| |
Main |
Family List (MO) |
Family List (INBio) | Cutting Edge
Draft Treatments |
Guidelines |
Checklist |
Citing |
Editors
The Cutting Edge
Volume XXIX, Number 3, July 2022
News and Notes | Leaps and Bounds | Germane Literature |
Season's Pick | Global Range Extensions
Alban, D. M., E. M. Biersma, J. W. Kadereit & M. S. Dillenberger. 2022. Colonization of the Southern Hemisphere by Sagina and Colobanthus (Caryophyllaceae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 308(1): 1–21
In a footnote to their Table 1, the authors of this paper expound on what they apparently believe to be their original conclusion that Sagina revelierei Jord. & Fourr. is the correct name for the sp. previously known as S. subulata (Sw.) C. Presl, an illegitimate homonym. We are gratified that they agree with our viewpoint, which was presented in these pages five years ago [see under “Iamonico,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(1), Jan. 2017], and had been implemented in TROPICOS even before that. Subsequently, Sagina revelierei was used formally as the accepted name for the sp. concerned in the Manual Caryophyllaceae treatment (2020). Otherwise, this paper is largely outside our field of interest.
Aubriot, X. & S. Knapp. 2022. A revision of the “spiny solanums” of tropical Asia (Solanum, the Leptostemonum Clade, Solanaceae). PhytoKeys 198: 1–270.
This major work is obviously peripheral to our field, so we will not belabor it more than is necessary. However, it does include eight spp. that occur (either naturally or as introductions) in Costa Rica: Solanum capsicoides All., S. chrysotrichum Schltdl., S. jamaicense Mill., S. mammosum L., S. melongena L., S. sisymbriifolium Lam., S. torvum Sw., and S. wrightii Benth. We learn a bit more about some of these: first, Solanum chrysotrichum and S. jamaicense are more or less widely adventive in Asia, facts not mentioned in the Manual Solanaceae treatment (2015); and second, Solanum pseudosaponaceum Blume is a distinct sp. (absent from Costa Rica), not a synonym of S. torvum as indicated in the Manual [following an error made originally by the second author of this paper; see under “Knapp,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(1), Jan. 2012]. Furthermore, these authors state that Solanum melongena (the eggplant) originated in Asia, rather than Africa as indicated in the Manual, and they do not even cite the article that was consulted for the Manual [see under “Weese,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(2), Apr. 2010]; perhaps there was some subsequent development that passed us by. In general, this paper adheres closely to the format described in the following entry (except that descriptions are omitted when equivalent ones have been published elsewhere, e.g., for all the spp. in Costa Rica save S. melongena). Three new spp. are described here, all restricted to the study region; many lecto- and neotypes are newly designated as well, and we count the following as germane to our interests: two new lectotype designations for synonyms of Solanum capsicoides; 12 new lectotypes and one new neotype for synonyms of S. melongena; and a new lectotype for S. wrightii. Also lectotypified is Solanum pseudosaponaceum, plus one of its synonyms. Abundantly illustrated throughout
Barboza, G. E., C. Carrizo García, L. B. Bianchetti, M. V. Romero & M. Scaldaferro. 2022. Monograph of wild and cultivated chili peppers (Capsicum L., Solanaceae). PhytoKeys 200: 1–423.
Although it may be difficult for us old-timers to imagine how or why a work like this would be done by committee, here we have it: a landmark monograph of the economically valuable neotropical genus Capsicum that instantly eclipses all of the piecemeal efforts (as cited in the Manual) that came before. Surprisingly (at least to us), there are no significant changes in store for the Manual account (2015) of Capsicum authored by Lynn Bohs (UT), as to either the taxa recognized or the names used. The contribution under review, “based on results from many years of herbarium study and field work,” accepts a total of 43 spp. in Capsicum, vs. “35–40” according to the Manual. Most of the spp. are restricted to South America, with only three occurring naturally in the Mesoamerican and just two in Costa Rica (four of the six spp. treated in the Manual being strictly cultivated). We note a few minor modifications that are needed for the Manual Capsicum account. In the first place, the statement that “Las razas cult. de [Capsicum baccatum L.] se refieren a Capsicum baccatum var. pendulum (Willd.) Eshbaugh” is incorrect, as a second cultivated var. of C. baccatum is recognized in this work; nonetheless, it would appear that the plants we have seen in Costa Rica do indeed correspond to C. b. var. pendulum. Secondly, several synonymies require correction: the names Capsicum angulosum Mill. and C. conicum Lam. were cited in synonymy under C. annuum L. var. glabriusculum (Dunal) Heiser & Pickersgill and C. annuum (respectively) in the Manual, but both are correctly synonyms of C. annuum var. annuum; and Capsicum conicum G. Mey. was cited questioningly in the synonymy of C. frutescens L., but the question mark may now be dispensed with. This monumental work features synonymy, typology, technical descriptions, and distribution summaries at all ranks, and an artificial key to spp. and vars. (we submit that a natural key would be more appropriate for a monograph), supplemented by various regional keys and a key to cultivated taxa. Sadly, all of the keys are non-indented. The sp. entries, ordered alphabetically, include distribution maps, phenology summaries, chromosome numbers, common names, uses (if known), conservation assessments, and discussions (with vars. accounted for when necessary). At the end are sections on “doubtful,” invalid, and excluded names. Specimen citations are deferred (along with other information) to “Supplemental materials,” but an index to exsiccatae is appended. The extensive and copiously illustrated introductory portion tackles taxonomic history, morphology, fruit and seed dispersal, cytogenetics, domestication, and distribution and habitat. One new sp. is described and one new combination validated, but these pertain to South American taxa. In addition, numerous new typifications are ventured; for the taxa represented in Costa Rica, we count the following: 32(!) new lectotype designations and two new neotypes for synonyms of Capsicum annuum var. annuum; six new lectotypes and one new neotype for synonyms of C. a. var. glabriusculum; a new lectotype for the basionym of C. baccatum var. pendulum; new lectotypes for C. chinense Jacq. and 12 of its synonyms, plus a new neotype for one synonym; nine new lectotypes for synonyms of C. frutescens; new lectotypes for C. pubescens Ruiz & Pav. and two of its synonyms; and a new lectotype for a synonym of C. rhomboideum (Dunal) Kuntze. We have often been critical of lecto- and neotypifications, but monographs are the place for them! Each taxon is illustrated with a composite line drawing and/or color photos of living material (generally both). Incidentally: these authors do allude to recent studies suggesting that Capsicum may be nested in Lycianthes, observing that, “if upheld with further study,…either circumscription of Capsicum should be enlarged to include Lycianthes or Lycianthes should be split into different genera that are monophyletic”; however, neither of those actions is undertaken here.
Bayón, N. D., D. A. Giuliano & J. Vera Bahima. 2022. Revisión taxonómica de las especies de Alternanthera (Amaranthaceae) del Cono Sur (Argentina, sur de Brasil, Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay) y Bolivia. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 107: 160–249.
This is getting pretty far adrift for us, and about the only thing it has to offer are newly designated types for five genus names treated as synonyms of Alternanthera. Also, we are heartened to see that the authors agree with the Manual usage of Alternanthera ficoidea (L.) P. Beauv. as the accepted name for a sp. that includes A. tenella Colla as a synonym. Moving right along…
Berlingeri, C., M. B. Crespo & T. Calles. 2022. Nomenclatural reappraisal of the Macroptilium gracile (Leguminosae) species complex. Kew Bull. 77: 245–248.
Here the authors rectify a nomenclatural error perpetrated in their major study of the titular sp. complex [see under “Berlingeri,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 28(1), Jan. 2021] with the validation of the combination Macroptilium gracile (Poepp. ex Benth.) Urb. var. longepedunculatum (Mart. ex Benth.) Berlingeri, M. B. Crespo & Calles. However, we are still left with a taxonomic conundrum, as to whether that last-mentioned entity actually occurs in Costa Rica, or if we may have misapplied (in the Manual) the name Macroptilium longepedunculatum (Mart. ex Benth.) Urb. to the sp. these folks are now calling M. campestre (Mart. ex Benth.) Berlingeri, M. B. Crespo & Calles. Some day it will all make sense!
Boudrie, M., R. Y. Hirai & J. Prado. 2017. Four new species of Adiantum (Pteridaceae) from the Guianas. Amer. Fern J. 107: 84–95.
We overlooked this paper when it first came out, because the title does not tell the whole story. None of the new spp. from the Guianas is relevant to our interests, but the authors’ consideration of “the typification and application of the name A. oyapokense Jenman” (mentioned in the Abstract) proves germane. Their examination of the lectotype (here designated) and isolectotype of Adiantum oyapokense (1899; described from French Guiana) revealed the existence of abortive spores, suggesting a hybrid origin; they conclude that A. ×oyapokense represents the hybrid Adiantum latifolium Lam. × A. petiolatum Desv., and must therefore supplant A. ×variopinnatum Jermy & T. G. Walker (1985), a much more recent name for the same hybrid (which, needless to say, occurs in Costa Rica).
Burton, G. P., C. Canteiro, T. Fernandes, H. Grice, A. R. Lourenço, C. Parra-O., M. F. Santos & E. J. Lucas. 2022. A monographic conspectus of Myrcia sect. Calyptranthes (Myrtaceae) from South and Central America. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 107: 87–136.
Myrcia sect. Calyptranthes (Sw.) A. R. Lourenço & E. Lucas corresponds, of course, to the genus Calyptranthes, as according to Manual Vol. 6 (2007), Flora mesoamericana Vol. 4(1) (2009), and just about everywhere else up to now. The genus Myrcia is strictly neotropical, and sect. Calyptranthes is said to include “ca. 260” spp.; however, only 89 of those are treated in full here, because separate revisions have been or will be published for (respectively) the Atlantic Forest of Brazil and the Caribbean archipelago. Moreover, seven spp. in common with the Atlantic Forest and the geographic domain of the present contribution are omitted here, except for their inclusion in the keys. As for Costa Rica, the biggest change has already been revealed: the reclassification of the former Calyptranthes chytraculia (L.) Sw. and C. pallens Griseb. as two vars. of a single sp., Myrcia chytraculia (L.) A. R. Lourenço & E. Lucas [see under “Burton,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 29(2), Apr. 2022]. That leaves just one major surprise for us in this “conspectus”: the attribution to Costa Rica of Mycria longicalyptrata (B. Holst & M. L. Kawas.) A. R. Lourenço & E. Lucas, formerly deemed a Panamanian endemic, based on a single (cited) collection (Vasconcelos 523, K) from (where else?) the Península de Osa. We do not yet know what to make of that. We also wonder about the fate of the former Calyptranthes lucida Mart. ex DC. (now Myrcia neolucida A. R. Lourenço & E. Lucas), which happens to be one of the seven spp. omitted from this work because of its occurrence in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. However, according to the treatment of sect. Calyptranthes for that region (Lourenço et al., 2020; Phytotaxa 460: 12–58), Myrcia neolucida is restricted to South America, and the paper under review appears to provide no further insights into the status of the Mesoamerican material to which that name has been applied. Something has clearly fallen through the cracks here. The sp. treatments in this paper are presented in alphabetical order within each of eight “groups” (A–H), and dichotomous (though non-indented) keys are used to separate the groups and their constituent spp. and vars. Each sp. entry features synonymy and typology, taxonomic notes, a distribution summary, a conservation evaluation, and “selected” specimen citations (the same goes for var. entries, except that conservation evaluations are omitted). There are no descriptions and no indices. The very brief introductory portion touches on taxonomic history and morphology. A few illustrations (color photos from herbarium specimens) are featured near the beginning of the paper. In our estimation, the utility of this “conspectus” is severely compromised by the use of non-indented keys, the paucity of specimen citations, and the separation of sp. entries into “groups,” in conjunction with the lack of an index to scientific names.
Cedeño-Fonseca, M., A. Hay & M. A. Blanco. 2022. A taxonomic revision of Monstera Adans. (Araceae: Monsteroideae) in Costa Rica. Aroideana 45: 4–198.
The Manual treatment of Monstera (2003) by co-PI Mike Grayum somewhat brazenly recognized 22 spp. in Costa Rica—the same number that had been accepted for the entire genus in its then most recent (1977) monograph. Even so, the existence of additional, unresolved entities was discussed, and the work was acknowledged as preliminary. This sterling new revision, the culmination of its first author’s Master’s thesis [see under “News and Notes” in The Cutting Edge 27(1), Jan. 2020], ups the ante by nearly 60% in attributing 35 Monstera spp. (one known only in cultivation) to Costa Rica. Most of the additions have already been published in miscellaneous papers by the first author and his colleagues, and reported in these pages. However, one new sp. is described in this revision: Monstera tablasensis M. Cedeño, characterized at the outset as “a poorly known species,” based on a single, fruiting collection from ca. 2000 m elevation on the Pacific slope of the eastern Cordillera de Talamanca (Z.P. Las Tablas). It is not compared to any other sp. in the diagnosis, but keys next to the recently described Monstera juliusii M. Cedeño & Croat [see the first entry under “Cedeño-Fonseca,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 27(4), Oct. 2020]. Various lectotypes, neotypes, and epitypes are also designated. This revision strikes us as a rigorous and highly impressive piece of work, in terms of both nomenclature and taxonomy, as well as natural history. Synonymy, typology, technical descriptions, and distribution summaries are provided for the genus and all of its spp. The infrageneric classification (comprising four sections) employed by previous authors is here deemed dubious and largely ignored. The sp. entries, presented in strict alphabetical sequence, include phenology summaries, assessments of conservation status, often extensive and erudite discussions, and comprehensive specimen citations. There are, unfortunately, no indices, and we must also deduct one star for the use of an infernal non-indented key to spp. The surprisingly brief introductory portion discusses gross morphology, taxonomic history, and distinctions from related genera. Copiously illustrated throughout with color photos (mostly of living material).
Cervera, F. 2022. Phragmipedium: the Caudatum group. Orchid Digest 86: 78–89.
We cite this mainly because of the author’s succinct summarization of the great Phragmipedium humboldtii authorship controversy [see under “Pupulin,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(1), Jan. 2019]. Perhaps some of our readers will find something else of use in this well-illustrated article.
Chagas, E. C. O. & J. L. Costa-Lima. 2022. A new combination in Justicia and a new synonym in Thyrsacanthus results in the restriction of Anisacanthus s.str. (Acanthaceae) to Central and North America. Phytotaxa 549: 117–121.
The title tells most of the story: in two swell foops, the genus Anisacanthus (with a single, recently discovered sp. in Costa Rica) is shorn of two spp. and banished from South America. That said, the only change required for the Manual Acanthaceae treatment is an adjustment of the Anisacanthus sp. total from “10” to “8,” because we had somehow (presciently?) overlooked the South American portion of the geographic range. The Costa Rican endemic Anisacanthus gracewoodiae Hammel & McDade is unaffected.
Chinchilla, I. F., A. P. Karremans & M. A. Blanco. 2022. A new species and a new record of Malaxis (Malaxidinae) from Costa Rica. Lankesteriana 22: 37–51.
The new sp. is the endemic Malaxis excentrica Chinchilla, Karremans & M. A. Blanco, based on a single specimen (Kress & Tuxill 94-4775, US) from (segueing here into Manualese) “bosque de roble, ca. 2000 m; vert. Pac. E Cord. de Talamanca (Z.P. Las Tablas). Fl. jul.” It is compared mainly to Malaxis simillima (Rchb. f.) Kuntze, from which it “differs in having one leaf (vs. two leaves) per sympoidal unit,” in addition to considerably shorter petals and several other floral details. Our running count of new orchid spp. described from Costa Rica during the lifespan of this blog edges upward to 446. The new record of the title (perhaps of greater interest) involves the erstwhile Panamanian endemic Malaxis pittieri (Schltr.) Ames, here documented to be surprisingly widespread in Costa Rica as according to the following parameters: “bosque pluvial y de roble, potreros y sabanas, 1600–3050 m; vert. Pac. y cerca de la División Continental, Cords. Central (Volcán Barva) y de Talamanca. Fl. mar., jun.–set.” All of the Panamanian records come from the westernmost part of the country, in Prov. Chiriquí. It turns out that most specimens of Malaxis pittieri have been misdetermined for many years as M. maianthemifolia Schltdl. & Cham. (the correct spelling, it now appears); indeed, according to these authors, the Manual voucher for M. maianthemifolia (Ingram et al. 507, CR) actually represents M. pittieri, as do all of the Panamanian specimens ever attributed to M. maianthemifolia (which “to date has not been recorded in Panama”). This paper goes some distance toward rectifying all of that confusion, but we wish they had gone the whole nine yards and cited all the Costa Rican specimens of the real Malaxis maianthemifolia, so that we could definitively disentangle its distribution in the country from that of M. pittieri (the authors do clearly indicate that M. maianthemifolia remains a member of the Costa Rican flora). As an aside, the authors take the opportunity to designate a lectotype (a duplicate of the destroyed holotype) for the basionym of Malaxis pittieri. A distribution map accommodates both Malaxis excentrica and M. pittieri, and each sp. is the subject of an excellent composite line drawing by the first author. Malaxis pittieri is also depicted in color photos from life, as well as reproductions of critical type material. All things considered, we gain two spp. of Malaxis and of Orchidaceae!
Croat, T. B. 2022. A new species of Philodendron sect. Polytomium (Araceae) from Costa Rica. Aroideana 45: 199–213.
Philodendron sect. Polytomium (Schott) Engl. comprises robust epiphytes with pinnately to bipnnately lobed leaves, reminiscent of the South American Philodendron subgen. Meconostigma (Schott) Mayo. In Costa Rica, sect. Polytomium has been known only by the familiar lowland sp. Philodendron radiatum Schott, restricted to the Atlantic slope. The new sp. described in this paper, Philodendron palmicola Croat, is based on just three recent collections, all by Manual co-PI Barry Hammel, all from the Pacific slope of Costa Rica—and all from cultivated specimens. At least one of these collections was from a plant growing on a palm trunk, whence the epithet. A strong case is made for the distinctness of the new sp. from Philodendron radiatum (or at least, the Costa Rican entity to which that name has been applied), as well as the remaining spp. in sect. Polytomium. However, the status and origin of P. palmicola are very much in doubt, and it seems highly unlikely that the sp. is native to Costa Rica. Plants are being sold by at least one large local nursery in the vicinity of the type locality, so clearly there has been horticultural intervention (shudder!) somewhere along the line. The specter of hybrid origin is conjured, and if that demon can be exorcised, the next challenge will be to discover the natural geographic distribution of P. palmicola. Stay tuned! The distinctions between Philodendron palmicola and P. radiatum are summarized in a key couplet, and the new sp. is depicted in an embarrassment of color photos.
Daly, D. C., R. O. Perdiz, P. V. A. Fine, G. Damasco, M. C. Martínez-Habibe & L. Calvillo-Canadell. 2022. A review of Neotropical Burseraceae. Brazil. J. Bot. 45: 103–137.
The meat of this paper (for us) is the taxonomic part, which features a dichotomous (though non-indented) key to the six genera of Burseraceae occurring in the New World, plus lengthy technical descriptions of each, accompanied by synonymy, distribution summaries, and excellent composite line drawings. The extensive introductory portion addresses such topics as fossil history, morphology (with an emphasis on leaf architecture), generic limits, recent advances, ecological aspects (e.g., pollination and dispersal), ethnobotany, and biochemistry.
This paper appears in a special issue of the Brazilian Journal of Botany devoted to the “Diversity and evolution of Neotropical Sapindales,” which includes (among other things) more or less similar contributions for most of the other five families of the order represented in the region (the notable exception being Sapindaceae). For brief summaries of those papers, see (this column) under “Groppo” (Rutaceae), “Mitchell” (Anacardiaceae), “Muellner-Riehl” (Meliaceae), and “Pirani” (Simaroubaceae).
Delgado-Salinas, A., M. Lavin, C. Snak & G. P. Lewis. 2022. Systematics of Vigna subgenus Lasiospron (Leguminosae: Papilionoideae: Phaseolinae). Syst. Bot. 47: 97–124.
Fully a decade ago, we reported on a paper that proposed dividing Vigna into numerous segregate genera [see under “Delgado-Salinas,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 19(1), Jan. 2012], with the result that only six of the 14 spp. referred to Vigna in the Manual Fabaceae treatment (2010) would remain in place, the eight others being apportioned among six segregate genera. That proposal seemed to fall on deaf ears, and we are ignorant as to whether it has been adopted or in any way heeded by subsequent workers. The present contribution, featuring two of the same authors, deals with a subgenus that comprises “mostly New World species” of Vigna sensu stricto—although not all of them, it would appear [whither V. luteola (Jacq.) Benth. and V. vexillata (L.) A. Rich.?]. Two members of the Costa Rican flora that we expected to find here are indeed present and accounted for: Vigna lasiocarpa (Mart. ex Benth.) Verdc. and V. longifolia (Benth.) Verdc. But there are also two surprises, i.e., putative additions to our flora: Vigna juruana (Harms) Verdc. and V. trichocarpa (C. Wright) A. Delgado. The sole Costa Rican voucher cited for the latter sp. was collected at CATIE, quite possibly from a plant in cultivation. However, the Costa Rican voucher for Vigna juruana (L. Acosta 2772, G) is from a relatively remote site (near Los Chiles, on the Llanura de Los Guatusos), and has to be taken more seriously. Both of the spp. in question are relatively widespread in the Neotropics (and beyond), and could easily turn up in Costa Rica (V. trichocarpa, especially, having been collected in southeasternmost Nicaragua just a stone's throw from the Costa Rican border). This is a standard taxonomic revision, with synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions at all ranks, a dichotomous and indented key to spp., distribution summaries, representative specimen citations, discussions, distribution maps, and an index to exsiccatae (but none to names). The illustrated introductory portion addresses such topics as phylogeny, biogeography, taxonomic history, morphology, karyology, pollination, and seed dispersal. Selected spp. (Vigna juruana, V. longifolia, and V. trichocarpa) are depicted in composite line drawings.
Eriksson, T., N. L. Persson & J. E. E. Smedmark. 2022. What is Potentilla? A phylogeny-based taxonomy for Potentillinae (Rosaceae). Taxon 71: 493–505.
The fate of Potentilla continues to be mulled [see under “Persson,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 27(4), Oct. 2020], though only two spp. in the Costa Rican flora are potentially affected. Based on the available phylogenetic evidence, these authors carefully consider seven classificatory “scenarios,” ranging from lumping the entire tribe Potentilleae (including such familiar genera as Alchemilla, Fragaria, and Sibbaldia) into Potentilla, to restricting the last-mentioned genus to the clade (with just 10 spp.) that includes its type sp. (as well as Duchesnea). Inevitably, they settle on one of the imtermediate options, which would require lumping Duchesnea into Potentilla, along with such genera as Horkelia and Ivesia, long-cherished by California botanists (except for us, who go back to the days before those genera gained currency). Alchemilla and Fragaria would be maintained, which suits us fine, since the Manual Rosaceae treament followed that course (in addition to lumping Duchesnea into Potentilla). As far as we can tell, neither of the two spp. treated under Potentilla in the Manual would change names under the chosen scenario. Another positive (in our view) is that the bogus and ham-handedly anagrammatical Alchemilla segregate Lachemilla is not accepted by these authors (as it was not in the Manual, needless to say).
Fawcett, S & A. R. Smith. 2021. A generic classification of the Thelypteridaceae. Sida Bot. Misc. 59: 1–102.
In our last issue, we briefly reviewed a paper [see under “Fawcett,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 29(2), Apr. 2022] presenting the rationale for a new generic classifcation of Thelypteridaceae that we had yet to see. This is it. A blurb on the back cover of this publication addresses the divergent classifications that have been proposed for this family, “with some authors recognizing upwards of 30 genera, while others have treated the nearly 1200 speces within a single genus.” One is thus primed for a potrayal of the new classification as striking a happy medium, but such is not the case; instead, the inevitable tendency of pteridologists to split and split some more is amped up to yet another level, with 37 genera of Thelypteridaceae recognized by these authors. The saving grace for us is that, as we already suspected, most of the new splitting is visited upon the Old World members of the family. The only unfamiliar genus name deployed for spp. occurring in Costa Rica is Pelazoneuron (Holttum) A. R. Sm. & S. E. Fawc. (comb. nov.), formerly a section of what had been a diphyletic Christella (now largely restricted to the Old World). The Costa Rican representatives of Pelazoneuron are the former Thelypteris cretacea A. R. Sm., T. grandis A. R. Sm., T. kunthii (Desv.) C. V. Morton, and T. patens (Sw.) Small, and perhaps also T. ovata R. P. St. John—all with straightforward new combinations in Pelazoneuron attributable to “A. R. Sm. & S. E. Fawc,” with the exception of T. grandis, which becomes Pelazoneuron abruptum (C. Presl) A. R. Sm. & S. E. Fawc. Let’s put this all in perspective: Thelypteris was, within our recent memories, one of the largest genera of ferns, and even of vascular plants, in the Mesoamerican region (with well over 100 spp. in Costa Rica alone). When we first learned it, it was coextensive (at least in the New World) with the taxon now called “Thelypteridaceae,” and even as recently as 1995 (Flora mesoamericana Vol. 1) that statement was nearly true, excepting a single sp. of Macrothelyperis. Now, however, Thelypteris is reduced to just two spp., and completely expunged from the Mesoamerican flora. Similarly, Cyclosorus, which at one point seemed poised to absorb a major chunk of Thelypteridaceae [see under “Mazumdar,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 20(4), Oct. 2013], is itself reduced to “two or three species,” just one of which occurs in Costa Rica. Of the 134 binomials accepted for Thelypteridaceae in Flora mesoamericana, all but one [Macrothelypteris torresiana (Gaudich.) Ching] have changed. This mirrors uncannily the progression from Lycopodium through Huperzia to Phlegmariurus and beyond [see, e.g., under “Øllgaard,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 27(2), Apr. 2020], during roughly the same time period. The cladogram for Thelypteridaceae presented in the paper under review reveals no cladistic mandate (at least, from a New World perspective) for the fragmentation of Thelypteris in the broadest sense, even including Macrothelypteris. All that pteridologists have accomplished in the past 30 years is to elevate a genus to family rank and all of its subgenera to the rank of genus, without the slightest regard for nomenclatural stability (i.e., for no good reason). Does that qualify as progress, or academic achievement? For those inclined to head down this path, this paper does an excellent job of presenting the new system, with a dichotomous (and indented!) key to genera and alphabetically organized genus entries featuring synonymy and typology, technical descriptions, diagnoses, distribution summaries, enumerations of constituent spp., and (as appropriate) discussions of “incertae sedis” spp. The number of spp. in the last-mentioned category is a bit disconcerting, and does not confer faith in the new system. The well-illustrated introductory portion addresses taxonomic history, morphology, cytology, hybridization, fossil evidence, geographic distribution, and previous phylogenetic studies. For the record, the following nine genera (according to this system) of Thelypteridaceae are attributable to Costa Rica: Amauropelta, Amblovenatum [represented only by the introduced and weedy Thelypteris opulenta (Kaulf.) Fosberg], Christella [represented by the introduced and weedy Thelypteris dentata (Forssk.) E. P. St. John and the native (though also weedy) T. hispidula (Decne.) C. F. Reed], Cyclosorus [represented only by Thelypteris interrupta (Willd.) K. Iwats.], Goniopteris, Macrothelypteris (represented only by the introduced and weedy M. torresiana), Meniscium, Pelazoneuron, and Steiropteris. Many new names and new combinations are validated in this article, but only those in Pelazoneuron (mentioned previously) are relevant to us.
Gonella, P. N., P. T. Sano, F. Rivadavia & A. Fleischmann. 2022. A synopsis of the genus Drosera (Droseraceae) in Brazil. Phytotaxa 553: 1–76.
Just a few scraps to report here: the fourth author of this paper having been instrumental in exposing the true identity of "Drosera sp. A" (of the Manual), it comes as no surprise that his conclusion [that it corresponds to the Japanese introduction Drosera tokaiensis (Komiya & C. Shibata) T. Nakam. & K. Ueda; see under "Annotate Your Copy" in The Cutting Edge 28(3), Jul. 2021] is repeated here (under Drosera capillaris Poir., the name that was originally used for the Costa Rican material). Also: these guys put forth the specious claim that Drosera cayennensis Sagot ex Diels "is...first reported [i.e., by them, in this synopsis] from Costa Rica." It beggars belief that anyone would make such a statement without first consulting the relevant literature, most especially (in this case) the Manual (not cited here), where D. cayennensis was treated in full in 2010! Like Rodney Dangerfield, we don't get no respect.
Groppo, M., L. F. Afonso & J. R. Pirani. 2022.
A review of systematics studies in the Citrus family (Rutaceae, Sapindales), with emphasis on American groups. Brazil. J. Bot. 45: 181–200.
Rutaceae is one of the larger families of Sapindales in the Americas, where it is represented by 51 genera and 412–415 spp. As a consequence, this contribution presents just a tabular enumeration of the genera, annotated with respect to sp. total, habit, and geographic range. The main part of the paper delves into taxonomic history, phylogeny, the fossil record, cytology, phytochemistry, reproductive biology and dispersion, palynology, and anatomy.
Iamonico, D. & M. Iberite. 2022.
Nomenclatural remarks on Linnaean names of aquatic plants. Taxon 71: 674–678.
Among other things, Typha latifolia L., a name merely mentioned in the Manual as having been misapplied to Costa Rican material (though the real T. latifolia potentially occurs in the country), is both lecto- and epitypified. What fun!
Johnson, E. P. & T. J. Ayers. 2022. Molecular phylogeny and taxonomic revision of the genus Diastatea (Campanulaceae: Lobelioideae). Syst. Bot. 47: 61–84.
The Manual treatment of Diastatea (2020) suggested that said genus might be nested within Lobelia, and cited a paper in support of that notion. This revision scarcely alludes to such a possibility—other than by mentioning “the overlap in morphological characters between Diastatea and some species of Mexican Lobelia” and describing the last-mentioned genus as “notoriously paraphyletic”—and ignores the paper that was cited in the Manual. So be it. In terms of progress, Diastatea may now be said to comprise eight spp., vs. just five as according to the Manual; however, the additions (including one sp. described as new and another promoted from subsp. rank) do not concern us. The genus is most diverse in Mexico, with only two spp.—Diastatea costaricensis McVaugh and D. micrantha (Kunth) McVaugh—extending southward. As per the Manual, those are also the only two spp. of the genus occurring in Costa Rica (D. micrantha is attributed to Costa Rica in the distribution summary, but not mapped there, and no Costa Rican specimens are cited). Understandably, perhaps, this revision appears strongly biased toward Mexico and based mainly on specimens borrowed from Mexican herbaria and other herbaria (e.g., LL, TEX) rich in Mexican material. Relatively few specimens are cited from MO, which probably explains the author’s failure to ascribe Diastatea to Nicaragua (where both D. costaricensis and D. micrantha have been collected). Perhaps the most noteworthy contribution of this paper is a molecular analysis revealing two “strongly supported” clades of Diastatea, which are here newly recognized as subgenera (for the record, both Costa Rican representatives of the genus belong to the autonymic subgenus). In addition, we get distribution maps, a dichotomous and indented key (placed at the end of the paper, for some reason) to the spp. and subpp. of Diastatea, synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions (very brief for the subgenera) at all ranks, chromosome numbers, distribution summaries, “Notes,” and specimen citations (sometimes extensive). There are no indices. The short introductory portion deals mainly with taxonomic history. Selected spp. are depicted in a composite line drawing, color photos of flowers (and in one case a fruit), and SEM micrographs of anther trichomes.
Larridon, I. 2022. A linear classification of Cyperaceae. Kew Bull. 77: 309–315.
A “linear classification”? Whatever. In any event, this paper provides a convenient summary of a recently published new classification of Cyperaceae that we did not see (how to keep track of this online stuff?). Most of the major changes, with respect to the Manual Cyperaceae treatment (2003), are by now old hat. To wit: Uncinia is now included in Carex, Websteria in Eleocharis, and Kyllinga, Lipocarpha, Oxycaryum, and Remirea all in Cyperus. Hooray! We are all for it…
McDade, L. A., T. F. Daniel, I. Darbyshire & C. A. Kiel. 2020.
Justicieae II: resolved placement of many genera and recognition of a new lineage sister to Isoglossinae. Aliso 38: 1–31.
We waited awhile to review this article until the journal lifted its “embargo” on this issue, bur finally decided to just run with the MO library copy (rather than printing out our own). The biggest revelation for us is that the institution responsible for Aliso has changed its name from the colorful Rancho Santa Ana to the more grandiose (but more generic) California Botanic Garden. We must certainly be among the last to have caught onto this. The article itself does not provide us with any revelations of that magnitude, although a lot of work clearly went into the effort. Several genera, including Asystasia and Pseuderanthemum (those represented in Costa Rica), are shown to be non-monophyletic, although the former can be made so “with a small number of nomenclatural changes” (which are not ventured here). The situation for Pseuderanthemum is far more grim, with accessions “placed among five different clades.” A resolution to this debacle would not appear to be on the near horizon. Surprisingly (at least to us), the genus Chamaeranthemum, which we had supposed (based on Costa Rican taxa) to be nebulously distinct from Pseuderanthemum, does not group with any members of the last-mentioned genus, but belongs instead to the “Asystasia Clade.” Much of this paper is devoted to issues (such as character evolution) of only marginal interest to us.
Meneguzzo, T. E. C., C. van den Berg & M. W. Chase. 2022. (2882) Proposal to conserve tha name Lycaste against Anguloa and Xylobium (Orchidacdae). Taxon 71: 475–476.
What, lumping of genera in Orchidaceae? Now that really goes against the grain! Nonetheless, that is exactly what these authors (a fairly influential group) are contemplating, based on molecular-phylogenetic studies: expanding Lycaste to include Anguloa, Xylobium, and a few others. The problem is that Lycaste (1843), arguably the most familiar name (at least in horticultural circles) and the one applied to the largest number of spp., is junior to both Anguloa (1794) and Xylobium (1825). Hence the present proposal which, if accepted, would minimize the number of new combinations needing to be made.
Mestier, A. de, G. Brokamp, M. Celis, B. Falcón-Hidalgo, J. Gutiérrez & T. Borsch. 2022.
Character evolution and biogeography of Casearia (Salicaceae): evidence for the South American origin of a pantropical genus and for multiple migrations to the Caribbean islands. Taxon 71: 321–347.
Cutting directly to the important stuff: the results of this research support a previous study [see under “Samarakoon,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(2), Apr. 2019] in which the genus Casearia (Flacourtiaceae, in the Manual) was expanded to include Laetia, Samyda, and Zuelania (though a few other odds and ends that do not concern us are added to the mix by these authors). The real eye-opener for us is somehing that we inexplicably overlooked in the earlier paper: the segregation of three spp. formerly included in Casearia into a separate genus Piparea Aubl., which is (according to the paper under review) sister to Ryania. One of these exiled spp. occurs in Costa Rica: the former Casearia commersoniana Jacq., henceforth Piparea dentata Aubl. Finally, the vexatious topic of non-monophyletic spp. again rears its head, as several widespread spp. were retrieved in this study as “paraphyletic to other species currently accepted”; three of the paraphyletic spp. (but none of the nested ones) occur in Costa Rica: Casearia aculeata Jacq. (paraphyletic in only one tree), C. arborea (Rich.) Urb., and C. sylvestris Sw. We don’t expect any changes from this, as far as Costa Rica is concerned. Five new combinations and one nomen novum are validated, but these are not germane to us.
Mitchell, J. D., S. K. Pell, J. B. Bachelier, E. J. Warschefsky, E. M. Joyce, L. Calvillo Canadell, C. L. Silva-Luz & C. Coiffard. 2022. Neotropical Anacardiaceae (cashew family). Brazil. J. Bot. 45: 139–180.
The “Taxonomic treatment” of Anacardiaceae (with 32 native genera and 188 spp. in the Neotropics), at the end of this paper, provides a description of the family, dichotomous (though non-indented) keys to its subfamilies (two) and genera, and technical descriptions for each genus, together with synonymy, distribution summaries, and illustrations (composite line drawings). The extensive introductory part includes a phylogenetic and taxonomic overview and discussions of anatomy and morphology, ecology, conservation, paleobotany, and economic botany and phytochemistry.
Moraes, P. L. R. & M. D. Trinca. 2022. Foliar cuticles of species of Persea subg. Eriodaphne (Lauraceae). Phytotaxa 549: 255300.
Okay, so one can distinguish these puppies by comparing their “foliar cuticles.” Sounds like more trouble than it’s worth, but maybe we need all the help we can get in Lauraceae! A key (non-indented) to “the American species of Persea, based on foliar cuticle characters” actually accounts only for the “studied taxa” (reading the fine print), so what good is it? Six Persea spp. occurring in Costa Rica are omitted! We rest our case.
Muellner-Riehl, A. N. & B. M. Rojas-Andrés. 2022. Biogeography of Neotropical Meliaceae: geological connections, fossil and molecular evidence revisited. Brazil. J. Bot. 45: 527–543.
Table 1 enumerates the genera of Meliaceae represented in the Neotropics (eight) and elsewhere, with sp. totals and taxonomic references. Otherwise, this is a specialized paper that is only of passing interest to us.
Pirani, J. R., L. C. Majure & M. F. Devecchi. 2022. An updated account of Simaroubaceae with emphasis on American taxa. 2022. Brazil. J. Bot. 45: 201–221.
This paper concludes with a “brief taxonomic account of American taxa” that includes a dichtomous (though non-indented) key to the nine genera in the region, plus brief descriptions of each, supplemented by synonymy, distribution summaries and maps, and reduced illustrations (line drawings). The introductory part addresses taxonomic history, morphology and anatomy, floral biology and dispersal, palynology, chromosome numbers, chemistry, biogeography and ecology, and ethnobotany.
Prance, G. T. 2022. A synopsis of Neotropical Dichapetalaceae. Kew Bull. 77: 147–187.
This contribution represents an update of its author’s Flora Neotropica Monographs treatment of the study group, published 50 years ago (1972). Since that time, “twenty-nine new species have been described and the known geographic distribution of many species has been much extended.” Stunningly, the country that has yielded the most novelties (seven) is Costa Rica! Costa Rica also now boasts the largest number (14) of Dichapetalum spp., though not of the family as a whole (that honor goes to Colombia). Of course, where Costa Rica is concerned, most of the large-scale updating was already accomplished in the author’s (with Alexánder Rodríguez and Ricardo Kriebel) Manual treatment of Dichapetalaceae (2010). Nonetheless, the following observations are pertinent: the total number of spp. in the family is now estimated at about 250 (vs. 175, according to the Manual); Dichapetalum axillare Woodson has mysteriously vanished from Nicaragua (where it occurred according to the Manual); Dichapetalum brenesii Standl. has suddenly (and without explanation) become a Costa Rican endemic (previously, it had been attributed to Panama as well); Dichapetalum donnellsmithii Engl. var. chiapasense (Standl.) Prance is now attributed (with no voucher citation) to Costa Rica (only the autonymic var. had been in the Manual); Dichapetalum grayumii Prance, which had been attributed to “O Pan.” in the Manual, is now restricted (without comment) to Nicaragua and Costa Rica; Dichapetalum hammelii Prance, a Costa Rican endemic according the Manual, must now be attributed (on the basis of a cited voucher) to Panama; Stephanopodium costaricense Prance is newly reported from Panama (with a voucher duly cited); Stephanopodium gentryi Prance becomes a member of the Costa Rican flora [but that was already reported in these pages; see under “Leaps and Bounds” in The Cutting Edge 20(2), Apr. 2013]; and the upper elevational limit of Tapura guianensis Aubl. may now be extended (based on a cited voucher) to 800 m (from 700 m, as according to the Manual). This is a relatively rigorous piece of work for a synopsis, featuring synonymy, typology, technical descriptions, and distribution summaries at all ranks (except that descriptions are omitted for subspp.), dichotomous and indented keys to genera, spp., and subspp., assessments of conservation status, occasional specimen citations, and distribution maps. There are no indices, and just one composite line drawing (depicting one representative from each of the three genera).
——. 2022. A synopsis of the Caryocaraceae. Rodriguésia 73(e01852020): 1–35.
The author continues to revisit his previously published Flora Neotropica Monographs contributions, that for Caryocaraceae dating from 1973. Since that time, “two new species have been described, a considerable amount of extra information has been published about the family and many more herbarium collections have been made.” Despite all of that, the changes for Costa Rica, vis-à-vis the 2020 Manual treatment of the family by Quírico Jiménez, are essentially nil: we still have just two spp., one each of Anthodiscus and Caryocar. We receive no enlightenment, one way or the other, regarding the possible presence of Caryocar nuciferum L. (presumably as an introduction) in Costa Rica, as mentioned in the Manual. As in the case of the author’s Dichapetalaceae update (see the preceding entry), this is quite a generous “synopsis,” with most of the same features (but even more specimen citations!).
Pupulin, F., I. F. Chinchilla, G. Rojas-Alvarado, M. Fernández, C. Ossenbach & D. Bogarín. 2022. Typification of Costa Rican Orchidaceae described by Rudolf Schlechter. Species variorum collerctorum. Webbia 77: 35–126.
Here is another scholarly contribution from the JBL crew, establishing the typification of 53 Orchidaceae names described by Rudolf Schlechter—an endeavor necessitated but complicated by the destruction of Schlecter’s original materials at B during World War II. Separate papers (one “in prep.”) have addressed Schlechter names based on the collections of Guillermo Acosta, Alberto Brenes, Adolphe Tonduz [see under “Pupulin,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(1), Jan. 2017], and Karl Wercklé [see the second entry under “Pupulin,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 17(3), Jul. 2010]. The paper under review accomplishes the same feat for a miscellany of 10 collectors, ranging from the virtually unknown (Emel Jiménez Segura) to the extremely well-known (Henri Pittier). The opening part of the paper is a historical review, presenting a biographical vignette for each of the featured collectors, with portraits of most. Much of this material has been recycled on several occasions by these authors, but it never ceases to be of interest. In the main body of the article, 25 lectotypes are designated, along with one epitype. As far as we can tell, the prevailing application of all the names involved is upheld. Many of the newly designated lectotypes are illustrations, that might arguably be construed as neotypes; however, the authors have foreseen that criticism, and present a compelling rationale for their position. Copiously illustrated (mostly in color) throughout.
Reiner-Drehwald, M. E., E. Hörandl & M. C. Appelhans. 2022. Digitization of the historical Herrenhausen Herbarium at Göttingen (GOET), with special focus on plants collected in Switzerland in 1820. Taxon 71: 650–673.
Those Swiss collections mean nothing to us, of course, but the Herrenhausen Herbarium is rich in historical specimens critical to Costa Rican floristics: in particular, those collected by Hermann Wendland in 1857, including many large monocots such as palms and Cyclanthaceae, which we knew about and have studied at GOET; and also a smaller batch (some 51 specimens) collected by Carl Hoffmann (a colleague of Wendland) during the same period (1854–1857), which is news to us! Wendland’s palm specimens “were mounted on new sheets” prior to digitization, a most welcome development (they were loose in folded paper when we studied them in 1985 and 1987). Hoffmann’s collections, which include some types, were generally considered to have been destroyed at B during World War II, so there could be some pleasant surprises among his specimens at GOET (most of which “have not been determined to the species or genus level”). The authors state that “images and metadata will be available through the Sammlungsportal Göttingen (https://sammlungen.uni-goettingen.de) and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (https://www.gbif.org/).” So have at it!
Rosso, V. C., J. F. M. Valls, C. L. Quarin, P. R. Speranza & G. H. Rua. 2022. New entities of Paspalum and a synopsis of the Dilatata group. Syst. Bot. 47: 125–139.
The group of the title is “native to temperate grasslands in southern South America,” but does include two widely naturalized spp. that occur in Costa Rica: Paspalum dilatatum Poir. and P. urvillei Steud. The “new entities” alluded to in the title include four that are newly described or (in one case) newly ranked as spp., all segregated from P. dilatatum; none of these concerns us. Two new vars., both restricted (or nearly so) to Uruguay, are also discriminated from P. dilatatum, and these are germane to Costa Rican floristics inasmuch as they require that our material be qualified as belonging to the autonymic var. Features a brief, diagnostic description of the group, a dichotomous and indented key to spp. and vars. (at the end), synonymy and typology, distribution summaries, observations on cytogenetics, conservation summaries, “Notes," and distribution maps. Technical descriptions and specimen citations are provided only for the new (or newly ranked) taxa. There are no indices. The introductory part addresses mainly taxonomic history and cytogenetics. The new (or newly ranked) taxa are illustrated with composite line drawings.
Scalon, V. R., J. Paula-Souza, A. G. Lima & V. C. Souza. 2022. A synopsis of the genus Stryphnodendron (Fabaceae, Caesalpinioideae, mimosoid clade). Phytotaxa 544: 227–279.
These authors recognize 35 spp. in the exclusively neotropical genus Stryphnodendron. Most of these are restricted to Brazil, and just one occurs in Central America (Costa Rica to Panama). Be that as it may, we do not emerge from this exercise unscathed, as the name of our sp. has changed: Stryphnodendron microstachyum Poepp. & Endl., the only name we have ever known, is here applied to a sp. restricted to South America, while all the Central American material heretofore so identified is reconceived as a regionally endemic sp. under the name S. excelsum Harms (previously synonymized under S. microstachyum, as in the Manual). After struggling to compare the two entities in the egregiously non-indented key to spp., we are left with the impression that they are separated rather weakly (mainly, it seems, on the basis of floral pubescence). In addition to the aforementioned key, we get synonymy, typology, and descriptions at all ranks, occasional discussions, distribution and phenology summaries, assessments of conservation status, “selected” (and meagre!) specimen citations, and sections on “Doubtful names” and “Excluded taxa.” There are no indices. The brief “Introduction” emphasizes taxonomic history. Nine new spp. are described, two new combinations validated, and 16 lectotypes newly designated, but out of all that, just one of the lectotypifications (of Styrphnodendron excelsum) is germane to us. Selected spp. are illustrated by various means. One incidental revelation for us: the former Fabaceae subfam. Mimosoideae is now reduced to a mere “clade” of subfam. Caesalpinioideae (see also under "Souza," this column). Try as we may, it is tough to keep pace with these changes!
Soares Neto, R. L., W. W. Thomas, E. H. Roalson & M. R. V. Barbosa. 2022. Taxonomic revision of Tarenaya (Cleomaceae). Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 107: 250–313.
Tarenaya, of course, is one of the many newfangled segregates of Cleome, which was circumscribed in a more palatable broad sense (to include even Podandrogyne) in the Manual treatment of Cleomaceae (2020) by co-PI Nelson Zamora. We can't decide what bothers us more about this new system: that its proponents keep moving spp. around from one "genus" to another, or that they laud old Rafinesque as "one of the pioneers who recognized Cleome as having too broad of a circumscription" (never mind that he "recognized" most everything in that vein!). The latest sp. (among those represented in Costa Rica) to switch genera is Cleome aculeata L. (we will stick to the names used in the Manual), previously classed in the segregate genus Hemiscola; however, unbeknownst to us, Hemiscola had been recovered as nested in Tarenaya, and C. aculeata was transferred thereto in a paper that we overlooked (but which was published in time to have been accounted for in the Manual). So if you are annotating your copy: add Tarenaya aculeata (L.) Soares Neto & Roalson to the synonymy of Cleome aculeata. Five additional spp. that occur in Costa Rica are treated in this revision: Cleome costaricensis Iltis, C. hassleriana Chodat, C. longipes DC., C. parviflora Kunth, and C. spinosa Jacq. The heterotypic synonyms in Tarenaya for all five were duly cited in the Manual. But there is a twist for Cleome hassleriana: these authors have found an older name for it, Cleome houtteana Schltdl., and are now promoting Tarenaya houtteana (Schltdl.) Soares Neto & Roalson (comb. nov.) as the accepted name for the sp. in question. We are all for adhering to the principle of priority and eschewing conservation, but we continue to marvel at the inconsistency displayed by the botanical community at large in this regard; these authors have chosen to coin a new combination based on the wholly obscure Cleome houtteana to be used for "those worldwide ornamentals named traditionally as C. hassleriana," while many others, under the same circumstances, would have proposed conservation of the latter name (and still may). We have a cynical theory about this: if someone discovers an older name themselves, they are likely to promote its use, but if someone else makes that discovery, a conservation proposal is certain to follow! Anyway, at least for the time being, we will replace Cleome hassleriana with C. houtteana and add Tarenaya houtteana to the synonymy of the latter. There are no other major surprises for us here, as far as we have seen. According to this revision, Tarenaya comprises 38 spp. and is mostly neotropical (though especially diverse in South America), with a single sp. in West Africa. The authors provide synonymy, typology, and technical descriptions at all ranks, a dichotomous and indented key to spp., distribution and phenology summaries, conservation assessments, discussions, "selected" (very!) specimen citations, distribution maps, and an index to exsiccatae (though none to names). The sp. entries are ordered alphabetically. The very brief introductory part is devoted mainly to taxonomic history. In addition to the new combination mentioned above, a new Brazilian sp. is described and 16 typifications (14 lecto- and two neo-) are newly designated. The following type designations are relevant to us: lectotypes for Cleome hassleriana, one synonym of C. aculeata, three synonyms of C. parviflora, and one synonym of C. spinosa; and neotypes for Cleome houtteana and one synonym of C. parviflora. Selected spp. are illustrated with color photos from life or line drawings.
Souza, É. R., A. R. M. Luz, L. Rocha & G. P. Lewis. 2022. Molecular and morphological analysis supports the separation of Robrichia as a genus distinct from Enterolobium (Leguminosae: Caesalpinioideae: Mimosoid clade). Syst. Bot. 47: 268–277.
The title of this article pretty much tells the tale: Enterolobium, as we have come to know it, is diphyletic and must be fragmented. An examination of the lone cladogram does not suggest a more reasonable alternative. What is not indicated in the title is the fate of the two Costa Rican spp. traditionally assigned to Enterolobium: E. cyclocarpum (Jacq.) Griseb., the famed Guanacaste, will remain in place, while the lesser-known E. schomburgkii (Benth.) Benth. is transferred to the new genus of the title as Robrichia schomburgkii (Benth) A. R. M. Luz & É. R. Souza. The new genus name itself, here elevated from sectional rank, commemorates “the brothers Robert and Richard Schomburgk,” one or another of whom is thereby honored twice in the binomial of our sp. The taxonomic implications of this study are formalized with a key to the two genera and, for each genus, a technical description, enumeration of accepted spp., and dichotomous (though non-indented) key to spp. Enterolobium is now reduced to eight spp. (vs. 11, as indicated in the Manual), while Robrichia has three. Predictably, the authors have ventured several new lectotype designations (affecting both of the aforementioned Costa Rican spp.). All three Robrichia spp. are featured in a composite line drawing for that genus.
Staples, G. 2022. A synotic revision of the golden glories, genus Decalobanthus (Convolvulaceae). Blumea 67: 37–70.
Our review of a recent paper formalizing the reassignment of the Costa Rican spp. previously included in Merremia to Camonea and Distimake [see under “Simões,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 24(4), Oct. 2017] lamented that fact that one of our spp., Merremia discoidesperma (Donn. Sm.) O’Donell, was unaccounted for, and thus consigned to a sort of taxonomic limbo. Limbo no more! Here it is included in an otherwise Old World (and largely Southeast Asian) genus for which the name Decalobanthus Ooststr. was recently resurrected. Although Decalobanthus discoidespermus (Donn. Sm.) Staples (comb. nov.), as it shall henceforth be known, “has not been placed in any molecular phylogenetic arrangement published to date,” the author is confident that “on a morphological basis alone…this species belongs in Decalobanthus.” Its “golden” corollas, evoking the common name of the genus (recently coined by this author), are presumably one such piece of evidence (though some spp. of Decalobanthus have differently colored corollas). Although billed as “synoptic,” this revision boasts most of the features of a standard revision (including distribution maps), with the exception of specimen citations; however, an index to exsiccatae is appended (as well as one to scientific names). Generously illustrated, mainly with color photos of living material.
Triana-Moreno, L. A., P. B. Schwartsburd, A. Yañez, N. T. L. Pena, L.-Y. Kuo, C. Rothfels & M. Sundue. 2022. (2892) Proposal to conserve the name Dennstaedtia (Dennstaedtiaceae) with a conserved type. Taxon 71: 688–690.
As proposals of this sort go, this one is relatively complicated. The crux of the problem is that the genus Dennstaedtia, as we have come to know it, is paraphyletic with respect to three other genera (none represented in Costa Rica), including the moderately sizeable (ca. 60 spp.) Microlepia. The authors consider three principal classificatory resolutions, ranging from lumping the whole lot into Dennstaedtia to recognizing four distinct genera. They settle on the last of these, “since the resulting genera are morphologically distinct and geographically coherent.” Good enough, but then nomenclature rears its head: as was suggested long ago, the current type sp. of Dennstaedtia is actually a Microlepia! Thus, the name Dennstaedtia would essentially replace Microlepia, and a different name—the wholly obscure Patania C. Presl—would be needed for the spp. we have all come to know as Dennstaedtia. All in all, “at least 100” new combinations would be needed, and both Dennstaedtia and Microlepia would “drastically change their circumscriptions.” This proposal seeks to retypify Dennstaedtia with “a core member of the clade as currently circumscribed,” with a view to “ensure continued application of Dennstaedtia and Microlepia to the vast majority of species traditionally assigned to those genera.”
Turner, I. M. 2022. From Tranquebar to Madras and back again, again: typification of the plant names published in Rottler’s account of an Indian journey in 1799–1800. Taxon 71: 447–458.
Yet more typification (will it ever end?). Swept up in this are synonyms or basionyms of the following names for spp. treated or mentioned in the Manual: Digitaria bicornis (Lam.) Roem. & Schult. (Poaceae), Fimbristylis dichotoma (L.) Vahl (Cyperaceae), Ipomoea hederifolia L. (Convolvulaceae; two synonyms), Rhinacanthus nasutus (L.) Kurz (Acanthaceae), and Toona ciliata M. Roem. (Meliaceae). Also, the Manual decision to accept Thunbergia grandiflora Roxb. (Acanthaceae) as a heterotypic nomenclatural entity (rather than a combination based on Flemingia grandiflora Roxb. ex Rottler) is ratified by this author.
Vasquez, S. I., C. A. D. Welker, V. G. Solís Neffa & M. C. Peichoto. 2022. Morphometric analysis of the Saccharum complex (Poaceae, Andropogoneae). Pl. Syst. Evol. 308(10): 1–20.
A previous study of the titular complex involving two of the same authors [see under “Welker,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 26(4), Oct. 2019] sat on the fence as to whether the New World Erianthus sensu stricto (with ca. 22 spp.) should be recognized as a distinct genus or included in the Old World Saccharum sensu stricto (with ca. 12 spp.). The present investigation “revealed useful traits to distinguish” the two entities, “suggesting that Erianthus should be accepted as a genus distinct from Saccharum.” A key is provided to distinguish the three genera of the complex recognized by these authors. From the perspective of the Manual, this is much ado about very little, as no spp. of Erianthus (only introduced Saccharum spp.) are known from Costa Rica; the only necessary corrections would be to the sp. total (from “25 spp.” to “Ca. 12 spp.”) and geographic range (to exclude the entire New World portion) of Saccharum. Have at it!
Vigosa-Mercado, J. L. 2022. Typification of names in Mexican Arundinella (Poaceae, Panicoideae, Arundinelleae). Phytotaxa 552: 215–216.
Three obscure synonyms of Arundinella deppeana Nees ex Steud. (the correct authorship, we submit) are lectotypified. However, the typification of the accepted name of this sp. (which occurs in Costa Rica) remains in limbo, as unequivocally original material has not been located.
Wisnev, M. A. & J. W. [sic] Wiersema. 2021. Guzmania anae Wisnev nom. nov., a replacement name for Guzmania spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley, with neotypification of Aechmea spectabilis (Linden ex Galeotti) Brongn. ex Houllet. J. Bromeliad Soc. 71: 140–146.
The authors have established that the name Guzmania spectabilis Linden ex Galeotti (1856) was published validly, on the basis of a brief though (we would agree) adequate description, and are promoting it (on what seems somewhat shakier grounds) as the basionym for Aechmea spectabilis Brongn. ex Houllet, the accepted name for a South American sp. Fortunately, the authorship of Aechmea spectabilis is of no concern to us; our concern is that the existence of Guzmania spectabilis Linden ex Galeotti renders the posterior G. spectabilis (Mez & Wercklé) Utley—the accepted name for a sp. occurring in Costa Rica—an illegitimate homonym. With no heterotypic synonyms available to step in, the nomen novum of the title (honoring its author’s “lovely wife”) is created to serve the purpose. We wonder how long it will be before some kind of conservation or rejection proposal surfaces to counter all of this.
Zhang, L.-B. & X.-M. Zhou. 2021. A new classification of Lycopodiales based on molecular phylogenetics, morphology, and spore ornamentation. Indian Fern J. 38: 125–136.
Good gravy! It wasn’t that long ago, at least for us old-timers, when Lycopodiales comprised a single family, Lycopodiaceae, with just two genera: the humongous, cosmopolitan Lycopodium, and the monospecific, New Zealand oddity Phylloglossum. Eventually it turned out that Phylloglossum was not really such an oddity, cladistically speaking, being deeply nested within Lycopodium sensu lato. In retrospect, perhaps the most reasonable resolution (certainly in terms of nomenclatural stability) would have been to simply sink Phylloglossum into Lycopodium. End of story, with just one name change involving a little-known sp. But no; possibly motivated by a desire to maintain the morphologically (but superficially) distinct Phylloglossum, pteridologists—as always—went in the opposite direction, carving Lycopodium into smaller segregate general. At first, it was just Huperzia and Lycopodiella, e.g., in the era of Flora mesoamericana Vol. 1 (1995); but since that time all heck has broken loose [see, e.g., under “Øllgaard,” this column, in The Cutting Edge 27(2), Apr. 2020], to the point where we literally cannot say with certainty which “genera” occur in Costa Rica or what is the currently accepted name for each of our spp. This latest twist on the theme accepts two families in Lycopodiales: Huperziaceae, with Huperzia, Phlegmariurus, and Phylloglossum (!), and Lycopodiaceae, with 14 (!) additional “genera.” The cladograms presented in this paper suggest that, once again, Phylloglossum may be the culprit: it would appear that the system of Flora mesoamericana (with the vast majority of Mesoamerican Lycopodiales assigned to Huperzia) could have been maintained by simply sinking Phylloglossum (along with Phlegmariurus) into Huperzia (which deed has actually been effected, but continues to be ignored). This contribution includes a combined dichotomous (though non-indented) key to the families, subfamilies, and genera of Lycopodiales, plus brief, informal diagnostic descriptions for each of the suprageneric taxa.
Zuchowski, W. 2022. Tropical plants of Costa Rica: a guide to native and exotic flora. 2. ed. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. 543 pp.
Wow! It's hard to believe that 15 years have elapsed since the first edition of this invaluable guide was published in 2007 [see The Cutting Edge 14(3): 12–13, Jul. 2007]. The most noticeable change is in the size: this new (second) edition measures just 5" × 8", vs. 6" × 9" previously; it sits more comfortably in the hand, and will also usurp less space in a day-pack. This was accomplished by "reducing the font size throughout the book" (quoting the author from her Preface), which also allowed the addition of 14 pages, "more than 100 species along with a new section focusing on the Osa Peninsula," and "many new photographs" (quoting here from the back cover). Surprisingly, these additions did not increase the thickness of the book; in fact, by our measurement, it is actually about 1/16" thinner than the first edition! Perhaps slightly thinner paper was used, though we cannot detect a difference. If you're wondering about the size of the photographs: as indicated by the author, "many of the photos from the first edition have been enlarged," counterintuitively we think, but apparently by virtue of space gained from the use of smaller fonts; however, we did note that at least a few photos were actually reduced (e.g., the one on p. 337 of the new edition). Some older users may lament the smaller font sizes, but we expect that most folks will appreciate the more ergonomic feel of the book and the additional photographs and information. And in good light, it ain't that bad (but otherwise, don't try it without high-power reading glasses!). As to the content of this volume, we would first refer our readers to our review of the first edition (referenced above), as the general organization of the book has not changed. One of the author's primary motivations for this second edition was "the simple desire to update taxonomy," and in that regard she has done a superlative job. Even quite recent changes have been incorporated [e.g., Iochroma arborescens (L.) J. M. H. Shaw, in place of Acnistus arborescens (L.) Schltdl. (Solanaceae)], and in most cases, prior usages are duly indicated. The new Osa section is revelatory and ground-breaking in the sense that it shines lights on numerous local specialties of consummate botanical interest, though perhaps unlikely to be encountered or noticed by the casual ecotourist, e.g.: Aspidosperma myristicifolium (Markgr.) Woodson (Apocynaceae), Caryocar costaricense Donn. Sm. (Caryocaraceae), Huberodendron allenii Standl. & L. O. Williams (Malvaceae, formerly Bombacaceae), Lathrophytum peckoltii Eichler (Balanophoraceae), Sloanea garcia-cossioi Pal.-Duque (Elaeocarpaceae), Tachigali versicolor Standl. & L. O. Williams (Fabaceae), Thoracocarpus bissectus (Vell.) Harling (Cyclanthaceae), and several rare Lecythidaceae. But it occurs to us that the type of ecotourist who would venture into the Osa region is perhaps a relatively hardy and inquisitive soul! We applaud the author for featuring these curiosities, some of which may seldom (if ever) have been photographed. One final and mind-blowing observation: after 15 years, the list price of this book has somehow stayed the same: $35 then and now! And more than 30% less than that, at the moment, from a major Internet retailer, so snap it up while you can. This second edition is dedicated to Turid Forsyth, the principal photographer for the first edition, who passed away in 2014.
TOP
|
|
