Search

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from nternational Association for Plant Taxonomy via the DOI in this record

© 2016, International Association for Plant Taxonomy. All rights reserved.Molecular phylogenetic analyses of nuclear and chloroplast DNA sequences indicate that the rediscovered Apostates, known only from Rapa in the Austral Islands of southeastern Polynesia, represents an example of extreme long-distance dispersal (> 6500 km) from southwestern North America and one of at least four disjunctions of comparable magnitude in the primarily New World Bahia alliance (tribe Bahieae). Each of the disjunctions appears to have resulted from north-to-south dispersal since the mid-Miocene; three are associated with such marked morphological and ecological change that some of the southern taxa (including Apostates) have been treated in distinct genera of uncertain relationship. Phyllotaxy within the Bahia alliance, however, evidently has been even more conservative evolutionarily than reflected by previous taxonomies, with alternate-leaved and opposite-leaved clades in Bahia sensu Ellison each encompassing representatives of other genera that share the same leaf arrangements. A revised taxonomic treatment of the Bahia alliance is proposed to recognize morphologically distinctive, monophyletic genera, including the critically endangered Apostates.

We review the 68 names of plants treated in genera treated or now recognised as Solanaceae from J.M. da C. Vellozo´s Flora Fluminensis in the context of current floristic knowledge of the region around Rio de Janeiro in southern Brazil. Most of Vellozo?s names are synonyms of names previously published or are illegitimate later homonyms, but several are accepted and in widespread use. Two names do not belong to solanaceaeous taxa, but to species in Apocynaceae and Violaceae respectively. We provide lectotypifications for all names, including those previously lectotypified using the published plates that do not qualify as original material. Type localities, previous lectotypifications and current accepted names are provided for all taxa. Fil: Knapp, Sandra. Natural History Museum; Reino Unido Fil: Barboza, Gloria Estela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (p); Argentina Fil: Romero, María Victoria. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; Brasil Fil: Vignoli Silva, Marcia. Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul; Brasil. Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre; Brasil Fil: Giacomin, Leandro. Universidade Federal Do Minas Gerais; Brasil. Universidade Estadual Do Oeste Do Pará; Brasil Fil: Stehmann, Joao Renato. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; Brasil

The Hungarian lichenologist Odon Szatala described 169 species and infraspecific taxa, with a majority of these being based on his own collections. He also described taxa from material sent to him for identification. In this study, original material for 27 names (Aspicilia latiloba, A. microspora var. astroidea, A. microspora var. insensibilis, A. subpercaena, Bacidia rhodi, Buellia samothrakiana, Catillaria lenticularis var. transsilvatica, C. servitii, C. zsakii, Dermatocarpon fuscatum, Diplotomma alboatrum var. virescens, Lecania nylanderiana var. ochracea, Lecanora atra var. aegaeica, L. cengiae-samboae, L. rhodi, Lecidea aegaeica, L. aegaeica f. acrustacea, L. aegaeica f. albida, L. aegaeica var. verruculosa, L. euphorea f. decussata, L. iranica, L. stigmatea f. armeniaca, Pertusaria baskalensis, Physcia grisea var. elbursiana, Placodiella olivacea var. stampaliana, Porina rechingeri and Verrucaria filarszkyana) of taxa described by Szatala and based on material collected by others from Greece, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine was examined, and lectotypes were chosen. In addition, Catillaria servitii has been found to be the earliest name for C. praedicta. © International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) 2014.

Incongruence between morphology and molecules, i.e., genetic differentiation of lineages that are morphologically identical, or morphological variation among accessions sharing identical genotypes, has been increasingly reported and is most problematic in taxa with reduced morphologies. We here review and discuss these issues for plant taxonomy, taking Salicornia, one of the taxonomically most challenging genera of angiosperms, as a model. We argue in favour of a taxonomic system that remains as much 'workable' as possible for traditional morphology-based taxonomy, but avoids merging genetically widely divergent lineages despite their morphological similarity. Our revised classification of Eurasian taxa includes four species, ten subspecies and one nothosubspecies. The molecular and morphological characteristics as well as the geographical distribu- tion of each taxon are described. A key to the Eurasian taxa based on morphology and geographical distribution is presented.

Typification of Linnaean Plant Names in ApiaceaeAuthor(s): Charles E. Jarvis, Jean-Pierre Reduron, Mark A. Spencer and Steve CaffertySource: Taxon, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 207-216Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25065544 .Accessed: 19/11/2013 07:27

For some years the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) has sponsored research grants in plant systematics to young scientists, predominantly from developing countries. At the meeting of Council, held on 12 January 2008 in Pretoria, South Africa, the first such meeting held in Africa, it was decided to review the programme and to provide applicants with advice on how to write a successful proposal. Guidelines for proposal writing are given here.

Facing still unresolved taxonomic problems in many plant groups and overshadowed by recent economic and social changes, classical plant taxonomy in China is seriously threatened by the gradual loss of taxonomists and funding, not to mention the extinction of undescribed plant taxa resulting from environmental degradation at the approach of the 21st century. The status of floristic projects, taxonomic publications, and the staff and students of herbaria and botanical institutes is presented. The solution to problems limiting plant taxonomic research and floristics in China appears to be dependent primarily on supporting current co-operative projects and raising additional research funds through Chinese and international collaborative efforts.

Summary Hamilton, C. W. & Reichard, S. H.: Current practice in the use of subspecies, variety, and forma in the classification of wild plants. - Taxon 41: 485-498. 1992. - ISSN 0040-0262. Infraspecific classification of plants continues to be practiced commonly by taxonomists: c. 8 % of species monographed in 26 major journals and series during the period 1987-1990 were subdivided. Of those, c. 42 % were divided into subspecies only, 52 %o into varieties, 3 % into formae, and 3 % into taxa of more than one level. Subspecies and varieties are usually defined as requiring some integrity - geographic, ecologic, and/or phylogenetic beyond the morphological. Despite some attempts to differentiate between subspecies and variety, they are largely equivalent in practice. European taxonomists tend to favor subspecies, whereas their counterparts in the United States usually employ variety. Formae usually are defined as lacking any extramorphological integrity. Given the general inconsistency of practice found, it is imperative that more authors state briefly their philosophy of infraspecific taxonomy so their classifications may be interpreted more clearly. Taxonomists collectively should promote greater standardization of infraspecific classification.

The name Alliaceae was first proposed by Batsch (Dispos. Gen. PL Jenens.: 50. 1786), and was subsequently validated in 1797 by Borkhausen (I.e.) under Art. 13.1(a) of the Vienna Code (McNeill & al, 2006) which established 4 Aug 1789 (Jussieu, Gen. PL) as the formal start date for suprageneric nomenclature. Prior to that Alliaceae was tradi tionally attributed to J. Agardh (Theoria Syst. PL: 32.1858). Although the earlier publication of the name by Batsch and Borkhausen was known to R.D. Hoogland and Reveal as early as 1990, it was not widely reported until later (Reveal in Taxon 47: 851-856.1998). The existing conservation of Am aryllidaceae, validated in 1805, is also necessary since the earliest available name for the family, even when narrowly circumscribed, is Narcissaceae Juss. (Gen. PL 1789), ini tially proposed by Durande (Notions El?m. Bot.: 256.1782). Our purpose here is not to argue the relative merits of one classification or the other, but to propose that nomenclatural stability is best served by superconserving Amaryllidaceae over Alliaceae for those who prefer to recognize a single family. Amaryllidaceae have long enjoyed name recognition, especially in the horticultural world. Alliaceae, however, have either been relegated to Liliaceae Juss. or subsumed in Amaryllidaceae (e.g., Hutchinson, Fam. Fl. Plants 1959; Traub, Gen. Amaryllidaceae 1963) due to failure to recog nize the nomenclatural priority o? Alliaceae. Virtually all classifications post Huber (in Mitt. Bot. Staatssam. M?nchen 8:219-538.1969) have recognized an independent Alliaceae, with the exception of Cronquist (Integr. Syst. Class. Fl. PL 1981; Evol. Class. Fl. Plants. 1988), who maintained a broad and highly polyphyletic Liliaceae. However, both Shipunov (http://herba.msu.rU/shipunov/ang/v4.8/syang.pdf, 2007) and Thorne & Reveal (in Bot. Rev. 73: 67-182. 2007) accept Alliaceae over Amaryllidaceae. Virtually all of the important horticultural literature of the past century (e.g., Bailey Hor torium, Hortus Third. 1976; Griffiths & Huxley (eds.), New RHS Diet. Gard. 1992) have recognized a narrowly defined Amaryllidaceae. Most of the generic diversity of the clade is associated with this name (66 genera, versus 13 in Allia ceae and one in Agapanthaceae). Furthermore, acceptance of the above proposal will allow Amaryllidoideae Burnett (1835) to have priority over Narcissoideae Haw. (1831) and Hippeastroideae Herb, ex Sweet (1832) when the family is broadly defined. We believe that the superconservation of the name Amaryllidaceae will, in the long run, better serve the interests of the users of plant classification, and greatly reduce nomenclatural confusion when that family is broadly defined.

150 Reasons for Paraphyly: A ResponseAuthor(s): David M. Williams, Malte C. Ebach and Quentin WheelerReviewed work(s):Source: Taxon, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Nov., 2005), p. 858Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25065471 .Accessed: 22/01/2013 07:00

Volume 26 of the Flora of North America covering Liliidae sensu Cronquist (Liliales and Orchidales) is about to go to press. The policy of the Flora of North America project is to publish all taxonomic novelties separately from the volumes of the Flora (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993: p. 4). Final editing revealed two names (in Trillium, Case, in press; and Brodiaea, Pires, in press) that had not, as the manuscripts had implied, been previously published. We are grateful to the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) for facilitating prompt publication of volume 26 by permitting us to publish here, at extremely short notice, these two combinations at new ranks.

Summary Haeckel outlined the first genealogical trees for plants and animals. A small portion of his work was dedicated to plant evolution. Haeckel gave a phylogenetic interpretation of the natural classification of plants as it existed at his time, deriving phylogeny from classification. According to him, a phylogeny based on comparative anatomy and upon which systematic evolution is founded, will be identical to that which could have been derived from ontogenesis or from paleontology if they had been known.

Summary A historical perspective reviews the origins of plant taxonomy and its relationship with plant fossils. Linnaeus contributed the notion of binomial nomenclature with the sole purpose of providing a label for the species. Subjective attributes such as stratigraphic occurrence or presumed phylogenetic relationship have no place in taxonomic circumscription. Names of taxa are stabilized by nomenclatural types, to which the name is permanently attached. Nomenclature and taxonomy are entirely different concepts. The I.C.B.N. provides Rules for stabilizing the nomenclature, and strict adherence to these is beneficial to all palynologists. Their judgement on how to best group and subdivide their material may vary; proper nomenclatural procedures will allow later workers to re-arrange these data without confusion. Practical problems of spore systematics result from imperfect knowledge and understanding. Virtually identical problems are faced by palaeobotanists working with named parts of plants, by mycologists or phycologists working with named stages in life cycles, and even by neobotanists working with incomplete herbarium specimens. There are no reasons for palynologists to aim for nomenclatural procedures different from those of other plant taxonomists. Recent suggestions by Boulter and Pirozynski and proposals by Hughes to change the I.C.B.N. so as to give special consideration to special groups of fossils are ill considered and here rejected.

Summary A variety of schemes are employed currently for the classification of plants into higher taxa. The two most widely used schemes, the traditional kingdom Plantae with subkingdoms Thallophyta and Embryophyta, and the Whittaker five-kingdom system with plants in the kingdoms Monera, Protista, Fungi and Plantae, rely on nineteenth century morphological criteria for delimitation of taxa that result in polyphyletic assemblages of organisms. It is proposed that plants be assigned to seven kingdoms, subordinate to the superkingdoms Procaryota and Eucaryota which are based on the procaryotic and eucaryotic types of cellular organization. The distribution of accessory chlorophylls is used as a major taxonomic criterion for classifying photosynthetic organisms at the kingdom level. This results in a single kingdom, the Cyanochlorobionta for photosynthetic plants containing chlorophyll a only within the superkingdom Procaryota. Photosynthetic plants within the superkingdom Eucaryota have been divided into three groups, the kingdom Erythrobionta for organisms with no accessory chlorophyll or occasionally chlorophyll d (and lacking flagella), the kingdom Chlorobionta for organisms with accessory chlorophyll b, and the Ochrobionta for those organisms with accessory chlorophyll c. Vascular plants have been assigned to a single division, the Tracheophyta, since in addition to having a similar biochemistry (chlorophylls a and b, similar carotenoids, starch as a reserve food product) they possess also a basic morphological groundplan - a vascular system containing xylem and phloem, and a life history consisting of an alternation of generations. The fungi have been assigned three kingdoms as opposed to most extant schemes of classification in which they are allocated to a single polyphyletic assemblage. The true fungi have been divided into kingdoms Fungi I and Fungi 2 since it is thought that they have evolved from the Chlorobionta and Ochrobionta, respectively; the myxomycetes have been placed in a third kingdom, the Myxobionta. A perusal of eighteen botanical books published in the U.S.A. during the last decade has revealed a considerable lack of uniformity in the usage of the higher categories of classification: five used the traditional two kingdom system of organisms with the kingdom Plantae for plants and the subkingdoms Thallophyta and Embryophyta; three employed the recently proposed five kingdom organismic system of Whittaker (1969) with plants in the kingdoms Monera, Protista, Plantae and Fungi; six began their treatment at the division level, presumably due to lack of satisfaction with existing schemes; and two proposed new systems for the subdivision of the traditional kingdom Plantae, Bold (1973), who has been followed subsequently by two authors, established the subkingdoms Prokaryonta, Chloronta, and Achloronta, and Neushul (1974) the subkingdoms Prokaryonta and Eukaryonta. In the last few decades a tremendous accumulation of cytological and biochemical data has occurred (Klein and Cronquist, 1967), but these have not been adequately utilized in classification. With the recent publication of compendia

others are differentiated into chemical races having distinct geographic distributions. The commonest type of chemical variation, noted in hundreds of examples, is a replacement series of the main constituent substances of the medulla. The fact that major chemical races in apparently sexually reproducing, morphologically uniform or nearly uniform lichens maintain their complete identity in places where they are sympatric suggests that such races are perhaps better regarded as distinct species. Such interpretation is further supported by the recent demonstration that where six such races are sympatric in an environmentally telescoped maritime community in Britain, the chemically different plants select different habitats, resulting in conspicuous zonation but with no alteration of plant characteristics where zones overlap. Examples of the use of lichen chemistry in genus-level taxonomy are also given. The taxonomist's unending quest for attributes to help him understand the relationships among organisms long ago led him to contemplate chemistry as a criterion. But the natural products of most plants are not convenient for the taxonomist to study and quite a few are not studiable at all in his familiar research subject, the herbarium specimen. While no small number of elegant chemotaxonomic studies of vascular plants have been made, chemistry as an adjunct to primarily nonchemical taxonomic research is virtually unknown in the higher plants. And certainly chemistry as detected by microchemical procedures is never used routinely as a key character for the identification of specimens in that group. The situation in lichenology is quite different. The bizarre metabolites that accumulate in the lichens are as identifiable from minute fragments of even ancient herbarium specimens as they are from freshly collected plants. While precise surveys of the constituents of chemically unknown species groups of lichens can be involved and tedious, in the main the techniques used can be mastered by even those workers innocent of the complexities of theoretical chemistry, and the identification of the commonest substances is now not particularly difficult. In fact, the actual methods for identifying the compounds in question have just enough of the allure of the taxonomic process of identifying organisms themselves to appeal to the imagination of the lichenologist willing to venture into chemistry. Although chemical constitution, as detected by microanalytical techniques, is today more routinely used in lichenology than in any other branch of plant taxonomy, the interpretation of research findings for taxonomic purposes had led to considerable controversy.

The pattern of evolutionary phylogeny has been highly reticulate mainly on account of hybridization (crossing between individuals belonging to populations which have different adaptive norms) followed by stabilization and perpetuation of some of the hybrid derivatives. The significance of hybridization in obtaining a picture of evolutionary relationships is discussed. First the evolutionary advantages that might result from hybridization are considered, second the drawbacks; finally the ways and degrees to which such drawbacks may be overcome are discussed.

As a result of discussions held at joint sessions of Sections 2 and 9 of the IXth International Botanical Congress in Montreal in August, 1959, it was proposed that a Committee be appointed by the I.U.B.S. to consider terminology and related problems in the field of biosystematics. The Council of the I.A.P.T., as section for Plant Taxonomy of the I.U.B.S., therefore decided to appoint a Committee on biosystematic terminology (see Taxon 9: 88 (1960)).

It is plant taxonomists, not taxa, that make distinctions between the formal disciplines of ecology, evolution and systematics. For populations and species in the real world, however, there is an integrating attribute: discontinuity leading to isolation. How the ecologist can contribute to the study of disjunction is the central theme of this paper. The several areas of interaction between ecology, systematics and evolution are discussed. The contribution of ecological approaches to problems in taxonomy is illustrated with recent examples in each of the following subject areas: genecology (ecotypic variation), ecology of isolating mechanisms, ecological influences on hybridization and polyploidy, ecological bases for diversification in plant genera and families, and the use of ecological data in plant taxonomy.

Pages 220-279 of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (1956) are occupied by a list of conserved and rejected names of genera of Spermatophyta. The origins and history of conservation have been discussed by Stafleu (Taxon 5: 85-95). As a result of his study it became evident that the list is no longer in harmony with current concepts of nomenclature and the rules for maintaining them. The desirability of a general revision of the list is obvious; such a revision was begun by Stafleu several years ago. It proved, however, an impossible task for one person to achieve in the intervals between ordinary duties. Consequently application was made by The International Association for Plant Taxonomy to the National Science Foundation (Washington) for a grant in furtherance of this project. The grant was awarded early in 1958, enabling the present authors to work together for some seven weeks in Holland and England, principally in the Institute of Systematic Botany of the University of Utrecht and the Botany Department of the British Museum (Natural History). During this period we completed the verification (begun by Stafleu alone) of almost every citation in the list, and the evaluation of every conservation and rejection in the light of the current rules of nomenclature. The final manuscript was prepared later, in Utrecht and New York; an additional conference of the authors was made possible by Stafleu’s visit to the United States in December, 1958. A proposal has been presented to the Ninth International Botanical Congress, to be held at Montreal in 1959, to replace the current list of conserved and rejected names of genera of Spermatophyta by a new list based on that which follows (see Synopsis of Proposals, Regnum Vegetabile 14: 79. 1959).

EICHLER, HJ. 1965 Suppl. Black Fl. S. Aust. ed. 2, 81. FORSTER, J. G. 1786 Florulae insularum Australianum prodromus. Gottingen: Dieterich. HEPPER, F. N. 1968 Standard Citation of Microfiches. Taxon 17: 604. MCVAUGH, R. et al. 1968 An annotated glossary of botanical nomenclature. Regnum Vegetabile 56. Utrecht-Netherlands: International Association for Plant Taxonomy. MERRILL, E. D. 1917 An interpretation of Rumphius's Herbarium amboinense. Publication 9-Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Bureau of Science, Manila. STAFLEU, F. A. 1967 Taxonomic literature. Regnum Vegetabile 52. Utrecht-Netherlands: International Bureau for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature. Zug-Switzerland: InterDocumentation Co. AG. STAFLEU, F. A. 1971 Linnaeus and the Linnaeans. Regnum Vegetabile 79. Utrecht, Netherlands: International Association for Plant Taxonomy. STAFLEU, F. A. et al. 1972 International Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the Eleventh International Botanical Congress, Seattle, August 1969. Regnum Vegetabile 82. Utrecht, Netherlands: International Association for Plant Taxonomy. STEARN, W. T. 1961 Introductory Notes on Linneaus's "Mantissa Plantarum." Carl Linnaeus Mantissa Plantarum 1767 and 1771. 1961 Facsimile. Weinheim: J. Cramer.

Many of the textbooks of elementary botany and biology now in use refer to an "old" system of classification of plants in which four divisions (phyla) are recognized: Thallophyta; Bryophyta; Pteridophyta; Spermatophyta. Although the inadequacies of this system are almost universally recognized, botanists continue to use it for want of something more practical. In the meantime, a variety of "new" systems of classification have been proposed almost to the point of embarrassment to botanists. Thus, in 1942, Dr. Oswald Tippo wrote that, "The writer knows of no general modern classification which reflects the newest, sound developments in all the brancies of plant phylogeny and in which the various groups are named in such a way as to indicate rank or degree of affinity...." (Chronica Botanica 7: 203-206, 1942) Tippo proposed "A Modern Classification of the Plant Kingdom" for which he claimed "no great degree of originality.... for it is a compilation, a synthesis of several proposals. In the main G. M. Smith's classification of the thallophytes has been followed and in the arrangement of the vascular plants much has been borrowed from Eames".