36 Cyperaceae (Drafts: T. V. Egorova and M. S. Novoselova [Eriophorum]) 36. 1 Scirpus




Дата канвертавання19.04.2016
Памер51.04 Kb.
36  Cyperaceae (Drafts: T.V. Egorova and M.S. Novoselova [Eriophorum])

36.1  Scirpus L. (1753), Sp. Pl. 47.

S Maximowicziella Khokhr. (1989), Analiz Fl. Kolymskogo Nagorya 15 (incl.).


36.1.1  Scirpus maximowiczii C.B. Clarke (1908), Kew Bull., Add., ser. 8: 30.

S Eriophorum japonicum Maxim. (1886), Bull. Acad. Imp. Sci. St.-Pétersb. 31: 111; Scirpus japonicus (Maxim.) Fern. (1905), non Franch. & Sav. (1875); Maximowicziella japonica (Maxim.) Khokhr. (1985), Fl. Magadansk Obl. 73.

2n= 64.

2nD Zhukova (1969).



G RFE

Comments:



36.2  Schoenoplectus (Rchb.) Palla (1888), nom. cons., Verh. K.K. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 38, Sitzungsber., 49.

B Scirpus subgen. Schoenoplectus Rchb. in Rchb. & Rchb. fil. (1846), Icon. Fl. Germ. Helv. 8: 40.

Comments:

(1) West Europeans now usually recognize Schoenoplectus as a separate genus, usually also including Bolboschoenus. It seems illogical to me to recognize the latter but not the former, and the former has priority if they are merged. The authoritative recent survey of Goetghebeur in Kubitzki (1998) recognizes Schoenoplectus, but tentatively also retains Bolboschoenus as a separate genus. Scirpus validus has therefore been transferred to Schoenoplectus. Further opinions? (Elven)

(2) Flora of North America recognizes segregates of Scirpus. (Murray)
36.2.1  Schoenoplectus validus (Vahl) Á. Löve & D. Löve (1954), Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 81: 33.

B Scirpus validus Vahl (1805), Enum. Pl. 2: 268.

2n=

2nD


G CAN

Comments:

(1) Reported by Scoggan (1978) and Porsild & Cody (1908) from York Factory, SW Hudson Bay. (Elven)

36.3  Bolboshoenus (Asch.) Palla in W.D.J. Koch (1905), Syn. Deut. Schweiz. Fl., ed. 3, 3: 2531.

B Scirpus L. taxon (alpha) Bolboschoenus Asch. (1864), Fl. Brandenburg 1: 753.


36.3.1  Bolboschoenus planiculmis (F. Schmidt) Egor. (1967), Akad. Nauk SSSR Bot. Inst. Komarova Rast. Tsentral. Azii 3: 20.

B Scirpus planiculmis F. Schmidt (1868), Reise Amur-Land, Bot. 190.

S

T [Type probably lost; lecto/neotypification necessary.]



2n=

2nD


G RFE

Comments:



36.4  Blysmus Panzer ex Schult. (1824), nom. cons., Mant. 2: 41.
36.4.1  Blysmus rufus (Huds.) Link (1827), Hort. Berol. 1: 278.

B Schoenus rufus Huds. (1778), Fl. Angl., ed. 2, 1: 15.

S Scirpus rufus (Huds.) Schrad. (1806), Fl. Germ. 133.

2n=


2nD

G CAN


Comments:

(1) Consider Blysmopsis, cf G. Tucker, Flora of North America. (Murray)

(2) Reported by Scoggan (1978) and Porsild & Cody (1908) from both Churchill and York Factory, SW Hudson Bay. In NW Europe it stops well short of the Arctic. (Elven)

36.5  Eriophorum L. (1753), Sp. Pl. 52.

Comments:

(1) Löve & Löve (1975) include something they call E. altaicum Meinsh. from Siberia, both sides of Beringia, and Canada. It must therefore at least appear somewhere in synonymy. I assume it to be more or less synonymous with E. chamissonis C.A. Mey. in its previous wide meaning. The distribution of everything named E. chamissonis seems to have been uncritically transferred by the Löves to E. altaicum. (Elven)
Subg. Eriophoropsis (Palla) Raymond ***

B ***
36.5.1  Eriophorum viridi-carinatum (Engelm.) Fern. (1905), Rhodora 7: 89.

B E. latifolium Hoppe var. (beta) viridi-carinatum Engelm. (1844), Amer. J. Sci. 46: 103.

S

2n=



2nD

G CAN


Comments:

(1) Year of publication of Fernald's combination possibly 1906? (Elven)

(1) Reported by Scoggan (1978) and Porsild & Cody (1980) from York Factory, SW Hudson Bay. (Elven)
Subg. Phyllanthela (Andersson) Egor. (1976), Fl. Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR 2: 100.

B Eriophorum taxon (+) Phyllanthela Andersson (1849), Cyper Scand. 12.


36.5.2  Eriophorum gracile W.D.J. Koch ex Roth (1800), Catal. Bot. 2: 259.

S

Comments: See Novoselova (1994).


36.5.2.1  Eriophorum gracile Koch ex Roth subsp. gracile

S

2n= (1) 60. (2) 76.



2nD (1) Tanaka (1942b, 1948). (2) Hagerup (1944a).

G ALA CAN

Comments:
36.5.2.2  Eriophorum gracile Koch ex Roth subsp. asiaticum (V. Vassil.) Novoselova (1998), Novit. Syst. Pl. Vasc. 31: 7.

B E. asiaticum V. Vassil. (1940), Not Syst. Herb. Inst. Bot. 8: 104.

S E. gracile auct., non Koch ex Roth (1800); see comment (2).

2n=


2nD

G SIB RFE

Comments:

(1) The earlier publication in Bot. Zhurn. 79, 11 (1994): 84 was invalid. (Novoselova)

(2) We need some principle for handling this type of 'synonymy'. There are innumerable cases of misapplied names and we can't include all. In the drafts, mainly Russian cases are included yet. (Elven)

(3) Restrict to misapplications in major floras. (Murray)


36.5.3  Eriophorum latifolium Hoppe (1800). Bot. Taschenb. 1800: 108.

S

2n= (1) 54. (2) 58.



2nD (1) Scheerer (1940). (2) Gadella & Kliphuis (1967a); Löve & Löve in Löve (1973b).

G NOR


Comments:

(1) Added to Novoselova's draft. One report from the arctic parts of N Norway (Båtsfjord, Varanger Peninsula) and one from very close to the defined arctic boundary (Havøysund W of North Cape), both of them reliable but not confirmed by vouchers. There are, however, several vouchered sites very near the boundary. (Elven)


36.5.4  Eriophorum angustifolium Honck. (1782), Verz. Gew. Deutschl. 153.

S E. angustifolium Honck. subsp. angustifolium; E. polystachion L. (1753), nom. rejic., Sp. Pl. 52; E. polystachion L. subsp. polystachion; E. angustifolium Honck. subsp. subarcticum (V. Vassil.) Hultén ex J.T. Kartesz & K.N. Gandhi (1992), Phytologia 72,1: 22.

2n= 58.

2nD Löve & Löve (1975) list numerous counts, many as arctic, for their subsp. subarcticum.



G ICE NOR RUS SIB RFE ALA CAN GRL

Comments:

(1) Subsp. scabriusculum Hultén (1936, Sv. Bot. Tidskr. 30: 518) is mapped by Hultén (1968) from southern parts of Chukotka Peninsula. Arctic occurrences have not been proved and the subspecies should not be included in the list. (Novoselova & Elven)
36.5.5  Eriophorum triste (Th. Fr.) Hada_ & Á. Löve (1950), Bot. Not. 1950: 34.

B E. angustifolium Honck. var. (beta) triste Th. Fr. (1870), Öfvers. Kungl. Vet.-Akad. Förh. (1869) 26,2: 135.

S E. angustifolium Honck. subsp. triste (Th. Fr.) Hultén (1962), Circump. Pl. 1: 58.

2n= 60.


2nD Löve & Löve (1975) list several counts, all as arctic.

G NOR RFE ALA? CAN GRL

Comments:

(1) Status of triste, as species or subspecies? The arguments given in Fl. Arct. URSS 3 point towards a lower rank than species but the arguments might be a little misplaced if this is a mainly American-Greenlandic taxon which does not reach Russia except for Wrangel Island. In Svalbard (from where it is described), it is very distinct, and it also appears so in Greenland and Ellesmere Land, but I had problems with it elsewhere in arctic Canada and Alaska. I have therefore tentatively reduced all other areas (in ALA and CAN) to 'question marks'.

Another and somewhat quixotic argument for E. triste as a species is its 'hybridisation pattern'. The hybrid entity E. x sorenseni (E. scheuchzeri x E. triste) is probably frequent in most areas where E. triste occur. No hybrid has been proposed between E. angustifolium and E. scheuchzeri in spite of their very frequent co-occurrence. (Elven)

WARNING! Might be (re-)reduced to a subspecies of E. angustifolium.
36.5.6  Eriophorum x sorenseni Raymond (1950), Natural. Canad. 77: 69.

S E. scheuchzeri Hoppe x E. triste (Th. Fr.) Hada_ & Á. Löve.

2n=

2nD


G NOR CAN GRL

Comments:

(1) My reasons for acceptance of this taxon, from experience with it from Svalbard and Canada, are that it often occurs independent of at least one of and often both its parents, is very homogeneous morphologically, produces fairly good pollen, and seems to reproduce sexually (as well as very efficiently vegetatively). A more indirect reason is that this entity fairly often is found whereas a similar hybrid between E. angustifolium s. str. and E. scheuchzeri never have been proved from northern areas (see comment above). These two also co-occur very frequently, more frequently than E. scheuchzeri and E. triste. This may also point towards some reality of E. triste as a species distinct from E. angustifolium. Are there other documented hybrids (except E. x medium) which have a similar independent appearance?

Due to the regular occurrence of several spikes and the leaf structure, the hybrid is here placed in this subgenus and not in subg. Eriophorum. (Elven)


Subg. Eriophorum
36.5.7  Eriophorum scheuchzeri Hoppe (1800), Bot. Taschenb. 1800: 104.

S E. scheuchzeri Hoppe var. tenuifolium Ohwi (1944), Mem. Coll. Sci. Kyoto Univ., ser. B, 18, 1: 91.

2n= 58 (2x?).

2nD Löve & Löve (1975) list numerous counts for the collective species, nearly all as arctic.

Comments:

(1) Novoselova's arguments for the proposed subspecific split must be evaluated in non-Russian areas before full acceptance for the circumpolar treatments. If this is a case of quantitative south/north differences, a discontinuity in the variation pattern will be needed, according to our principles. Such a discontinuity has not yet been proved in our material but we will look for it and come back to the matter. (Elven)


36.5.7.1  Eriophorum scheuchzeri Hoppe subsp. scheuchzeri

S

2n=



2nD

G ICE? NOR? RUS SIB RFE ALA? CAN? GRL?

Comments: See Novoselova (1994).

(1) In the Russian Arctic, the type subspecies is unusual in the northernmost parts of the range of E. scheuchzeri s. lat., where it is replaced by E. scheuchzeri subsp. arcticum. It is probable that the distribution of these two subspecies is the same in other parts of the Arctic. (Novoselova)


36.5.7.2  Eriophorum scheuchzeri Hoppe subsp. arcticum Novoselova (1994), Bot. Zhurn. 79, 4: 112.

S E. scheuchzeri auct., non Hoppe (1800).

2n=

2nD


G ICE? NOR? RUS SIB RFE ALA? CAN? GRL?

Comments: See Novoselova (1994).


36.5.8  Eriophorum tolmatchevii Novoselova (1994), Bot. Zhurn. 79, 4: 114.

S E. medium auct., non Anderss. (1857); E. scheuchzeri auct., non Hoppe (1800).

2n=

2nD


G SIB RFE

Comments:


36.5.9  Eriophorum russeolum Fr. ex Hartm. (1838), Handb. Skand, Fl., ed. 3, 2: 13.

S

2n= 58-62.



2nD Löve & Löve (1975) list several counts, without any justification separated on subspp. russeolum and rufescens, most as arctic.

Comments: For subspecific division, see Novoselova (1993).


36.5.9.1  Eriophorum russeolum Fr. ex Hartm. subsp. russeolum

S

2n= 58.



2nD ?

G RUS SIB CAN?

Comments:

(1) The Canadian report strongly needs confirmation. (Elven)

(2) Reports of E. russeolum from arctic Norway are mainly based on misidentified E. x medium. One sheet labelled as originating from Vadsø (arctic) really is E. russeolum, but the provenience is dubious. Therefore excluded for arctic Norway. (Elven)
36.5.9.2  Eriophorum russeolum Fr. ex Hartm. subsp. leiocarpum Novoselova (1993), Bot. Zhurn. 78, 8: 86.

S E. medium auct., non Andersson (1857); E. russeolum Fr. var. albidum auct., non Andersson (1857); E. rufescens Andersson (1857), Bot. Not. 1857: 79; E. russeolum Fr. ex Hartm. subsp. rufescens (Andersson) Hyl. (1966), Nordisk Kärlväxtfl. 2: 386, 9.

2n= 58.

2nD ?


G RUS? SIB RFE ALA CAN

Comments:

(1) If subsp. leiocarpum and subsp. rufescens are synonymous, as indicated by Novoselova, does not the latter have priority? (Elven)
36.5.10  Eriophorum x medium Andersson (1857), Bot. Not. 1857, 4: 62.

S E. russeolum Fr. ex Hartm. x E. scheuchzeri Hoppe.

2n=

2nD


G NOR RUS SIB

Comments:

(1) In N Norway, this entity occurs entirely independent of E. russeolum, very rarely in the same mires and also in other (more coastal) areas than E. russeolum. It also produces fruit regularly. It is an obvious example of an acceptable hybrid taxon. (Elven)
36.5.11  Eriophorum chamissonis C.A. Mey. in Ledeb. (1829), Fl. Alt. 1: 70.

S

2n=



2nD

G CAN


Comments:

(1) Also published in Mém. Sav. Étr. Pétersb. 1 (1831): 204, tab. 3. (Novoselova)

(1) The arguments of Novoselova (1993, 1994?) as concerns this species (as a North American plant and not Asiatic), and as to typification, seem very convincing. I propose that we include a summary of her conclusions as a comment. I will try to make a draft of such a summary and submit it to Dr. Novoselova for acceptance. (Elven)
36.5.12  Eriophorum vaginatum L. (1753), Sp. Pl. 52.

S

Comments: For subspecific division, see Hultén (1943, 1968).


36.5.12.1  Eriophorum vaginatum L. subsp. vaginatum

S

2n= 58.



2nD Löve & Löve (1975) list three non-arctic counts.

G NOR RUS SIB RFE ALA CAN

Comments:
36.5.12.2  Eriophorum vaginatum subsp. spissum (Fern.) Hultén (1943), Lunds Univ. Årsskr., n. f., 2, 38: 286.

B E. spissum Fern. (1925), Rhodora 27: 208.

S

2n= 58.


2nD Löve & Löve (1975) list several counts, most as arctic.

G CAN GRL

Comments:

(1) The printing year of Lunds Univ. Årsskr., n. f., 2, 38, is 1943 even if the frontispiece says 1942. The Fernald basionym was possibly poublished in 1926. (Elven)

(2) A narrow concept of subsp. spissum is applied here, restricting it to plants of NE North America and W Greenland. This is a fully justifiable and much narrower concept than applied by, e.g., Hultén (1968). (Elven)
36.5.13  Eriophorum callitrix Cham. ex C.A. Mey. (1831), Mém. Sav. Étr. Pétersb. 1: 203.

S

2n= 60.



2nD Löve & Löve (1975) list four counts, three as arctic.

G RUS SIB RFE ALA CAN GRL

Comments:
36.5.14  Eriophorum brachyantherum Trautv. et C.A. Mey. in Middend. (1856), Reise Sibir 1, 2, 3: 98.

S

2n= 58.



2nD Löve & Löve (1975) list four counts, one as arctic.

G RUS SIB RFE ALA CAN



Comments:

(1) Check Stafleu (Taxonomic Literature) for year of publication, possibly 1847. (Elven)


База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка