We arrived at a similar, if less far-reaching, conclusion, noting in the manuscript that the type of S. mexicana does not agree well with Costa Rican material to which the name had been applied, and more likely corresponds "con una sp. distinta restringida a N Mesoamérica." We went on to speculate that "a nivel de especie, es factible que Sambucus simpsonii Rehder (1911) sea el nombre más viejo de usar" in Costa Rica; the present author agrees that the Floridean type specimen of S. simpsonii is "rather similar to the neotropical material," but also points out a difference in laminar dentition. It remains to be seen how Alexánder will respond to our suggestions, and the conclusions of this paper.
As an aside: as far as we are aware, the correct name for the family harboring Sambucus and its close relatives is technically Viburnaceae, at this point in time, not Adoxaceae [see under "Applequist," this column, in The Cutting Edge 21(2), Apr. 2014]. That issue is not addressed in this paper, wherein the name Viburnaceae is ignored either willfully or in ignorance; either way, we think it is a good thing, and plan to do the same!
Wipff, J. K. & R. B. Shaw. 2018. New combinations in Cenchropsis, Dichanthelium, and Stapfochloa (Poaceae). Phytoneuron 2018-54: 1–7.
The authors proclaim (providing no cladistic rationale) that "the unique and distinct fascicle morphology, and basic chromosome number...place Cenchrus myosuroides and related taxa outside of the generic limits of Cenchrus sensu stricto and warrant their recognition within Cenchropsis Nash." The combination Cenchropsis myosuroides (Kunth) Nash already existed for the only affected sp. in Costa Rica (Cenchrus myosuroides Kunth of the Manual Poaceae treatment), but the authors validate a new combination for an Argentinean var. A technical description of the (apparently) dispecific Cenchropsis is included.
TOP
|
|
