Erigeron L. (1753), Sp. Pl. 863. S trimorpha Cass. (1817), Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris 1817: 137. Comments: (1) The subgeneric classification must be completed and revised to include the American representatives




Дата канвертавання19.04.2016
Памер51.85 Kb.
97.4  Erigeron L. (1753), Sp. Pl. 863.

S Trimorpha Cass. (1817), Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris 1817: 137.

Comments:

(1) The subgeneric classification must be completed and revised to include the American representatives. We should probably have such a classification with approx. 15 species. (Elven)


Sect. Fruticosus G. Don in Loudon (1830), Hort. Brit. 343.
97.4.1  Erigeron compositus Pursh (1814), Fl. Amer. Sept. 2: 535.

S E. gormanii Greene (1900), Pittonia 4: 156.

T [Described from USA: Idaho: "On the banks of the Kooskoosky".]

2n= 54 (6x).

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

G RFE ALA CAN GRL

Comments:
97.4.2  Erigeron purpuratus Greene (1900), Pittonia 4: 155.

S

T Canada: Yukon Terr.: Ft. Selkirk, 28.06.1899, leg. Gorman (***) holotype?



2n= 18 (2x).

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

G ALA

Comments:


97.4.3  Erigeron silenifolius (Turcz.) Botsch. (1954), Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. AN SSSR 17 [or 16?]: 392.

B Aster silenifolius Turcz. in DC. (1836), Prodr. 5: 227.

S

T [Described from E Siberia: "inter Jacutiam et Ochotiam".]



2n= 18 (2x).

2nD Zhukova (1967a).

G SIB

Comments:


97.4.4  Erigeron hyperboreus Greene (1892), Pittonia 2: 227.

S E. alaskanus Cronq. (1947), Brittonia 6: 228.

T Alaska: Porcupine R., 1891, leg. Turner (US) holotype?

2n= 18 (2x).

2nD Johnson & Packer (1968 Ala); Knaben (1968 Ala); Zhukova et al. (1973, as E. alaskanus); Zhukova (1982).

G RFE ALA CAN

Comments:

(1) According to Löve & Löve (1975), E. hyperboreus is an invalid name. Why? (Elven)


97.4.5  Erigeron grandiflorus Hook. (1834), Fl. Bor.-Amer. 2: 18.

S ?E. koraginensis (Kom.) Botsch. (1954), Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. AN SSSR 16: 392 [based on Aster koraginensis Kom. (1930), Fl. Kamtsch. 3: 125]; ?E. komarovii Botsch. (1954), Bot. Mater. Gerb. Bot. Inst. AN SSSR 16: 321 [or 391?]; E. thunbergii A. Gray subsp. komarovii (Botsch.) Á. Löve & D. Löve (1976), Bot. Not. 128: 521.

T [Described from "Summits of the Rocky Mountains, leg. Drummond".] [E. korganinensis described from Russian Far East: Karaginsky I. ("in insula Korjaginski").]

2n= 18 (2x).

2nD Rostovtzeva & Nechaev (1981, as E. koraginensis).

G RUS SIB RFE ALA CAN

Comments:

(1) The entities named as 'grandiflorus', 'grandiflorus arcticus' and 'muirii' are not very clear to me. Hultén (1952) considered E. grandiflorus and E. muirii as separate species. He included in the former plants both of the Cordilleran distribution that reaches north to Alaska Range and of the Arctic Coast distribution that reaches from Liverpool Bay west to Herschel Island. The latter was only known from the type collection (Cape Dalhousie) at that time. Hultén (1968, Ark. Bot.) changed to two subspecies with the following justification: "[E. muirii] differs from E. grandiflorum merely in its densely lanate pubescence of øeaves, stem and involucrum. There is, however, a large variation of density of the pubescence in the material and specimens of intermediate character occur. E. Muirii is therefore regarded as a race of E. grandiflorus." Hultén (1968, Fl. Alaska) now mapped E. grandiflorum subsp. muirii from at least eight sites in Brooks Range and surroundings from Cape Dalhousie east to Herschel I. Both entities were considered as NW American endemics by Hultén and he did not indicate close Asian relatives.

Porsild & Cody (1980) recognised only one entity in Continental NWT: E. grandiflorus subsp. arcticus. As seen from their map, this entity excluded 'muirii' but included all other northern plants of E. grandiflorum in NWT, Yukon Terr. and Alaska, both the northern Cordilleran ones and the Arctic Coast plants west to Mackenzie River (but not Herschel I.). This view was also reflected by Cody (1996) who recognised E. muirii as a separate species, in Canada only known from Herschel I., whereas E. grandiflorus subsp. arcticus in Yukon reaches north to Richardson Mts. Also Cody, as late as 1996, considered both entities as purely North American.

Petrovsky in Yurtsev (1987, Fl. Arct. URSS 10) was of a different opinion. He recognised E. muirii (incl. previous Russian entities named as 'koraginensis' 1930 and 'komarovii' 1954) from three very disjunct areas in Russia, in Polar Ural, the lower Lena area, and from all over Russian Far East from Anjui Mts east to E Chukotka, south to N Kamtchatka, and north to Wrangel I. In addition he recognised E. grandiflorus s. str. (incl. Hultén's subsp. grandiflorus and Porsild's subsp. arcticus) from a few mountain sites along the Koryak coast and in NE Kamtchatka.

In Korobkov's draft is recognised a E. komarovii Botsch. 1954 with Aster koraginensis Kom. 1930 (E. koraginensis (Kom.) Botsch. 1954) and E. grandiflorus subsp. muirii (A. Gray) Hultén 1968 as synonyms, but excluding E. muirii A. Gray 1882. At the same time, E. muirii A. Gray is recognised as a separate species as is E. grandiflorus Hook. 1834 (for Russian Far East). There are several strange features in this treatment. Firstly, it is meaningless to separate E. muirii A. Gray and E. grandiflorus subsp. muirii on two taxa as they are full synonyms and based on the same type from Cape Dalhousie. Secondly, E. komarovii is, with the synonymy indicated, predated at species level by both A. koraginensis and perhaps E. muirii. Thirdly, if the northern Russian plants are to be identified with any of the North American plants, it is most probably with E. muirii. Fourthly, the distribution patterns are meaningless if 'muirii' in Polar Ural, the Lena area, and C and W Chukotka is replaced by 'grandiflora' in S Chukotka, replaced again by 'muirii' in NW Alaska, and again by 'grandiflora' in CE Alaska and NW Canada.

A thorough comparison between North American and Russian plants is needed before any names can be assigned with any certainty to the Russian plants. The problem is probably that both the main American names ('grandiflora' and 'muirii') have priority well before the two main Russian names ('koraginensis' and 'komarovii'), and that the Russian treatments are based on the partly insufficient descriptions and not on comparison of types and variation across the Bering Strait. At present, the only solution seems to be to recognise a wide E. grandiflorus with two subspecies on the American side but only treated collectively on the Russian side. The Russian names are therefore only entered in the synonymy of the species above. (Elven)


97.4.5.1  Erigeron grandiflorus Hook. subsp. grandiflorus

S E. grandiflorus Hook. subsp. arcticus A.E. Porsild ***

2n=

2nD


G CAN

Comments:


97.4.5.2  Erigeron grandiflorus Hook. ssp. muirii (A. Gray) Hultén (1968), Ark. Bot., ser. 2, 7, 1: 132.

B E. muirii A. Gray (1882), Proc. Amer. Acad. 17: 210.

S

T Alaska: Cape Thompson, 1881, leg. Muir 76, 89, 116 (GH) syntypes.



2n=

2nD


G ALA CAN

Comments:


Sect. Erigeron
97.4.6  Erigeron humilis J. Graham (1823), Edinb. New Philos. J. 6: 175.

S

2n= 36 (4x).



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

G ICE NOR RFE ALA CAN GRL

Comments:
97.4.7  Erigeron uniflorus L.

S

Comments:



(1) Erigeron uniflorus was described from "Habitat in Alpibus Lapponiæ, Helvetiæ" and with reference to 'Hort. Cliff.' [Hortus Cliffortianus 1737], 'Fl. Suec.' [Flora Suecica 1745], 'Fl. lapp.' [Flora Lapponica 1737] and 'Hall. helv.' [Haller's Enum. Meth. Stirp. Helv. Indig. 1742]. Except for 'Hort. Cliff.', these references are to Alpine and Scandinavian plants.

Most authors consider that E. uniflorus occurs both in C Europe and Fennoscandia, and then the typification does not matter much. Hultén & Fries (1986) is of another opinion. They restrict E. uniflorus to areas in the C and S European mountains and Caucasus and consider all northern European and most arctic plants as subsp. eriocephalus. In my opinion there is a variation in the Fennoscandian plants. The majority conforms fairly well with the C European ones, a minority is more similar to to arctic ones, but the distinction is not at all clear. The possible importance is that both types reach the Arctic in N Europe. From a N European viewpoint it is difficult to consider them as more than subspecies.

Two of the entities treated as subspecies here are proposed as species in the Russian draft; E. uniflorus s. str. is absent from the draft (possibly due to the Hultén treatment). My proposal is three subspecies, one NE Russian   NW Siberian ('eriocalyx'), one mainly Fennoscandian   Alpine ('uniflorus') and one circumpolar arctic ('eriocephalus'). (Elven)
97.4.7.1  Erigeron uniflorus L. subsp. uniflorus

S

2n= 18 (2x).



2nD Löve & Löve (1975) list numerous counts, five as arctic.

G ICE NOR

Comments:
97.4.7.2  Erigeron uniflorus L. subsp. eriocalyx (Ledeb.) Á. Löve & D. Löve (1976), Bot. Not. 128: 521.

B E. alpinus L. var. (beta) eriocalyx Ledeb. (1833), Fl. Altaic. 4: 91.

S E. eriocalyx (Ledeb.) Vierh. (1906), Beih. Bot. Centralbl. 19, 2: 512.

T [Described from S Siberia: Altai.]

2n= 18 (2x).

2nD Sokolovskaya (1970).

G RUS SIB

Comments:


97.4.7.3  Erigeron uniflorus L. subsp. eriocephalus (J. Vahl) Cronq. (1947), Brittonia 6: 236.

B E. eriocephalus J. Vahl. in Hornem. (1840), Fl. Dan. 13, 39: 6.

S

T [Described from Greenland: "ad 200 pedes supra mare et prope rivulum ad Niakarnak Coloniae Umanak".]



2n= 18 (2x).

2nD Löve & Löve (1975) list nine counts, eight as arctic; Zhukova & Petrovsky (1975).

G ICE? NOR RUS SIB RFE ALA CAN GRL

Comments:

(1) The Scandinavian and Icelandic plants are much less distinctive than the others, possibly due to introgression. (Elven)
Sect. Trimorpha (Cass.) DC. (1836) Prodr. 5: 290 ["Trimorpahaea"].

B Trimorpha Cass. (1817) Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris 1817: 137.


97.4.8  Erigeron borealis (Vierh.) Simm. (1913), Lunds Univ. Årsskr., n. f., avd. 2, 9, 19: 127.

B Trimorpha borealis Vierh. (1906), Beih. Bot. Centralbl. 19, 2: 447.

S

2n= 18 (2x).



2nD Löve & Löve (1975) list six counts, five as arctic.

G ICE NOR RUS SIB GRL

Comments:

(1) The 'species' is very heterogeneous and at least two clearly separable 'morphs' occur in arctic Norway, a coastal one and a mountain one, the former with parallels both in the northern Atlantic islands (e.g., Iceland and perhaps Greenland) and Central European mountains, the latter mainly or entirely northern. The gap between the Fennoscandian range (incl. Chibiny Mts) and the northern Russian range indicate some additional complexity. The northern coastal entity has been proposed (by, e.g., Nilsson **REFS**) as representing E. neglectus A. Kern. (1871), Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. 21: 253, otherwise known from the Alps. As treated here, E. borealis is therefore a very collective species but we probably have no alternative.

Intermediates towards the E. acer complex are comparatively frequent in Fennoscandia, nearly as frequent as between the E. acer entities, and they often form populations. The species of sect. Trimorpha seem to be more or less completely interfertile (Nilsson, pers. comm.). (Elven)
97.4.9  Erigeron acer L. (1753), Sp. Pl. 863.

S

Comments:



(1) The species is collectively considered in Korobkov's draft and includes the 'politus' and 'kamtschaticus' entities. This is in the tradition from Petrovsky in Yurtsev (1987, Fl. Arct. URSS 10). It is contrary to the traditions and the experiences of NW Europe (and Hultén) where we now see the variation as 4-5 fairly distinct taxa   subspecies   with only limited hybridisation and possibly introgression in the meeting zones (see, e.g., Hämet-Ahti et al. 1986, Retkeilykasvio). Three of these entities do not approach the arctic at all ('droebachiensis', 'brachycephalus' and 'decoloratus'), one reaches it according to Hultén & Fries (1986) in several places in Russia   Siberia ('acer') and in Norway, and one reaches the Arctic generally ('politus'). The 'politus' entity occurs, with some variation and under different names, from Fennoscandia throughout Eurasia and North America at least to Hudson Bay. It is a question whether the amphi-Beringian 'kamtschaticus' entity should be accepted as a separate race (as proposed by, e.g., Hultén) or included in 'politus'. I have here entered it. (Elven)
97.4.9.1  Erigeron acer L. subsp. acer

S

2n= 18 (2x).



2nD Löve & Löve (1975) list numerous counts, one Russian as arctic; Laane (1967 arct. Norw); Lövkvist & Hultgård (1999 Sweden).

G NOR RUS SIB

Comments:

(1) Mapped by Hultén & Fries (1986) from arctic sites in Kanin Peninsula, Bolshezemelskaya Tundra, along Jenisei, near Yana, and along Kolyma. (Elven)


97.4.9.2  Erigeron acer L. subsp. politus (Fr.) H. Lindm. fil. (1901), Enum. Pl. Fennoscand. Or. 56.

B E. politus Fr. (1843), Bot. Not. 1843: 120.

S E. elongatus Ledeb. (1829), Icon. Pl. Fl. Ross. 1: 9, non Moench (1802), Suppl. Meth. 247; E. acer L. var. asteroides auct., non (Andrz.) DC. (1836).

2n= 18 (2x).

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

G NOR RUS SIB RFE? ALA CAN

Comments:

(1) The 'asteroides' name, which has been used on both the Russian and North American side (e.g., by Porsild & Cody 1980), relates acc. to Hultén (1967) to the non-arctic W Siberian E. podolicus Bess. and is inapplicable in the Arctic. Erigeron elongatus Ledeb. (1829) is also inapplicable at species level because it is a later homonym of E. elongatus Moench (***). The oldest valid name, both at species and subspecies level, seems to be 'politus'. (Elven)


97.4.9.3  Erigeron acer L. subsp. kamtschaticus (DC.) Hara (1939), J. Jap. Bot. 15: 317.

B E. kamtschaticus DC. (1836), Prodr. 5: 290.

S E. acer L. var. asteroides auct. non (Andrz.) DC. (1836).

2n= 18 (2x).

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

G RFE ALA?

Comments:

(1) The features given by Bochantsev and Hultén, and the separate range, seem to be enough for recognition of this as a major race (subspecies). The material behind the single record on the American side (see Hultén 1968, Ark. Bot. and Fl. Alaska) should be critically checked again before this record is fully accepted. (Elven)


97.4.10  Erigeron lonchophyllus Hook. (1839), Fl. Bor. Amer. 2: 18.

S

2n= 18 (2x).



2nD Chuksanova et al. (1968a); Solbrig et al. (1969).

G ALA CAN

Comments:
97.4.11  Erigeron elatus Greene (1898), Pittonia 3: 164.

S

2n= 36 (4x).



2nD Packer (1964).

G ALA CAN

Comments:
Sections? ***
97.4.12  Erigeron peregrinus (Pursh) Greene (1898), Pittonia 3: 166.

B Aster peregrinus Pursh (1814), Fl. Amer. Sept. 2: 556.

S

2n=


2nD

G ALA


Comments: Subsp. peregrinus in the Arctic.

(1) Border occurrence in the Goodnews Bay area in SW Alaska, mapped by Hultén (1968). (Elven)


97.4.13  Erigeron glabellus Nutt. (1818), Gen. N. Amer. Pl. 2: 147.

S

T [Described from USA: "Fort Mandan, on the plains of Missouri".]



Comments:
97.4.13.1  Erigeron glabellus Nutt. subsp. pubescens (Hook.) Cronq. (1947), Brittonia 6: 158.

B E. glabellus Nutt. var. (beta) pubescens Hook. (1834), Fl. Bor. Amer. 2: 19.

S E. yukonensis Rydb. (1901), Bull. New York Bot. Gard. 2: 185; E. glabellus Nutt. subsp. pubescens (Hook.) Cronq. var. yukonensis (Rydb.) Hultén (1967), Ark. Bot., ser. 2, 7, 1: 132.

T [Described from N America: "prairies of the Rocky Mountains".]

2n= 18 (2x).

2nD Zhukova (1967b); Chuksanova et al. (1968a).

G ALA

Comments:



(1) Erigeron yukonensis is accepted as a full species by Cody (1996). Is this justified? I have here placed it in synonymy. (Elven)
97.4.14  Erigeron cespitosus Nutt. (1841), Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., n. s., 7: 307.

S

T [Described from USA: "on the summits of dry hills in the Rocky Mountain Range on the Colorado of the West".]



2n=

2nD


G ALA?

Comments:

(1) Strongly approaches the Arctic between Yukon River and Brooks Range in Alaska, acc. to Hultén (1968). Probably to be included as a border case. (Elven)
97.4.15  Erigeron hyssopifolius Michx. (1803), Fl. Bor. Amer. 2: 123.

S

2n=



2nD

G CAN


Comments:


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

    Галоўная старонка